(Eatudlarii 
 
 TRURON 
 
 Ex dono 
 
 TRU RO 
 
 Presented by 
 
 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE PRINCIPLES 
 
 OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 INTO THE PRINCIPLES 
 
 OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY; 
 
 OR, REASONS 
 
 FOR RECALLING MY SUBSCRIPTION 
 TO THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 
 
 BY THE REV. R. I. WILBERFORCE, M.A. 
 
 " Non habent Dei caritatem, qui Ecclesiae non diligunt unitatem." S. AUG. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. 
 
 1854. 
 

PREFACE. 
 
 THE preparation of the present volume has brought 
 to a head difficulties, by which I have been perplexed 
 for four years. Some may think me dilatory, and 
 others hasty ; but the mind, like the body, has its time 
 of crisis, which it is not altogether in our own power 
 to regulate. Those who know what it is to break 
 through the associations of nearly half a century, will 
 not wonder at my experiencing that which Cicero 
 speaks of in a less arduous case : " Quam difficile est 
 sensum in republica deponere." I had previously felt 
 that the Royal Supremacy "in all Spiritual things 
 and causes," as modified by recent Acts of Parlia- 
 ment, was open to great objection ; but I did not at 
 that time discern how completely it was the introduc- 
 tion of this novel principle, which had originally sepa- 
 rated England from the communion of the rest of 
 Christendom ; and, therefore, that every subsequent 
 generation (and I myself in particular,) by subscribing 
 " readily and willingly," as the terms run, had in effect 
 given an individual sanction to the events of the six- 
 teenth century. So soon as my conscience was satis- 
 fied that the declaration, to which I had pledged 
 
 9380 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 myself, was unlawful, I felt that it was a duty to 
 recal my assent as solemnly as it had been given. 
 I had already communicated my intention to my 
 curates, and to a few friends, when I was induced to 
 pause by the rumour that a prosecution would imme- 
 diately be commenced against my work on the Holy 
 Eucharist, and by the assurance that a complaint had 
 been made against it to the Archbishop. I was un- 
 willing that my resignation should be misunderstood 
 by the Public; and to obtain a decision respecting 
 the doctrine of the Real Presence seemed so desirable > 
 that I thought it justified some slight delay in with- 
 drawing from a position, which in any case I was 
 resolved to abandon. 
 
 Week, however, passed by after week ; my convic- 
 tions became more decided ; while I received no inti- 
 mation that any step of a legal nature was taken 
 against me. Moreover, as the present work was now 
 completed, I considered that it would be unfair to 
 those who sympathized with me in regard to the doc- 
 trine of the Holy Eucharist, not to disclose to them 
 what a wide gulf separated me from another avowed 
 principle of the Church of England. If a trial had 
 come on, and had terminated, as I thought likely, in 
 my favour, I should have compromised those who 
 had declared their concurrence with me, by abandon- 
 ing my position in the moment of success. I sent my 
 manuscript, therefore, (on which I had been engaged 
 since the end of February) to the Press, and on the 
 day when the first proof was returned to me, I ad- 
 dressed the following letter to the Archbishop : 
 
PREFACE. Vii 
 
 " Burton Agnes, Aug. 30, 1854. 
 
 " Mr LORD ARCHBISHOP, The step which I now take would 
 have been taken somewhat sooner, but for the rumours that my 
 work on the Holy Eucharist would be made the subject of legal 
 investigation. I find it difficult to believe that the intention is 
 seriously entertained ; for the warmest opponents of that work deny 
 Baptismal Regeneration, the Priestly Commission, and the Validity 
 of Absolution. Now, these doctrines are so positively affirmed in 
 the Formularies of our Church, that for one passage in them which 
 presents difficulties on my system, there are an hundred by which that 
 of my opponents is plainly contradicted. I can hardly imagine that 
 they desire a rigour in the interpretation of our Formularies, which 
 must be fatal to themselves. But I should have felt it due, both to 
 my opinions, and to those who shared them, to defend myself to the 
 utmost against such an assault. 
 
 " My book, however, has now been nearly a year and four 
 months before the Public, and no legal proceedings, so far as I 
 know, have been commenced. And, in the meantime, my atten- 
 tion has been drawn to another part of our Church's system, with 
 which I have become painfully conscious that I can no longer con- 
 cur. I refer to the Royal Supremacy. I am as ready as any one 
 to allow her Majesty to be supreme over all persons, and in all 
 temporal causes, within her dominions, and I shall always render 
 her, I trust, a loyal obedience. But that she or any other temporal 
 ruler is supreme ' in all spiritual things or causes,' I can no longer 
 admit. If the Act of 1832 were all on which my difficulties were 
 founded, I might justify myself, as I have heretofore done, by the 
 consideration, that it was probably passed through inadvertence, 
 and had received no formal sanction from the Church. But my 
 present objection extends to the act of 1533, by which this power 
 was bestowed upon the King in Chancery, and to the first article 
 in the 36th Canon, which is founded upon it. With the grounds 
 of my objection, I need not trouble your Grace; though I shall 
 shortly state them to the Public through the Press. To your Grace, 
 however, I desire to state, that I recal my subscription to the 1st 
 Article in the 36th Canon, as believing it to be contrary to the law 
 of God. It remains, of course, that I should offer to divest myself 
 of the trusts and preferments of which this subscription was a con- 
 dition, and put myself, so far as it is possible, into the condition 
 of a mere lay member of the Church. I, therefore, tender my 
 resignation to your Grace. 
 
 " I remain, 
 " My Lord Archbishop, 
 
 " Your Grace's obedient servant, 
 
 " R. I. WILBERFORCE. 
 11 To his Grace the Lord Archbishop of York." 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 The following is the reply of the Archbishop : 
 
 " Bishopthorpe, York, August 31, 1854. 
 
 " Mr DEAR SIR, I cannot affect to be at all surprised at the 
 contents of your letter just received. It is not necessary for me 
 now to enter upon a discussion of the questions alluded to in your 
 letter. But, 'as far as by law I may, I accept of your resignation 
 of the preferments you hold in the diocese of York. 
 
 " You are aware, however, that in order to give full legal effect 
 to your intentions, a formal resignation should be made before my- 
 self in person, or before a notary public. 
 
 " With every feeling of personal respect and esteem, 
 " I remain, my dear Sir, 
 
 " Your faithful servant, 
 
 "T. EBOR. 
 " The Rev. R. I. Wilberforce." 
 
 A few days afterwards, and before my resignation 
 was made public, it was stated in the Newspapers, 
 that His Grace had determined to commence proceed- 
 ings against me. As my resignation was not execu- 
 ted, nor the necessary papers prepared, I wrote as 
 follows to His Grace : it will be seen by his answer, 
 that the statements alluded to, had been made with- 
 out his sanction. 
 
 " Burton Agnes, Sept. 5, 1854. 
 
 "Mr LORD ARCHBISHOP, I have this morning been informed 
 that it was stated in the Yorkshire Gazette of last Saturday, that 
 your Grace had at length determined to commence legal proceed- 
 ings against me for my book on the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 " Your Grace will perceive that my letter of August 30th was 
 based upon the supposition that no such proceeding was determined 
 upon. May I ask, therefore, if the paragraph in the Yorkshire 
 Gazette is correct ; since if your Grace desires to try the question, 
 I am willing to delay the legal execution of my resignation for that 
 purpose. 
 
 " I remain, 
 " Your Grace's obedient servant, 
 
 "R. I. WILBERFORCE. 
 " His Grace the Lord Archbishop of York." 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 " Bishopthorpe, York, Sept. 6, 1854. 
 
 "Mr DEAR SIR, I saw in the Yorkshire Gazette the para- 
 graph to which your letter of this morning alludes. By whom, 
 or at whose suggestion that paragraph was inserted, I have no 
 knowledge whatever, any more than you have. 
 
 " On the receipt of your resignation, dated August 30, I gave 
 orders to discontinue all further inquiry on the subject of the * com- 
 plaint' which had been laid before me. To that I adhere, as well 
 as to my acceptance of your resignation. 
 
 " I am, my dear Sir, 
 
 " Your faithful servant, 
 
 "T. EBOR. 
 "The Rev. R. I. Wilberforce." 
 
 Whether I was right in considering that I ought not 
 to carry the present volume through the Press, without 
 first relieving myself from the obligations of subscrip. 
 tion, I leave to the reader's judgment; I can only say 
 that my resolution was not taken without counting 
 the cost. For if these pages should find their way 
 into any fair parsonage, where everything within and 
 without speaks of comfort and peace, where sympa- 
 thizing neighbours present an object to the affections, 
 and the bell from an adjoining ancient Tower invites 
 the inmates morning and evening to consecrate each 
 successive day to God's service ; and if the reader's 
 thoughts suggest to him that it is impossible to un- 
 loose ties so binding, or to transplant himself from his 
 ancient seat, when he is too old to take root in a new 
 soil, let him be assured that such also have been the 
 feelings of the writer. And more painful still, is the 
 consciousness that such a step must rend the hearts 
 and cloud the prospects of those who are as dear to 
 men as their own souls. It is at such times that the 
 promises of Scripture come home to the heart with a 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 freshness, which eighteen centuries have not diminish- 
 ed. " There is no man that hath left house, or breth- 
 ren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, 
 or ]ands, for My sake, and the Gospel's, but he shall 
 receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and 
 brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and 
 lands, with persecutions ; and in the world to come, 
 eternal life." 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 4 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The Church an organic body, 2. 
 
 from the Scriptural definition (Body of Christ,) 3. 
 
 from prophecy, 4. 
 
 from the analogy of doctrine (Christ incarnate in History,) 5. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY IN CONTROVERSIES OF 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 Church-authority analogous to the consent of mankind, 7. 
 
 The Church's authority spoken of by Our Lord and His Apostles, 8, 9. 
 
 Scripture refers to, rather than introduces, Church-authority ; because 
 the Church came first, and Scripture afterwards, 9. 
 
 As Scripture does not prove itself, so neither does it prove the Church, 
 by which it is itself proved, 10 except when employed as a mere re- 
 cord or as an argument ad hominem, 11. 
 
 Church-authority proved : 
 
 1st. By the conduct of the Apostles who left questions to be settled 
 
 by it ; especially Creed, and Canon of Scripture, 12-18 ; 
 and by the circumstances of their disciples who found a society in 
 existence, previously to the settlement of the Scriptural Canon 
 which society judged what books were inspired, 18-21. 
 
 2ndly. By the testimony of the early Church-writers, 21-24 and by 
 the acts of the Church, 24, 25. 
 
ill CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 NATURE OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 The Church, as a teacher, must herself explain her principles of teach- 
 ing, 26, 27. 
 
 1st. The principle of Church-authority not merely that the earliest 
 ages were nearest the fountain head ; but that the Body of Christ 
 is inhabited by His Spirit, 28-30. 
 
 Therefore, separation from the Church's body supposed by early 
 Christians to separate from the spirit of love and life, 30-33. 
 
 2ndly. Church-authority refers t% matters of faith only ; but to all 
 matters of faith, 33, 34 (Church-authority the order of grace pri- 
 vate judgment the order of nature,) 35, 36. 
 
 Appeal to the Church's mode of acting in Councils, 36 ; and to 
 the writers of the first Centuries, 37, 38. 
 
 Srdly. The Church's authority must continue as long as its existence, 
 
 because derived from the indwelling of Christ's Spirit, 38, 39. This 
 
 was so understood by the early Church-writers, 40-42 ; especially by 
 
 St. Augustin, in his controversy with the Donatists, 42, 43. 
 
 These statements not inconsistent with respect for Holy Scripture, 
 
 which it is the office of the Church to interpret, and not supersede, 
 
 43 ; (Scripture the Rule Church the Judge, 44) nor yet with reason, 
 
 which allows that men are not always good judges in their own case, 
 
 and is not more superseded by Churh-authority than by revelation, 
 
 45. 
 
 The like authority not possessed by the Jewish Church ; because not 
 inhabited by the Holy Ghost or teaching a dogmatic system of doc- 
 trine, 46, 47. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH- 
 AUTHORITY. 
 
 Christ's Body Mystical an organized Society, 48. 
 
 It depends on Supernatural means, and on the inheritance of the Last 
 Adam ; as human society on natural means, and the first Adam's in- 
 heritance, 49-51. 
 
 Its object to communicate grace, and witness to truth, 52. 
 
 It had first to encounter the opposition of human society, 53 ; and has 
 since been endangered by its friendship, 53, 54. 
 
 Its law of organization, that " the same persons individually the dispensers 
 of grace, and collectively the witness to doctrine" 55. 
 
 Hence it grew without opposing local influences, and maintains itself 
 without being corrupted by them, 55, 56. 
 
 Grace and truth dwelt first in Our Lord, 56 ; then in the College of 
 Apostles, 57 ; (their conduct at the Council of Jerusalem a voluntary 
 concession, 58 ;) afterwards in the body of Bishops, whom the Apostles 
 put in trust as their successors, 59. More formal delegation not 
 needed, because the Church was not to come by observation, 60, 61. 
 
CONTENTS. xiii 
 
 Each individual Christian society grew, by action of the indwelling Spirit 
 round its Bishop as a centre, 62-65. The Bishop the channel, where- 
 by Divine Grace found its way from the Collective Body to each indi- 
 vidual Society, 65-67. 
 
 The Bishop's power depended on his right of admitting to communion, 67, 
 as Christ's representative, 68, 69, but was held in check by his relation 
 to the rest of the Church, 70, because the Episcopate was a trust, 
 which was held by all Bishops in common, 70-74. 
 
 The unity of the Episcopate shown to be a condition of its existence, by 
 the action of Councils, and by the arguments against Donatists. 
 
 1st. Councils, though not ordered in Scripture, existed in the second 
 century, 74, 75. They grew up out of the necessity that Bishops 
 should assemble to consecrate their successors, 75. Their decisions 
 respecting doctrine show that its custody was supposed to lie with 
 the Episcopal order, whether diffused, or collective, 76, 77. And 
 that a living power was supposed to reside in this order through 
 the indwelling of the Holy Ghost ; as a natural power in human 
 society, 78-80, but that this power dwelt in the Episcopate re- 
 garded as a whole, 80, 81. 
 
 2ndly. The Donatist Bishops, who claimed independence for a sepa- 
 rate Province, 81, 82, and maintained the rest of the Church to 
 be in error, 83, were opposed, on the ground that Christ's Body 
 must always maintain true doctrine, 83, 84, and that actual com- 
 munion was the test of its existence, 85, 86. 
 
 St. Cyprian excused for re-baptizing, for which the Donatists were 
 censured, because a decision had not as yet been given by the Church, 
 87, 88. 
 
 The Bishops collectively, the organs of Christ's Body Mystical, 89, 90. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 A HIERARCHY NECESSARY TO THE ACTION OF THE COLLEC- 
 TIVE EPISCOPATE. 
 
 The authority of the Church's officers depends on their unanimity, 91, 92. 
 Apostles sure to act together, because inspired, 92. 
 
 The unanimity of their Successors secured by system of Metropolitans, 
 93, 94, which dates from Apostolic times, 95, and was in full action 
 during the Second Century, 96. Harmony secured among Metropoli- 
 tans by system of Patriarchs, 97 ; which existed before the Council 
 of Nice, but assumed a more regular form after the Council of Con- 
 stantinople, 98. 
 
 This Hierarchy not created by positive laws, but the growth of the 
 Church's organization, 99. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE FORM OF THE HIERARCHY PRESCRIBED BY THE PRIMACY 
 OF ST. PETER. 
 
 The Christian Kingdom predicted to be one, 100, unanimity needed, 
 
 therefore, among Patriarchs, 101, 102. 
 A provision for this purpose, according to St. Cyprian, in the Primacy 
 
 bestowed by Christ upon St. Peter, 102-104, and inherited by the 
 
 chief Patriarch, 104-106. 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 A PRIMACY IS ASSIGNED TO ST. PETER IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 1st. St. Peter's priority in the four lists of the Apostles, 107. 
 
 2ndly. The expressions which mark his superiority, 108. 
 
 Srdly. His new name, whereby he was especially associated with Our 
 Lord, 109. 
 
 4thly. His appointment to be Rock of the Church, and Key -bearer, 110. 
 Ancient writers who apply the word Rock to Christ, or to St. Peter's 
 faith, include, and do not exclude a personal reference to the Apostle. 
 (The Syriac words more precise than the Greek) 112-114. So that 
 St. Peter became indispensable to the completeness of the Apostolic 
 College, 115, 116. 
 
 Sthly. His charge to strengthen his brethren, 116. 
 
 6thly. His threefold commission to feed Christ's flock, 117. 
 
 The effect of these statements must depend upon the nature of the 
 Apostolic commission, 117, 118. St. Peter's office as abiding as that 
 of the other Apostles, 118, 119. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY RECOGNIZED IN THE ACTS AND THE 
 EPISTLES. 
 
 Objection, that St. Peter alleged not to have exercised a Primacy, 120. 
 St. Peter's Primacy the means of producing unity in the Apostolic 
 College, 121, 122. Testimony of the Acts to his discharging this 
 office, 122, 123 ; which the Ancient Church did not attribute merely to 
 natural forwardness, 123, 124. Council of Jerusalem, 125. St. James 
 assented on behalf of the Jewish Christians, 126. 
 
 St. Paul gives priority to St. Peter, 126, while establishing his own 
 independent commission, 127, 128. His rebuke to St. Peter, how un- 
 derstood anciently, 129, 130. Testimony of Gentile Christians that 
 St. Peter the Rock of the Church, 131. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE BISHOP OP ROME ST. PETER'S SUCCESSOR. 
 
 Apostolic succession witnessed by acts, and not by words, 132, 133. 
 Exception in regard to the Church of Rome, 133, 134. 
 
 Objection, that as St. Paul concurred with St. Peter in its foundation, 
 St. Peter's peculiar function was not transmitted, 134. But St. 
 Peter's power, though capable of being resolved into power of Order 
 and power of Mission, was not so discriminated by the Ancient 
 Church, 135 ; and the Church of Rome was called from the first the 
 See of St. Peter, 136, which all authors assert him to have founded, 
 136, 137. 
 
 Objection, that every Bishop called equally St. Peter's Successor, 138. 
 Contrary to the statements of St. Cyprian and other Fathers re- 
 specting the provision for unity, 138, 139, and that the See of Rome 
 the seat of St. Peter, 139. True that St. Peter, the only Apostle to 
 whom any existing Bishop can trace up his succession, 140, 141. 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF ROME POSSESSED A PRIMACY IN ANTE- 
 NICENE TIMES. 
 
 Objection, that the early Bishops of Rome were not prominent enough to 
 have been the Church's Primates, 142. 
 
 But the Church's growth was supernatural and imperceptible, and the 
 centre of unity grew with the rest, 143, 144. 
 
 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 1 . There is an antecedent probability, that the Bishop of Rome, as 
 being Successor of St. Peter, should inherit his Primacy, 145. 
 
 2. The Primacy was only one of the institutions of the Church, and 
 other principles, more or less inconsistent with it, grew up along 
 with it, 146. 
 
 3. The Primacy not so likely to show itself in questions which affected 
 the Church's common faith, as in those which affected its internal 
 coherence, 147. Three chief questions of internal discipline arose - in 
 the ante-Nicene age Time of Easter Re-baptism Reception of 
 the Lapsed and the Church of Rome took especial part in all, 148. 
 
 I. Time of Easter important, because producing uniformity, and as fixing 
 the authority due to the Jewish Law, 148, 149. The question finally 
 settled at Nice, 149. Pope Victor meets with opposition in intro- 
 ducing the rule, which was afterwards adopted, 149, 151. 
 
 II. Callistus, Bishop of Rome, censured for allowing re-baptism to be in- 
 troduced in Africa, but St. Stephen afterwards interfered to stop it, 
 151-153. St. Cyprian's complaint refers to the manner of St. Ste- 
 phen's interference, and did not lead to a division, 153. 
 
 III. Severity of Discipline in Africa, mitigated by Pope Zephyrinus, in 
 Tertullian's time, 154. Pope Cornelius, and the Roman Church, inter- 
 fered in Novatian disputes in Africa, 155. Pope Stephen called in to 
 depose a Metropolitan in Gaul, 156, 157. 
 
 The Popes accustomed to be referred to, in questions which affected 
 the Patriarchal and Metropolitan Churches, 158. They formed the 
 centre of the Ancient Church, 158, yet did not acquire power 
 through their personal ability, 160, nor merely through the great- 
 ness of their city, as though the Church were a worldly institu- 
 tion, 161. 
 
 The Papacy not a mere human institution, unless the whole Church 
 was ; yet the Church's growth and safety did not depend on the wis- 
 dom of individuals, but on God's indwelling Spirit, which dictated 
 its form as well as its faith, 162. 
 
 The chief Apostle led to the Capital of the World by a divine appoint- 
 ment, 163. The authority of his successor supposed in ancient times 
 to be inherited from St. Peter, 164. 
 
XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE SUPKEMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME, THE CHURCH'S 
 INTERPRETATION OF ST. PETER'S PRIMACY. 
 
 Three powers in Church in ante-Nicene times : Episcopate, Hierarchy, 
 Primacy, which needed to be harmonized, 166. If the two first were 
 subordinated by competent authority, the Primacy would become a 
 Supremacy, 168. Supremacy involves three things Appellate Juris- 
 diction Presidence over Councils Interference in Ecclesiastical Ap- 
 pointments, 168. 
 
 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 1. Settlement of doctrine belongs to the Church, as being Christ's 
 Body, inspired by His Spirit. Its original organs of government 
 were the Episcopate, the Hierarchy, and the Primacy ; so that the 
 final appeal must be to one of these, and not to the judgment either 
 of individuals or princes, 169. 
 
 2. The Church is a judge respecting her own constitution, and the 
 voice of the collective Episcopate expresses her mind, 170. 
 
 3. The Church's voice is especially to be heard, when she witnesses to 
 doctrines, 170. 
 
 4. The rise of the Papacy cannot be fairly estimated, without appre- 
 ciating the advantages, which the Christian Kingdom derived from 
 order and law, 171. 
 
 5. The Church's danger in post-Nicene times was, lest she should be 
 absorbed by the State. This tendency was furthered by the power 
 of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and neutralized by that of St. 
 Peter's Successor, 172. 
 
 I. The Pope's Appellate Jurisdiction arose out of his Primacy, 173. No 
 formal system of Appeals in the ante-Nicene Church, 174. Such a 
 system rendered necessary by the interference of the State. Council of 
 Sardica settled Appellate Jurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter; 
 175, by whom it had been practically exercised in earlier times, 177. 
 Canon of Sardica associated with that of Nice, 178 ; sanctioned by 
 the Emperor Gratian, Id. The principle approved by St. Augustin, 
 170, and by Valentinian, Id. It had become the rule of the East as 
 well as the West, in the time of Gregory the Great, 180. 
 
 II. The earliest General Councils assembled by the Emperors, because 
 all the Bishops were their subjects, and because as Christians they 
 were interested in their results, 182-184. The constitution of Coun- 
 cils determined by usage, 184. No President, properly speaking, at 
 Nice, Id. In later times the Pope's representatives presided, 186. 
 Pope's authority admitted by the Council of Ephesus, Id. and still 
 more clearly by the Council of Chalcedon, 187. 
 
 Council of Chalcedon 1st yielded obedience to Pope Leo, in regard to 
 the order which he had previously given to his Legates, 188; 
 2ndly, applied to him to sanction its proceedings, which fell to the 
 
CONTENTS. Xvil 
 
 ground, when not so sanctioned, 189; 3rdly, grounded its deference 
 to him on the fact that he represented St. Peter, 191 ; 4thly, 
 attributed a peculiar sanctity to his office, 192. 
 
 Pope Agatho's authority accepted in like manner by the Sixth General 
 Council, 193. 
 
 The Pope's recognition by those ancient Councils, which have fixed 
 the Catholic Faith, was an act of that whole Body of Christ which 
 is guided by the Holy Ghost, 194. But his authority was not given 
 by those Councils, because referred to that inheritance of St. Peter, 
 which pertained to the Primacy, 195. 
 
 III. The Pope's right of interference in appointments depended on two 
 things uuity of the Church's power the missionary activity of the 
 chief See, 196. 
 
 1. Though ordained persons were many, yet all the Church's powers 
 were set in action by a single commission, which pervaded its 
 whole Body, 196 ; hence the chief See was supposed to participate 
 in the acts of all, 197. And as the Body increased in size, the im- 
 portance of the centre was more felt, 198. 
 
 2. The Western Church had in early times been wont to refer to Rome 
 as the source of its Christianity, 199. The same principle was 
 extended by St. Boniface, as the means of binding the Teutonic 
 tribes to true faith and practice, 200. Though not grounded on con- 
 venience, but on St. Peter's claim to the Primacy, 201. 
 
 All these powers were implied in that right of being appealed to in 
 emergencies, which is inherent in the Primacy, 202 ; but they 
 acquired shape through exercise, 203. 
 
 Hence the error, 1st. of the Spurious Decretals, which implied these 
 powers to have existed in a matured form from the first, 204 ; 
 2nd. of those who imagine that they are referrible to the Church's 
 arbitrary appointment, 205. 
 
 The ripening of the Primacy into the Supremacy evidenced, 
 
 1st. by the powers exercised by the Popes from St. Sylvester to 
 St. Leo, and admitted by their contemporaries, 206 ; 
 
 2nd. because otherwise it was impossible to maintain such unity, 
 as is predicted in Scripture, and as was believed in ancient 
 times, to be a condition of the Church, 210. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 HOW FAR THE POPULAR PRINCIPLE OP SUBSCRIPTION TO 
 THE ENGLISH FORMULARIES IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
 RULE OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 Subscription to the English Formularies commonly made upon the prin- 
 ciple of Private Judgment ; which is incompatible with the recognition 
 of Church-authority, 212. 
 
 But Private Judgment assumes the Inspiration of Scripture, which cannot 
 be proved without the authority of the Church, 213 ; 
 
XV111 CONTENTS. 
 
 And would not warrant men in general in subscribing propositions, so 
 numerous and intricate as those of the English Formularies, 213 
 especially since those who subscribe them understand them in different 
 senses, 214. 
 
 Subscription, therefore, to the English Formularies was originally imposed, 
 and is still rendered by High- Churchmen, on the principle that the 
 Church's judgment should guide her members, 215. 
 
 But the Gorhani Case showed that the Church of England has transferred 
 the decision respecting doctrines to the Civil Power ; and that the 
 most opposite statements respecting matters of faith are taught under 
 her sanction, 216-219. 
 
 So that those who desire guidance are driven to depend on self-chosen 
 teachers, who profess to interpret the public Formularies on the prin- 
 ciples of Antiquity, 219, 220. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 HOW FAR THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE OF SUBSCRIPTION TO 
 THE ANGLICAN FORMULARIES IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
 RULE OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 The ancient Principle of Church-authority was, that Divine guidance lay 
 in the Bishops, regarded as a body their union into a body was effected 
 through the headship of St. Peter and his successors, 221, 222. 
 
 The principle of the Anglican separation was, that a new centre of unity 
 was provided by the Crown, because England was an empire, 222-224. 
 
 The authority of the Crown and of the Episcopate was not discriminated ; 
 but between them, they were supposed to bind the consciences of all 
 English subjects the Church excommunicated, the Crown punished 
 recusants, 224-227. 
 
 The Church's function of teaching truth is exercised through ministers, 
 who act on behalf of the collective Body, 227, 228. 
 
 A new body, equivalent to the collective Church, was supposed to be 
 formed of the English Bishops by the Crown, 228, 229. 
 
 The Crown, therefore, has not only exercised those powers, which were 
 shown to make up the Papal Supremacy, so far as they are kept up at 
 all, 228-232. 
 
 But it arrogates to itself also the functions of St. Peter's Primacy, as 
 forming the English Bishops into a whole, and thus enabling them to 
 decide Articles of Faith, 232. 
 
 This power expressed in the Royal Supremacy, on the lawfulness of 
 which depended all subsequent changes in the English Church, 233. 
 
 Local Councils in the Ancient Church did nothing without the concur- 
 rence of the whole body: but the Royal Supremacy excludes the 
 authority of all foreign Bishops. Parallel of Donatists, 233-237. 
 
 The Apostles did not derive power from Civil rulers and the Church not 
 of necessity conterminous with the Empire, 237, 238. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 ARGUMENTS, WHICH ARE ALLEGED IN DEFENCE OF THE 
 ANGLICAN SYSTEM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 The Church of England said to have inherited the privilege of indepen- 
 dence, from the ancient British Church : but, 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 1st. The ancient British Church was not independent of Rome. Its 
 original teachers came from Rome. Its Bishops at Aries and Sar- 
 dica. St. Gregory, and St. Augustin, not intruders. St. Augustin 
 urged conformity to the custom of the Church Universal, and to the 
 commands of the Council of Nice. The Britons not Quartodeci- 
 mans, but had mistaken their reckoning. Their objection was not* 
 to the authority of the Pope, but to union with the Anglo-Saxons, 
 239-247. 
 
 2ndly. Their main difference from Rome (the time of Easter) had been 
 decided by the Church Universal at Nice, 247-249. 
 
 Srdly. The Church of England could have no claim to the inheritance 
 of the early British Church, whence neither its people, nor the suc- 
 cession of its Bishops is derived. St. Augustin's succession died 
 out, and the new succession was from Pope Vitalian, and the French 
 Bishops. The See of Canterbury received its authority from Pope 
 Gregory, 249-251. 
 
 4thly. The English Church did not separate herself from Rome, but 
 was separated by the civil power. 
 
 The separation was brought about by the oath of Supremacy, in which 
 every successive generation of English ministers is required to 
 concur, 251. 
 
 When this oath was originally imposed, A.D. 1534, subscription to it 
 was obtained through force and fraud. The Church's representa- 
 tives refused submission when it was re-imposed in 1558, 251-255. 
 
 Henry VIII.'s acts had been rescinded in a regular manner. And 
 those whom Elizabeth rejected were rightful Bishops, 256. 
 
 Convocation was not allowed to act when the separation was made 
 from Rome : it acted, when re-union was attempted, 260. 
 
 None of the Formularies put forward under the Tudors were ap- 
 proved by Convocation ; except that the Articles of 1582 were 
 approved by the Convocation of one Province, after their oppo- 
 nents had been deprived. 
 
 Proof of this as respects the Book of Common Prayer, 264, and the 
 Articles of 1552, 267. 
 
 The Greek Church affords no justification to members of the Church of 
 England, for they agree with Rome, in the doctrines in which Rome 
 differs from Greece and differ from Greece as much as from Rome 
 and Greek converts are received by an Anglican Bishop, 271. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 RESULTS OF THE ANGLICAN SYSTEM OF CHURCH 
 AUTHORITY. 
 
 Three Royal Dynasties since the separation of England from Rome, 273. 
 The English Church has followed the principles of each. 
 Tudors despotic. The Royal authority absolute in religious matters, 274. 
 Stuarts acted through their clergy. Anglo- Catholic system dominant, 
 till it fell, through its want of coherence, 275. 
 
XX CONTENTS. 
 
 Hanoverians depended on Parliament. Private judgment admitted to 
 be supreme, 277. 
 
 Yet the clergy still bound to the ancient oaths, which imply the exist- 
 ence of an authority in matters of faith, 278. 
 
 But in practice every one interprets the Church's words for himself 
 even as respects the two great Sacraments, 279. 
 
 The like confusion prevailed among the Donatists, when separated from 
 the one Catholic Body, 280. 
 
 The desire for unity so impaired, that separation from the State would 
 hardly supply a remedy, 281. 
 
 Dislike of all objective truth. Reference to Scripture not a sufficient 
 safeguard, 282. 
 
 Conclusion, 283. 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE PRINCIPLES 
 
 OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 CnuRCH-Authority and Private Judgment the determina- 
 tions of the collective body, and the supremacy of individual 
 conscience have long contested the religious obedience of 
 mankind. And the controversy seems to increase as civil 
 governments contract their sphere of operation, and allow 
 larger scope to individual will. For with an increased op- 
 portunity of judging for themselves, comes an increased need 
 of such principles as may enable men to judge rightly. I 
 set down the thoughts, then, which reading and reflection 
 suggest to my own mind, with a view rather to inquire than 
 to teach, and that I may feel more confidence in the con- 
 clusions to which these guidances conduct me. Increasing 
 years admonish me that it is time to sum up my results, 
 before the decay of the body affects the mind ; that I may 
 have something by which I may be prepared to abide in the 
 hour of death, and at the day of judgment. I write, there- 
 fore, under a solemn sense of the shortness of time and the 
 reality of eternity, and after earnest and continued prayer 
 to God that I might rather be withdrawn from this scene of 
 trial, than either adopt or encourage that which is at variance 
 with His Holy Will. 
 
 Now that a paramount authority was possessed by Our 
 Lord Himself, and that He committed the like to His Holy 
 
 B 
 
2 THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Apostles, is admitted probably by all Christians. The 
 question in dispute is, whether any such powers outlasted 
 their times ; whether they founded any institution, or ap- 
 pointed any succession of men, to which the office of judging 
 in matters of faith was entrusted in perpetuity. Before con- 
 sidering what can be said on this subject, it will be well to 
 ask, what was meant in those days by the Church, what 
 were understood to be its characteristic features, and the 
 origin of its powers. For there are two leading views re- 
 specting fti.e ni.tui-e | of the Church ; and according as men 
 e tie one or the other view of the nature of the Church, 
 ttll: cpmnlo3iiy. adopt a corresponding hypothesis re- 
 specting its authority. 
 
 Was the Church, then, a mere congeries of individuals, 
 gathered together, indeed, according to God's will, but not 
 possessing any collective character, except that which is de- 
 rived from the conglomeration of its parts ; or was it an 
 institution, composed indeed of men, but possessed of a being, 
 and action, which was irrespective of the will of its indi- 
 vidual members, and was impressed upon it by some 
 higher authority? This, in fact, is to ask whether it had 
 any inherent life, and organic existence. By a wall is meant 
 a certain arrangement of bricks, which, when united, are 
 nothing more than bricks still ; but a tree is not merely a 
 congeries of ligneous particles, but implies the presence of a 
 certain principle of life, which combines them into a col- 
 lective whole. Such a principle we recognize, when we 
 speak of an organic body. Our thoughts are immediately 
 carried on to one of those collections of particles, which 
 Almighty God has united according to that mysterious law, 
 which we call life. Thus is an impulse perpetuated, which 
 having its origin from the Author of nature, displays its 
 fecundating power in all the various combinations of the 
 vegetable kingdom. Its sphere, indeed, is inert matter, and 
 the continual assimilation of fresh portions of matter is neces- 
 sary to its prolongation ; but its being is derived from a 
 higher source ; it is the introduction of a living power into 
 the material creation. 
 
 The notion entertained of the Church, then, would be 
 
THE NATURE OF THE CHUKCH. 3 
 
 entirely different, according as it was supposed to be merely 
 a combination of individuals, or an organic institution, 
 endowed with a divine life. In the first case it would have 
 no other powers than those which it derived from its mem- 
 bers ; in the second, its members would be only the materials, 
 which it would fashion and combine through its own in- 
 herent life. In one case it would stand on human authority ; 
 in the other, on Divine appointment. On one side would 
 be reason, enlightened it may be, but still the reason of 
 individuals ; on the other, supernatural grace. 
 
 Now there can be no doubt which of these views is 
 favoured by Scripture ; whether we look to its express words, 
 to the general tendency of prophecy, or to the analogy of 
 doctrine. The word Ecclesia, indeed, by us rendered Church, 
 is used for any combination of men : but of that particular 
 combination, which Our Lord established, we have a specific 
 definition, wherein it is declared to be "the Body" of 
 Christ. This definition, repeatedly 1 given, implies certainly 
 that the Church is not a mere combination of individuals, 
 but possesses an organic life from union with its Head. No 
 doubt it has been affirmed to be merely a figurative ex- 
 pression, founded upon the use of certain analogous words. 
 But it is the only definition we have of the Church; 
 it is a definition frequently given ; and if we are at liberty 
 to get rid of such scriptural statements by saying that 
 they are figurative, the use of Scripture as a guide to 
 our belief is at an end. Besides, the word which St. Paul 
 employed could not have been understood by his readers in 
 a figurative sense, because it has no such meaning in the 
 Greek 2 language. The English reader is so familiar with the 
 
 1 Eph. i. 23. Coloss. i. 18, 24. 
 
 2 The Greek expressions for a whole, consisting of many persons, are 
 (TWESfjioy, ffvXXoffos, ffvvap^ia, Iranpio^ XOIVUVIOL, Qpotrpiai. Polybius uses avtrlrtfioL. A 
 number of soldiers is *o%or, i'jX*), o^uXor. The associations on which these words 
 are founded, depend chiefly on the idea of collecting, <ru/u,* is never thus used. 
 In Latin also, where the word corpus is sometimes applied to a body of soldiers, 
 collegium, concilium, conventus, consensus, ccetus, cohors, manus, agmen, societas, are 
 the common words for a body of persons. The modern use of the word cor- 
 poration came in through the ecclesiastical Latin of the middle ages. " Mul- 
 tiplex est Corporatio ; spiritualis, quse constat ex personis religiosis," &c. (Du- 
 cange.) It rather confirms this argument, that au^ctriiov occurs in a somewhat 
 
4 THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 application of the words body and head, to those who are 
 merely related together as members of the same community, 
 that he not unnaturally supposes St. Paul's expressions to be 
 founded upon a similar idiom. But in Greek such an usage 
 was wholly unknown : the word ff&^a (body) was never used 
 for a society composed of different persons ; nor /ce0A/j/ (head) 
 for its chief. And though there are a few expressions of the 
 sort in Latin, yet the prevalent use of the words, body, 
 corporation, corps, fyc. in modern languages, appears to be 
 founded upon the analogy which St. Paul suggested, and 
 which has since given shape to the languages of Christen- 
 dom. So that to assert St. Paul's words to be figurative, 
 because the terms have gained this force in later times, is to 
 mistake an effect for a cause. To cross the Rubicon has 
 been a figurative phrase since the time of Caesar ; are we to 
 suppose, then, that the Rubicon was not really crossed by 
 Cassar himself? 
 
 Again : When we turn from individual expressions to the 
 general course of prophecy, we find its whole scope and ten- 
 dency to be built on some real identification of the great Re- 
 newer of man's race, with the race which He was to renew. 
 The prophecies of Isaiah associate the new system which was 
 to prevail in the world with the Rod, which was to " come 
 forth out of the stem of Jesse :" and Daniel beheld that stone, 
 which was u cut out without hands," that is, the Incarnate Na- 
 ture of the Son of God, expand itself into a mountain, which 
 was to fill the earth. And this exactly accords with what is 
 revealed to us respecting the purposes of Our Lord's Incar- 
 nation. For was not Godhead and Manhood combined in 
 Him, that the inferior nature, which was exalted in its Head, 
 might be communicated to His brethren? "He shall see 
 His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of 
 the Lord shall prosper in His hand." To resolve St. Paul's 
 assertions, therefore, into a figure of speech, is not only to 
 
 analogous sense in the late Greek of the Pandects. But German, being a 
 more primitive language, has resisted this tendency. Luther translates body by 
 leib, as Ulphilas had rendered it by leik. And both translate literally the word 
 <7iWw/><,, imbodied, "mit einverleibet" Luther. Galeikans, Ulphilas. But leib 
 is not used in German for a body of men, any more than <?%(*& in Greek : for 
 this the old word is zunft (zusammenkunft) or gemeine, gesellschaft, Sfc. 
 
THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 5 
 
 violate the analogy of language, but to detract from the 
 mystery of our redemption. The Apostle surely was well 
 aware how wonderful was the truth which he was com- 
 municating, when he affirmed Christians to be " members of" 
 Christ's " Body, from His Flesh, and from His Bones ;" for 
 he himself declared it to be " a great mystery." There can 
 be no pretence, therefore, for refusing to take his statements 
 in that natural and obvious sense which his words imply. 
 He declares the Church to be that which Our Lord had 
 Himself predicted it should be, an organic body, deriving its 
 life from perpetual union with the Humanity of its Head. 
 " I am the vine ; ye are the branches." As the whole race 
 of mankind inherits that life which was infused into nature 
 in Adam, so the Church's life results from that power which 
 was bestowed upon humanity, through the taking it into 
 God. The mystical Body of Christ has an organic life, like 
 His Body natural; for Christ was personally Incarnate in 
 that Body which was slain, but by power and presence will 
 He be Incarnate in His Church till the end of the world. 
 As the Gospels are the record of His Presence in the one, so 
 is Church History that of His Presence in the other. What 
 else could be intended by His promise to His chosen repre- 
 sentatives ? " Lo I am with you always, even to the end of 
 the world." Or what less could be implied in that scriptural 
 statement which identifies His members with Himself? " For 
 as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the 
 members of that one body being many are one body, so also 
 is Christ." 
 
 The Scriptural statements, then, respecting the Church of 
 Christ, represent it to be an organic body, whereby that life 
 which had entered into humanity through the Head of our 
 race was extended to its members. And so St. Irenaaus 
 speaks of those " who are not nourished at the breast of their 
 mother," the Church, as " not discerning that clear fountain, 
 which flows from the Body of Christ." 3 And on this prin- 
 ciple depends the whole idea of the Christian Sacraments, 
 as the media of Church union, and the gift which the Church 
 was commissioned to convey. Holy Baptism was instituted 
 
 3 iii. 24, 1. 
 
6 THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 that "by one Spirit" we may "all be baptized into one 
 body:" and the Holy Eucharist transmits that life, which 
 had its source in God, and which was imparted to mankind 
 through the Mediator. "As the living Father hath sent 
 Me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth Me, 
 even he shall live by Me." Those who do not recognize 
 this organic action in the Church of Christ, must find a large 
 part of St. Paul's language unintelligible. What can be 
 meant by the being "buried" with Christ, and "raised up" 
 with Him, by the " putting Him on," the being " found in 
 Him," by our relation to " the New Man," by the position 
 and work of the "last Adam?" These words surely look 
 to some actual set of events as their counterpart. The 
 notion of a mere sympathy of feeling, and accordance of pur- 
 pose, are not enough to bear their weight. They cannot be 
 got rid of as parabolical expressions, unless the Incarnation 
 of the Son of God, and the whole mystery of the New Crea- 
 tion, is resolved into a 'fable. And, therefore, " we affirm 
 that the sacred scriptures assert the whole Church of God 
 to be the Body of Christ, endowed with life by the Son of 
 God. Of this Body, which is to be regarded as a whole, 
 the members are individual believers. For as the soul gives 
 life and motion to the body, which of itself could have no 
 living motion, so the Word giving a right motion and energy, 
 moves the whole body, the Church, and each one of its 
 members." 4 
 
 4 Origen. c. Celsum vi. 48. p. 670. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY IN CONTROVERSIES 
 OF FAITH. 
 
 THE word Church, then, is not merely a name which is be- 
 stowed upon those who associate for religious purposes : the 
 Body, which it describes, has an organic life, and collective 
 action. Its action depends upon His authority, of whom it 
 is the Body ; its life is from union with its Head. " Where 
 Jesus Christ is," says St. Ignatius, " there is the Catholic 
 Church." 1 For it is " the fulness of Him that filleth all in 
 all." The question recurs, then, has this Body any authority, 
 and if so, what authority, in the determination of doctrine 1 
 Was it designed to teach, and were men intended to abide 
 by its decisions ? 
 
 Now that the Church was intended to teach might be 
 argued from antecedent probability. For its decisions in 
 relation to the system of grace, fill the same place which the 
 consent of mankind does in the kingdom of nature. The 
 first are the utterances of the spiritual, the last of the natural 
 man. And we know what weight is attached to the consent 
 of mankind in all questions of morals. Individual judgments 
 are felt to be insecure, if they are repugnant to that col- 
 lective sense of right and wrong which God has implanted 
 in our race. How, then, can we fail to defer to that body 
 which not only expresses the public opinion of men, but is 
 
 1 Ad Smyrn. 8. 
 
8 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 endued with those supernatural gifts, with which our Incar- 
 nate Head has enriched humanity? But general proba- 
 bilities of this kind are unsatisfactory : let us come to positive 
 facts. Is there any direct evidence attainable, as to the 
 Church's authority ? Now that Our Lord should refer St. 
 Peter to the Church's decision, as the mode of avoiding 
 personal contentions, would plainly indicate that it possessed 
 authority, provided we may assume, that in this passage (St. 
 Matt, xviii 17) He was speaking prophetically respecting 
 the order of His future kingdom. And such an interpre- 
 tation appears inevitable, both because St. Matthew might 
 otherwise have been expected to indicate that the words 
 did not refer to that which was understood by this name, 
 when his Gospel was written ; and also because the pas- 
 sage follows so immediately after the only other mention 
 which Our Lord ever made of the Church a mention which 
 is plainly prophetic. How could the Apostle, to whom, two 
 chapters before, Our Lord had spoken prophetically of the 
 rock, on which He would build His Church, understand any- 
 thing else by the tribunal to which he was here referred ? 
 Especially since this reference is accompanied by a renewal 
 of that commission to bind and loose, which had been founded 
 on the previous prophecy (v. 18.) Why should Our Lord 
 have repeated these words, unless He had been referring to 
 that institution which was to grow out of the Apostolic com- 
 mission ? He must have been speaking prophetically, there- 
 fore, of that society which received its completion through 
 the gift of Pentecost. Its subsequent influence is explained by 
 the holy Apostle, when he speaks of it as " the pillar and 
 ground (or stay) of the truth ;" and Christians receive an 
 exhortation to "remember them which have the rule over 
 you, who have spoken unto you the word of God ;" and to 
 " follow" their " faith." And again : " Obey them that have 
 the rule over you, and submit yourselves ; for they watch for 
 your souls, as they that must give account," These surely 
 are definite statements both that the Church is a witness to 
 truth, and also that in matters of conscience its authorities 
 have a claim to attention. And since truth is attained 
 through the teaching of the Spirit, must not the Church, 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 9 
 
 being Christ's Body, be guided by that Spirit by which it is 
 inhabited ? St. Paul, therefore, represents the " unity of the 
 faith" the agreement, that is, in one true doctrine to be 
 the purpose for which the different classes of ministers, and 
 the whole framework of the Church, has been ordained. And 
 this he founds on the fact, that " there is one Body, and one 
 Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." 
 And, therefore, he bids the Ephesians " keep the unity of the 
 Spirit in the bond of peace." a Till we all come in the 
 unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, 
 unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the 
 fulness of Christ : That we henceforth be no more children, 
 tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doc- 
 trine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby 
 they lie in wait to deceive ; but speaking the truth in love, 
 may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even 
 Christ. From whom the whole body fitly joined together, 
 and compacted by that, which every joint supplieth maketh 
 increase of the body unto the edifying itself in love." 
 
 These words of St. Paul identify the perception of truth 
 with inherence in that one Body of Christ which inherits the 
 promises. And since his assertion is founded upon general 
 considerations, and upon a reference to that Holy Spirit, 
 which was to be the perpetual guide of God's people, his 
 argument must be of universal application and abiding force. 
 But, perhaps, it may be objected by some, that neither St. 
 Paul's words, nor those of Our Lord, are so explicit as might 
 be expected. They allege that statements which were de- 
 signed to refer us to a guide, would be positive and direct ; 
 and that it is not enough to find incidental allusions to the 
 Church's office. Such expectations at best are uncertain ; 
 because we cannot prescribe rules to the Divine wisdom. 
 And in this case they imply a forgetfulness that Scripture 
 did not precede the Church ; but the Church preceded Scrip- 
 ture. Had Scripture been introducing the Church to notice, 
 it might have done so in direct and explicit terms : but since 
 the Church was in existence before the New Testament was 
 given, it was natural to employ incidental expressions in al- 
 luding to a known and familiar object. The manner in which 
 
10 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 the Church is referred to in Scripture is exactly what we 
 might expect, considering that Scripture was not a set of cre- 
 dentials, by which the Apostolic College commended itself, 
 but a legacy by which it instructed others. 
 
 Again : The opponents of Church authority are unreasonable 
 in demanding more distinct Scriptural warrants; for what 
 Scriptural warrant have they for that which they would sub- 
 stitute in the Church's place the New Testament *? In the 
 New Testament itself we have no statement 2 either of its 
 contents or its inspiration. The Scripture which is spoken 
 of to Timothy is the Old Testament, in which he had been 
 instructed ; of the inspiration of the New we have no asser- 
 tion in Holy Writ. Neither can it be shown respecting all 
 its books that they were either written or sanctioned by 
 individuals who possessed miraculous power. And were this 
 otherwise, it would still require to be shown that these par- 
 ticular books, and every part of them, partook of the inspira- 
 tion of their authors. For the claim to inspiration cannot 
 extend to every word which was ever spoken or written by 
 an Apostle. It must surely be limited to those things which 
 concerned religion, or in which doctrine was expressed. We 
 need some one, then, to assure us that those Apostolic writings 
 which have been preserved, partake of this character, and are 
 to be received as a record of eternal truth. And to what can 
 we refer for such guidance, but to the Church, by which the 
 Sacred Books were admitted into the Canon of Scripture, 
 and commended to the belief of her members ? 
 
 For this reason it is that to quote Scripture in behalf of 
 the Church's authority is in a certain degree to argue in a 
 circle ; for how can we accept the inspiration of Scripture, 
 save on the authority of the Church ? But if this be so, why 
 are Scriptural proofs of the Church's authority adduced at 
 all, as they have been, in the present chapter I The answer 
 is twofold : 1st. We may quote Scripture in proof of the 
 
 8 II Peter, iii. 16, has been spoken of, as though it were such a statement. 
 But 1st, there is no list given of St. Paul's Epistles, neither were they at 
 that time collected : 2ndly. the received Greek Text does not refer the words, 
 " in which" to St. Paul's Epistles, but to the " things" spoken of; it is Iv oly, 
 not iv T* : 3rdly. the passage could not have guided men in framing the Canon, 
 because this Epistle was itself one of the last received. 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 11 
 
 Church's authority, by employing it merely as an ancient 
 record, and independently of its claims as the inspired volume ; 
 2ndly. It has weight as an argumentum ad hominem, with 
 those by whom its inspiration is admitted. 
 
 1st. The basis of our belief is the mission of Our Blessed 
 Lord and of His Apostles. Respecting this mission our in- 
 formant is human testimony. 3 The statements of the Apostles 
 and Evangelists form the first link in the chain of evidence. 
 Independently of that claim to attention which their writings 
 possess, through that Divine inspiration, of which the Church 
 assures us, they have weight as early documents. For why 
 should we not quote St. Matthew or St. Paul, as well as St. 
 Irenaeus or Tertullian, when we are inquiring into the nature 
 of an institution which they saw, and with which they were 
 connected ? 
 
 2ndly. There may be those who admit the inspiration of 
 Scripture without perceiving its dependence on the authority 
 of the Church. Since their conclusion is correct, though 
 their premises are fallacious, we may employ that which they 
 know, as a means of instructing them in that which they do 
 not know. Though to prove Church authority on Scriptural 
 testimony, is seen to be insufficient by those who discern that 
 the inspiration of Scripture rests on the authority of the 
 Church, yet it may be a means of instructing those by whom 
 this relation is not appreciated. Fuller information, indeed, 
 will show them that the Church came first and Scripture 
 afterwards : so that Scripture could not be originally em- 
 ployed for the establishment of that on which it was itself 
 dependent. This will be found rather to confirm than dero- 
 gate from the authority of the sacred volume ; for inspiration 
 belongs not to books, but to their authors ; and no system of 
 verbal inspiration has been devised, which will stand the test 
 of philosophical inquiry. Yet it must be admitted that the 
 words of Scripture, by showing the accordance and harmony 
 
 8 It may also be argued that individuals acquire the same instinctive reve- 
 rence to the Church, to which they are accustomed to defer, which children 
 have to their parents. And any arguments which tend to show such a feeling 
 to be illogical, would equally prove that children were not bound to honour 
 their parents until the fact of their relationship could be demonstrated to 
 them by argument. 
 
12 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 of the Divine communications, confirm the authority by 
 which they were themselves established. 
 
 The direct proof, however, of the Church's authority must 
 not be made to depend upon the inspiration of those Scriptural 
 books which we believe to be inspired on the authority of the 
 Church, but upon a reference to the persons by whom the 
 Church was founded. We have proof of the authority of the 
 Holy Apostles, and know that they were guided by the Holy 
 Ghost. These facts we have on the same evidence which 
 assures us of their existence. We wish to know further 
 whether their power was merely personal, or whether it was 
 perpetuated in that institution which they established. While 
 they lived, the Church spoke through their mouths authori- 
 tatively : could it do so after their departure ? When they 
 assembled at Jerusalem they declared what " seemed good to 
 the Holy Ghost and to us ;" and they silenced objectors by 
 reference to the Divine authority of the system which they 
 administered. "What, came the word of God out from you? 
 or came it to you only ?" And again : " We have no such 
 custom, neither the Churches of God." But was the Church 
 empowered to act in the same manner afterwards ? This we 
 must learn by observing, 1st. what was the belief of the 
 Apostles themselves, who could not be mistaken on this sub- 
 ject ; and in what position they left their converts : and 
 2ndly. how this matter was understood by the early Church, 
 at the time when its inspired guides were withdrawn, and 
 before it could be supposed to have deviated from their in- 
 structions. 
 
 I. The point in dispute is whether the promise of a super- 
 natural guidance had been made to the Apostles individually, 
 or to the Apostles as the heads of a permanent society; 
 whether they had received the gift of divine direction as 
 single servants of Christ, or as a corporation which had con- 
 tinuance. Both notions have been entertained. Now surely 
 the conduct of the Apostles, before their departure, must 
 have indicated which belief they themselves entertained. It 
 was clear that disputes would arise, when they were gone, 
 respecting the meaning of truths which they had taught. 
 We have no knowledge whether they were aware themselves 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 13 
 
 to what extent this would reach. It was revealed, indeed, 
 that " perilous times shall come ;" but probably the Apostles 
 themselves would have been astonished, had they forecast the 
 subtilties of the Arian heresy, and known the blasphemies 
 which were to be uttered against their Master. Such things 
 were possible, however, because such things fell out ; now 
 supposing such a contingency to have been suggested to the 
 Apostles, how would they have said that it was to be met j 
 on what principle did they suppose that the Gospel Revela- 
 tion was to be interpreted ? No doubt they taught men to 
 make reverent use of Holy Scripture. Our Lord approved 
 the conduct of the Jews, because " ye search the Scriptures, 
 and in them ye think ye have eternal life ;" and He censured 
 those who set up human traditions against the inspired rules 
 of the Old Testament. The Berasans, again, were praised 
 because they searched the Scriptures for the prophecies con- 
 cerning Christ ; and St. Paul speaks of Scripture as " profit- 
 able for doctrine," and able to make men " wise unto salva- 
 tion." These passages show the respect which was due even 
 to the Old Testament ; and they might be adduced against 
 any one who set up the Church in opposition to Scripture, 
 and alleged that she might dispense with its use, and super- 
 sede its authority. But such a case has never arisen, and 
 probably will never arise ; the practical question which really 
 arises, is not whether the testimony of Scripture is important, 
 but which of various contending parties has a right to claim 
 it as on his side. Now how did the Apostles suppose that 
 such a question as this was to be decided ? Did they abandon 
 the matter to the will of individuals, or did they leave any 
 authorized exponent of their words ? Did they think their 
 Gospel so clear that no well-intentioned inquirer could fail to 
 master it, or did they imagine that the Holy Ghost, whose 
 office was to guide men into truth, had provided any means 
 through which His gracious work was to be effected 1 It is 
 sometimes said that if the Apostles had designed men in after 
 times to refer to any living authority, they would have stated 
 their intentions in more express words. But we cannot infer 
 anything from their silence in this particular, because we 
 have no account how far their vision of the future prospects 
 
14 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 of the Church extended. They may have been allowed a 
 Pisgah view of the manner in which it was to take possession 
 of the inheritance of the Gentiles, without discerning that it 
 was to give a shape to the new races which were to occupy 
 Europe, or to come into collision with the civilization of 
 modern times. St. Paul's statement respecting the man of 
 sin, and St. John's vision, were specific revelations ; and how 
 far they themselves understood all the relations of what was 
 to come, is not disclosed. So that we have no right to con- 
 clude that they would have stated everything which was 
 likely to be useful in future times, or that they knew what 
 was the exact nature of all questions which would arise. 
 All which we could expect from them is such direction 
 respecting the future, as corresponds with their mode of 
 treating present affairs. St. Paul instructed the Galatians 
 and Corinthians on the particular points on which they 
 wanted information. When the Hebrew Christians were 
 excluded from the Temple, they were exhorted not to forget 
 their own assemblies, and were reminded of the perpetual 
 Sacrifice of the Christian Church. The Epistles contain no 
 such prospective provision for a future state of things as we 
 find in Our Lord's discourses, especially in those which are 
 recorded by St. John. For the views of the Apostles, as we 
 know by their conduct in regard to the admission of the 
 Gentiles, were enlarged by successive communications ; but 
 knowledge and grace dwelt without limit in their Master. 
 The statements, then, which have been quoted, are just such 
 as the Apostles were likely to make. Their declaration that 
 the Church is the " pillar and ground of the truth," and their 
 order to Christians to 6( obey them that have the rule over 
 you," are all which we could calculate on finding, because 
 these supply a rule for the existing times, and for immediate 
 employment. The only question was, whether this rule was 
 meant to outlast the period of their own lives, or to be 
 limited by it. Did they give it, like the moral dicta, by 
 which it is accompanied, as a principle which circumstances 
 made it needful to mention, but which when mentioned was 
 of perpetual force ? For if it was of force for a month after 
 their removal, why not for a century ? There is no event, 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 15 
 
 except the removal of the Apostles by death, whereby the 
 age of St. Paul can be discriminated from the age of St. 
 Ignatius. Unless the directions of St. Paul were sus- 
 pended by his death, they must have continued in force 
 under his successors. And if the Church was possessed 
 of a specific commission, when St. Ignatius taught at An- 
 tioch, why not when St. Chrysostom taught there at the 
 end of three centuries ? So that if the authority of the 
 Christian Society continued at all after the departure of the 
 Apostles, there was no reason why it should ever cease : if 
 the Holy Ghost remained with it as its guiding principle for 
 a year, the same Spirit might be expected to abide with it for 
 ever. 
 
 Now which of these views is to be gathered from the con- 
 duct of the Apostles ? The point is not one about which 
 they can be supposed to have had no opinion, for they were 
 fully informed respecting the existing state of the Church, 
 and knew wherein lay its seat of government. And had their 
 belief been that the supernatural guidance of the Church was 
 to cease with themselves, they would naturally have provided 
 for the settlement of all immediate difficulties before their 
 removal. They would have seen that the new Society was 
 left in such a state of completeness as to require no fresh 
 legislation. But if it was a permanent society, possessing 
 sufficient resources in that divine guidance which was con- 
 ferred upon it through the presence of the Informing Spirit, 
 nothing would be needed but a new succession of officers, to 
 perpetuate those functions which had hitherto been carried 
 on by Apostles. We find, then, in fact, that this last was the 
 exact point attended to ; while in respect to the former there 
 were important omissions. The Epistles to Timothy and 
 Titus, and the works of St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and St. 
 Irenaeus, show the Apostles to have provided a succession of 
 rulers, on whom was to devolve the government of the 
 Church after themselves. But they left many matters of 
 practice unsettled. What could be of greater moment than 
 to determine whether Jewish Christians ought to obey the 
 Mosaic law 1 The Council of Jerusalem, by exempting Gen- 
 tiles from its observance, had tacitly sanctioned its re- 
 
16 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 tention by Jews a principle on which St. Paul 4 himself 
 had acted. Was this system to continue always, and if not, 
 by what authority was it to be .superseded 1 Again : The 
 observance of Easter led to great practical difficulties, for the 
 Quartodecimans of Asia could plead St. John's example, 
 while the rest of the Church had learnt our present rule from 
 St. Peter and St. Paul. And questions of the utmost 
 difficulty speedily arose respecting the readmission of the 
 lapsed. 
 
 Unless the Apostles had believed that the Church was 
 possessed of a permanent organization, and that the Holy 
 Ghost would continue to guide it, when they were themselves 
 removed, they might have been expected to have made some 
 express provision for all such cases. But there were two 
 points, of especial moment, which they could hardly have 
 omitted they would surely have determined what was the 
 Baptismal Creed, and what the Canon of Scripture. Whereas 
 there is no trace that they made any provision for this pur- 
 pose, or fixed by authority what was to become the basis of 
 belief for following times. Certain main Articles of Faith 
 are indeed referred to in the Epistles, and when we approach 
 the end of the second century, 5 we find them put together 
 in a manner resembling a Formulary of Faith; but their 
 compilation appears to have been the work of the Post- 
 Apostolic Church. To guard those points on which there 
 was danger of error, seems at each period to have been the 
 office of the Church. Again: The settlement of the Canon of 
 Scripture depends upon the authority of the Church, not on 
 that of the Apostles. The last words 6 of the Apocalypse 
 have sometimes been referred to, as though applicable to 
 Scripture as a whole : but the volume of the New Testament 
 was not put together till after this book was written; its 
 own authority was long and widely disputed ; and though at 
 present printed as the last, it was not the last written book 
 of Scripture. Had the Apostles imagined that their own remo- 
 val would leave the Church destitute of that Divine guidance, 
 
 4 Acts xxi. 24, 25. 5 St. Iren. iii. 4, 2. 
 
 6 Of course the principle, which these words imply, may he applied to the 
 other books of Scripture, so soon as their inspiration has been demonstrated. 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 17 
 
 which was to lead it into all truth, they could hardly have 
 left the settlement of the Inspired Canon to its discrimi- 
 nation. Compare with this the conduct of Moses before his 
 death. Not only did he assemble all Israel, and repeat his 
 laws with the solemnity of a death-bed injunction, but he de- 
 livered them to the Levites in writing, he ordered the " book 
 of the law" to be "put in the side of the ark of the covenant" 
 " for a witness ;" and he gave directions likewise, that so 
 soon as the promised land had been attained, a public record 
 of them should be made in the most durable materials. 7 
 Again : When Our Lord Himself was withdrawn from the 
 sight of His disciples, He not only gave them information 
 during forty days respecting the mysteries of His coming 
 kingdom, but Pie left them the promise of the Holy Ghost, 
 and directed them to " tarry in the city of Jerusalem, till" 
 they were " endued with power from on high." How came 
 the Apostles to make no such provision, unless they supposed 
 that the Holy Ghost would be a guide to the Church, as 
 it had been to themselves? They would otherwise surely 
 have made it clear to their disciples, in what written docu- 
 ments was to be found the code of the new Society. 
 
 A recent writer has stated, but not removed this difficulty. 
 " It was very important that the Church should receive an 
 assurance concerning the number of the Books of Scripture ; 
 St. John was the fittest person to give that; and no place so 
 fit for it as the Apocalypse." And again : " It was very 
 necessary that the Church should know that the Canon of 
 the Scripture of the New Testament is composed of the 
 writings of seven persons, and sealed by the eighth." 8 No 
 doubt, unless the Church herself were supposed to be as 
 adequate for this function as her Apostolical founders, such 
 a precaution would have been absolutely " necessary" for her 
 security. But how does Dr. Wordsworth's suggestion mend 
 the matter ? He considers such a list to have been supplied 
 by the vision of the twenty-four elders, and by the seven 
 thunders which were heard by St. John. But how could 
 this be a guide to the Church, since, even allowing the in- 
 
 7 Deut. v. 1 ; xxxi. 24-6 ; xxvii. 2. 
 
 8 Wordsworth on the Revelation, p. 123, 235. 
 
 C 
 
18 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 terpretation to be just, the vision was never understood till 
 Dr. Wordsworth explained it 1 The difficulty remains, there- 
 fore, as he has stated it ; unless the Church herself were a 
 competent judge respecting the Canon of Scripture, and 
 this she could not be, unless the gift which dwelt in the 
 Apostles had been continued to the Society which they 
 founded, it was " necessary* ' 9 that she should have received 
 such a statement from the holy Apostles. How could they 
 have omitted so obvious a service had they supposed it to be 
 required ? It is plain, then, that they must have supposed 
 the community which they had founded to be replete with 
 the same gift which had enlightened themselves ; so that 
 they secured the authority of Scripture, by providing for 
 the perpetuity of that institution to which it was committed. 
 These great lights of the Church went out one by one, but 
 no sudden darkness overspread the hemisphere, because the 
 true "light which lighteth every man" was still present by 
 His Spirit in the world. One generation passeth away and 
 another cometh, but the Church abideth for ever. 
 
 Turn now from the conduct of the Apostles, to the position 
 of their disciples. Imagine the case of a person who was 
 disposed to enter the Christian Church towards the end of 
 the first century. Suppose him living in the West, where 
 no Apostle was to be found, though St. John still survived 
 in Asia. The seeds of Gnostic error were already sown, so 
 that he might fall in with false advisers, and find it matter 
 of dispute what was the genuine Gospel. What course ought 
 he to take in order to guard against delusion ? Should he 
 trust to his private study of the documents which the Apos- 
 tles had left, or should he avail himself of the guidance of 
 any living instructors ? Suppose him to do the latter, and he 
 would find that there existed a Society in all parts of the 
 
 9 How much the need of such a confirmation as this by the last surviving 
 Apostle is felt to be required by those who deny the Church's authority, we 
 may see by the use made of the report, mentioned by Eusebius, that St. John 
 had seen the other three Gospels, and approved what was done, but thought 
 they wanted additions. The story rests on no very early authority ; it is ad- 
 duced as an answer to the objection that the Evangelists are not accordant, 
 and seems to have been suggested, as it is no doubt countenanced, by a com- 
 parison of the Gospels themselves. Em. iii. 24. 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 19 
 
 Roman Empire, which held together as one man, possessed 
 one single form of faith, one accordant discipline, one com- 
 mon worship, and that the Apostles had made provision for 
 its perpetuating their system, by committing its government 
 to their chosen disciples. He would find that this Society 
 not only claimed to represent the Apostles, but, moreover, 
 that it professed itself to have gifts to bestow, which could 
 not be attained except through its concurrence the which 
 gifts it refused to give, except to those who submitted them- 
 selves implicitly to its decision. He might learn further, 
 that in this Society there still remained one of Our Lord's 
 Apostles, although his great age, and his distant residence, 
 made personal resort to him difficult. 
 
 Such considerations would seem to justify an inquirer in 
 submitting himself without opposition to the decision of the 
 Church. But suppose him possessed with a strong feeling 
 of the necessity of exercising his individual judgment, and 
 resolved to estimate for himself how far the Church was 
 faithful to the doctrine of its founder. There may have been 
 those already who had that intense jealousy of a priesthood 
 which is prevalent in the present day, and who were ready 
 to suspect that the corruptions of the Church began, as is 
 often alleged, even under the Apostles. In this case the 
 ordinary appeal is from the judgment of the Church to the 
 text of Scripture. Now the Apostles must no doubt have 
 written letters on ordinary subjects, with which such an in- 
 quirer might possibly meet. Ought he to receive these as 
 inspired ? and if not, why should he attach that character to 
 St. Paul's letters to Philemon, Timothy, and Titus ? This 
 question would surely need an authoritative answer; and 
 where could he look for an answer save to the Church ? Nor 
 would the difficulty be less, if he confined himself to the 
 Gospels. St. John's Gospel we may suppose either not to 
 have been yet written, or not to be known ; and that of St. 
 Matthew, even if it was translated into Greek by himself, 
 as is not improbable, would not find its way very early into 
 the West. For it was confessedly written in their own 
 language for his countrymen in Palestine. There remain, 
 then, the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. But why 
 
20 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 should such an inquirer as we suppose, accept their authority ? 
 Nothing is more common than to meet with those who pro- 
 fess deference for the Apostles, because they could prove 
 their inspiration by their miracles, but who make it a point 
 of conscience to reject any inferior authority, and to exercise 
 their own unbiassed judgment on the words of Inspiration. 
 But St. Mark and St. Luke were not Apostles ; neither of 
 them are known to have wrought miracles ; and those, there- 
 fore, who were inclined to reject the authority of the Church, 
 because it might misrepresent the Apostles, would be equally 
 ready to reject these Evangelists, because they might misre- 
 present Our Lord. On what, then, does the authority of these 
 Gospels stand, save on the judgment of the Church, by which 
 they have been admitted into the Canon of Scripture ? Had 
 we evidence, indeed, that they were written during the life- 
 time of St. Peter and St. Paul, we might rest them, perhaps, 
 upon the individual authority of these two Apostles : but 
 the same testimony, which connects them with the teaching 
 of St. Peter and St. Paul, implies them to have been written 
 without the co-operation of these Apostles, if not after their 
 death. 10 What inference, then, could be drawn, but that though 
 
 10 St. Irenoeus, probably the best authority on the subject, when mentioning 
 that the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke were grounded on the teaching of 
 St. Peter and St. Paul, adds, that they were written " after their departure." 
 /AET* rovruv j'foSov. iii. i. 1. Papias says, " Mark having been Peter's interpreter, 
 wrote down accurately whatever he could remember. Not that he expressed 
 in order what Christ had spoken or done. For he had not heard Our Lord, 
 nor been His follower, but had attended on Peter, who used to teach as occasion 
 arose, but made no arrangement of Our Lord's words. So that Mark was 
 not to blame for writing some things as he remembered them. For he had 
 but one object, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to report nothing 
 erroneously." Eus. iii. 39. St. Clement of Alexandria's account is : " When 
 Peter had publicly preached the word at Borne, and proclaimed the Gospel by 
 the Spirit, his numerous hearers urged Mark, as having been long his fol- 
 lower, and remembering what was spoken, to write down what he had said. 
 On this St. Mark composed the Gospel, and gave it to those who asked 
 him. Of which circumstance, when St. Peter was apprized, he neither pro- 
 hibited, nor encouraged it." Ens. vi. 14. Eusebius gives a somewhat different 
 account of St. Clement's testimony in another place. Having mentioned the 
 cause of St. Mark's writing, he goes on : " They say that the Apostle having 
 known what was done by the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the 
 man's zeal, and sanctioned the book for reading in the Clmrches." ii. 15. This 
 is somewhat at variance with the former statement, and would rather imply 
 that the book w-as written when St. Peter was at a distance. Else why this 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 21 
 
 Revelation was a specific gift, committed by Our Lord to 
 certain chosen followers, yet that the community which 
 they had founded had its gift also? So that it was the 
 Church's office to decide between what was human, and what 
 was divine, and to interpret the system, of which it was the 
 depository. And how could this be effected, save through 
 the continued indwelling of that Divine Guide, " who spake 
 by the Prophets ?" 
 
 II. This statement is confirmed, if we turn to the history 
 of the early Church, and see how it met those difficulties, to 
 which it was exposed by the departure of its inspired leaders. 
 Take first those writers who had been contemporary with the 
 Apostles, and whom they left in charge of their institutions. 
 All of them assumed that the Church, through her authorized 
 functionaries, was the appointed expositor of the faith, which 
 was to be sought at her mouth, and not by private deduction 
 
 mode of information ? Other ancient writers, such as Tertullian, identify the 
 doctrine of these two Evangelists with that taught by St. Peter and St. Paul, 
 but say nothing of any authority given to their expressions. A passage, 
 indeed, is quoted by Lardner from St. Augustin (^Credibility, p. 2, c. cxvii. 6) 
 which represents the Apostles and the Church as co-ordinate judges in re- 
 spect to these two Gospels : " Mark and Luke wrote at a time, when their 
 writings might be approved, not only by the Church, but also by the Apostles 
 still living." (De Consensu Euang. iv. 9.) But St. Augustin, as the context 
 shows, is not speaking of any sanction given to the expressions of these two 
 Evangelists, nor does he at all imply that their Gospels were seen or approved by 
 St. Peter and St. Paul. He is merely arguing for the general accuracy of 
 their statements and of those in the Acts, which no doubt is confirmed by the 
 fact, that some of the Apostles were still alive. And elsewhere in the same 
 treatise he affirms the Church to have a power of judging the question 
 of canonicity by reference to the standard of dogmatic truth of which it was 
 the depository. For after stating that these two Gospels were accepted, he 
 adds, that the writings of some other persons were not " such that the Church 
 had confidence in them, and admitted them to the canonical authority of 
 sacred books ; and that not only because the authors were not such as to com- 
 mand confidence, but also because their writings contained some fallacious 
 statements, which the Catholic and Apostolic rule of faith and sound doc- 
 trine condemns." De Con. Evan. i. 2. So that he claims for the Church au- 
 thority to judge of the canonicity of books by the analogy of faith, indepen- 
 dently of any consideration of their authors. How little the ancient Church 
 supposed that it was necessary to have the authority of an Apostle in order to 
 prove a book worthy of reception may be seen from the judgment of Dionysius 
 the Great, of Alexandria, respecting the Revelation. He says he does not 
 venture to " reject the book," nor does he deny its author the possession "of 
 " knowledge and prophecy," but affirms that he could not be the Apostle St, 
 John. Eus* vii. 25. 
 
22 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 from the text of Scripture. This is implied in St. Ignatius's 11 
 oft-repeated statements of the necessity of yielding obedience 
 to the Bishop. In his view it was the best security for main- 
 taining the true Doctrine of Our Lord's nature. In like 
 manner does his follower, St. Polycarp, exhort men to be 
 " subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and to 
 Christ." 12 And St. Clement writes to the discontented at Co- 
 rinth : " You, who have laid the foundation of the dissension, 
 be subject to the Presbyters, and be schooled to repentance. 
 Bend the knees of your hearts and learn to be subject, putting 
 off the proud and boastful confidence of your tongues. For' 
 it is better to be approved in the flock of Christ, though we 
 are of small account, rather than being eminent to be cast out 
 of His hope." 13 
 
 But the belief of the age which followed the Apostles, is 
 set before us more clearly when we come to the somewhat 
 later, but more copious statements of St. Irenaeus and of Ter- 
 tullian. The third book of St. Irenasus, and the " De Pras- 
 scriptione Hsereticorum" of Tertullian, oppose the authority 
 of the existing Church, to the wantonness of private inter- 
 pretation. " When there are such proofs," says St. Irena3us, 
 after referring to the authority of Polycarp, and of his master, 
 St. John, " we ought not to seek from others for that truth, 
 which it is easy to obtain from the Church, inasmuch as the 
 Apostles have deposited in it, as in a rich storehouse, every- 
 thing which pertains to the truth ; so that every one who 
 will can take from it the draught of life." 14 
 
 11 " Give heed to the Bishop, that God may give heed to you. My soul for 
 their's who are subject to the Bishop, the Presbyters, the Deacons. And 
 with them may it be my lot to hold in God." A d Polyc. 6. And again : 
 "I exhort you to study to do everything in the unity of God: the Bishop 
 presiding in the place of God, and the Presbytery in the place of the Synod of 
 Apostles, and the Deacons, who are most dear to me, being entrusted with 
 the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all time, and 
 was manifest in the end." Ad Magnes. 6. 
 
 12 Ad Philippens. 5. 13 Ad Corinth. 57. 
 
 14 He continues, "for this is the entrance to life; but all others are thieves and 
 robbers. Wherefore, they ought to be avoided, while that which belongs to 
 the Church we should love with all diligence, and lay hold of the tradition of 
 truth. Tor what is it ? Even if there were a dispute respecting any unim- 
 portant question, ought we not to recur to the most ancient Churches, which 
 were wont to enjoy the converse of the Apostles, and to receive from them 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 23 
 
 Again he says, in reference to the Gnostics, " those who 
 wish to see the truth may find the tradition of the Apostles 
 manifested in the whole Church throughout all the world ; 
 and we are able to number up those who were appointed by 
 the Apostles to be Bishops in the Churches, and their suc- 
 cessors to our day, none of whom either taught or knew any- 
 thing of their dreams. For if the Apostles had known any 
 hidden mysteries, which they had taught separately and 
 secretly to the perfect, they would have delivered them to 
 those more especially to whom they committed the Churches 
 themselves. For very perfect and blameless in all respects 
 did they wish those to be, whom they left as their successors, 
 delivering to them their own place and authority ; whose 
 good conduct, therefore, was of the utmost service, and whose 
 fall would have been the greatest calamity. But because it 
 takes too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the 
 successions of all the Churches ; therefore, by stating the 
 tradition of that Church, which is the greatest, most ancient, 
 and best known of all the Church I mean which was founded 
 and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, 
 St. Peter and St. Paul and by declaring the faith which it 
 announces to mankind, and which comes through the succes- 
 sions of Bishops even to our days, we confound all those, 
 who in whatever way, whether from self-conceit, vain-glory, 
 or blindness and ill-judgment, separate themselves from the 
 body." 15 The same mode of reasoning is used by Tertullian. 
 " To the Scriptures, therefore, we must not appeal ; nor must 
 we try the issue on points, on which the victory is either 
 none, or doubtful, or as good as doubtful. For though the 
 debate on the Scriptures should not so turn out, as to place 
 each party on an equal footing, the order of things would 
 require that this question should be first proposed, which is 
 now the only one to be discussed, ( To whom belongeth the 
 
 what was certain and practically clear concerning the matter in dispute. For 
 what if the Apostles had left us no Scriptures, ought we not to follow the 
 course of the tradition, which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted 
 the Churches ? This arrangement is followed by many barbarous nations, who 
 being without ink and parchment, have their salvation written by the Spirit 
 in their hearts, and guard diligently the old tradition." iii. 4. 1, 2. 
 
 15 iii. 3. 1, 2. n/><ruyayy was no doubt St. Irenseus's expression. 
 
24 THE CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY 
 
 very Faith ; whose are the Scriptures ; by whom, and through 
 whom, and when, and to whom was that rule delivered 
 whereby men become Christians.' For wherever both the 
 true Christian rule and Faith shall be shown to be, there will 
 be the true Scriptures, the true expositions, and all the true 
 Christian traditions." 16 
 
 These passages show that the practical belief of Christians 
 during the second century accorded with that system which 
 was implied by the eonduct of the Apostles. The Gospel 
 was not maintained merely by logical deductions from Scrip- 
 ture, but men were referred to an existing authority, as 
 indicating what was the new Revelation. This was not to 
 derogate from the importance of Scripture or the authority 
 of the Apostles ; for the meaning of Scripture, and the inten- 
 tion of the Apostles, were the very matters in dispute. The 
 writers of that age did not assert, indeed, that the meaning 
 of Scripture was so clear that it could not be disputed ; for the 
 innumerable disputes which filled the world would have belied 
 the assertion. But in asserting that it was the Church's 
 especial office to guard and interpret Holy Scripture, they were 
 borne out by the fact that the Sacred Books were one by one 
 stamped as Canonical by its decision. This was to carry out 
 a principle which had been sanctioned by the Apostles them- 
 
 16 De Pr^escrip. Haer. 19. " If these things be so, so that the truth be ad- 
 judged to belong to us, as many as walk according to this rule, which the 
 Churches have handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, 
 Christ from God, the reasonableness of our proposition is manifest, which 
 determineth that heretics are not to be allowed to enter upon an appeal to 
 the Scriptures, whom, without the Scriptures, we prove to have no concern 
 with the Scriptures. For if they be heretics, they cannot be Christians, in 
 that they have not from Christ that name, which by following according to 
 their own choosing they admit to belong to them, i. v?. the name of heretics. 
 Therefore, not being Christians, they can have no claim to Christian writings." 
 And somewhat further : " One man altereth the Scriptures with his hand, 
 another their meaning by his exposition. For though Valentinus seemeth to 
 make use of the entire document, he doth not less lay hands upon the truth, 
 though with more cunning skill than Marcion. For Marcion nakedly and 
 openly useth the knife, not the pen, since he made havoc of the Scriptures 
 to suit his own matter. But Valentinus spared them, because he did not in- 
 vent Scriptures to fit his matter, but matter to fit the Scriptures : and yet he 
 took away from, and added more, in taking away the proper meanings of 
 each particular word, and in adding systems of things not to be found there- 
 in." Id. 37, 38. 
 
IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 25 
 
 selves, who drew up no list of the Books of Scripture, but 
 left this office for the Church under the guidance of her 
 Divine Teacher. Nor was this the only office which they 
 left to her. They left her also, as we have seen, to fix those 
 important questions of discipline, which time and circum- 
 stances evolved. Yet the points so fixed were dealt with as 
 though settled by the same authority which had been ex- 
 ercised by the Apostles themselves. For though those first 
 followers of Our Lord had a special gift as the inspired oracles 
 of the new Law, yet the Christian Israel was never to be 
 deserted by its Divine Guide, till its desert journey was past 
 and it had reached its heavenly country. The injunctions, 
 therefore, which had been given by the Holy Apostles under 
 the guidance of the Holy Ghost, at the Council of Jerusalem, 
 were afterwards modified or abrogated by the Church, acting 
 under the same authority. The observance of the Law of 
 Moses, then left open to Christians**of Jewish descent, was 
 held unlawful, by the time of St. Augustin, for them also. 
 The eating of blood, 17 previously prohibited, was at that time 
 deemed lawful, according to the same Father. Again, the 
 Quartodeciman usage respecting Easter, allowed till the 
 Council of Nice, was subsequently forbidden under pain of 
 excommunication. How could these changes have been made, 
 unless those who inherited the position of the Apostles, had 
 inherited likewise a measure of their powers? It follows 
 that to be the inspired authors of the New Testament was 
 peculiar to those to whom this function had been committed; 
 but that to possess a Divine guidance for the interpretation 
 of the Christian scheme was a continued attribute of the 
 Church. This is proved as well by what was done by the 
 Church as by what was left undone by the Apostles. For it 
 had in it a still greater name than theirs ; it had with it the 
 Presence of Christ even to the end of time. 
 
 17 Vid. St. Aus. c. Faust. Lib. xxxii. 13 ; and Lardner's Cred. p. 2. c. 44. 4. 
 
26 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 
 
 THE purpose of the last chapter was to show that the Church 
 is possessed of authority. For she is spoken of by Our Lord 
 as a Judge, which is toHbe referred to, and she is declared by 
 St. Paul to be the " pillar and ground of the truth." And as 
 such she acted at that critical period when she was deprived 
 of her inspired founders. For the Christian of the second 
 century could not lay his hand upon any book and say, " you 
 will find here everything which it is necessary to believe," 
 but he could point to a living Society by which everything 
 essential was taught. True, the Church had by that time 
 agreed which of those " many" parties who had " taken in 
 hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things 
 which are most surely believed," were to be received as 
 inspired witnesses ; and in different places were preserved the 
 Epistles of those Apostles of Christ whose words were ac- 
 cepted like those of Christ 1 Himself. But no one could as yet 
 say that he knew the whole of what was thus taught by the 
 Apostles ; that most important document, the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, which explains the relation of the New to the Old 
 Covenant, was not generally received ; and there were other 
 works, such as the Epistles of St. Clement and St. Barnabas, 
 which an uninstructed person would not easily have discrimi- 
 nated from the inspired books. For the first was read in the 
 Church to which it was addressed, and the last may possibly 
 
 1 Euseb. vi. 12. 
 
THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 27 
 
 be the work of an Apostle. Nor was there anything in these 
 sacred writings which implied that they were meant to super- 
 sede that oral system which had been in existence before they 
 were communicated. In the first written of them all ap- 
 parently those to the Thessalonians St. Paul bids his 
 hearers stand fast in "the traditions which ye have been 
 taught, whether by ivord or our Epistle." " The Gospel 
 which" St. Paul " preached ;" 2 and " that good thing which 
 was committed unto" Timothy, was not a book, but " the form 
 of sound words, which thou hast heard of me." For St. Paul 
 left no summary of his system, like that Book of the Law, 
 which Moses enjoined that the future kings of Israel should 
 copy out for their guidance ; but he charged his successor to 
 " commit to faithful men the things heard among many wit- 
 nesses." His Epistles to Timothy, indeed, were committed 
 to writing because he was compelled to " tarry long," whereas 
 he had hoped to " come shortly ;" and some of his most precious 
 words would have been lost to us, as it seems, if he had not 
 been " much hindered from coming to" Rome, or if he had 
 fulfilled his intention, when he was " minded to come before 
 unto" Corinth. He could not, therefore, have intended to 
 supersede the office of that teaching body, which he recog- 
 nized as an existing authority during his life, and which at his 
 death he left in charge of his writings. 
 
 But supposing the Church possessed of authority, of what 
 authority is it possessed ? Now if it be her office to teach 
 doctrine, to whom should this question be addressed but to 
 herself? This is not to argue in a circle ; for it is a natural 
 and universal course, so soon as we are satisfied of the claims 
 of an instructor, to ask an explanation of the principles on 
 which he instructs. When Nicodemus sought Our Lord, he 
 had first satisfied himself of the superior claims of the new 
 Teacher ; but by whom could he be instructed respecting His 
 Divine character except by Himself? We have seen, in like 
 manner, that the Church's authority is witnessed by the 
 words and actions both of the first Christians, and of their 
 inspired teachers ; and, therefore, her own explanation of her 
 office must be accepted by those who respect the witnesses by 
 
 2 1 Cor. xv. i. 
 
28 THE NATURE OP 
 
 whom her claim has been attested. Now there are three 
 especial points on which the nature of her office is dependent : 
 1st. on what principle does it stand ; 2ndly. what is its 
 extent ; 3rdly, what its duration ? 
 
 I. A clear understanding of the principle on which Church- 
 authority stands is necessary to its just appreciation. It is 
 needful to guard, for example, against the not unusual opinion, 
 that it depends merely upon the accidental circumstance that 
 the Primitive Church was less remote from the age of the 
 Apostles than ourselves. No doubt this is a consideration of 
 great importance ; and it enables us, as was shown in the last 
 chapter, to appeal to the writers of that period as witnesses 
 of the Church's position on the removal of the Apostles. For 
 who so likely to carry on the true line of doctrine and dis- 
 cipline, as those whom the Apostles had appointed to govern 
 after them ? Who better fitted to understand St. John than 
 his disciple St. Ignatius ? Who more sure to hand on the 
 system of Poly carp, than St. Irenreus who had sat at his feet? 
 But a further step is taken when those who witness to the 
 fact, that the Church is possessed of authority, go on to explain 
 the principles of that authority of which she is possessed. 
 The office, indeed, of building up the Canon of Scripture, 
 which was imposed upon the Church of the second century, 
 leads, of necessity, to some higher view of its position and 
 character. Did the sacred Scriptures consist only of ordinary 
 writings, the ordinary rules of evidence would suffice for their 
 support. It would be enough that the writings of Paul 
 and John may be identified like those of Livy and Cicero. 
 And, therefore, those who take a low view of the authority of 
 the sacred writers, are easily satisfied of their authenticity, 
 But in proportion as we esteem highly of their authority, we 
 must assign a higher function to that Body, which not only 
 had to fix their authorship, but to attest their inspiration. 
 Had the Books of the New Testament, indeed, been exclu- 
 sively Apostolic, there would have been some speciousness in 
 the attempt to transfer the authority which sanctions them 
 from the Church to her first founders ; but it has been al- 
 ready observed, that our Canon contains books which are not 
 the work of Apostles two Gospels, the Acts, and possibly 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 29 
 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews while an Epistle has been 
 excluded from it which was anciently attributed to an Apostle. 
 And the decision is known not to have turned on a bare 
 inquiry into the external evidence of authenticity, but like, 
 wise on the conformity of the documents adduced with the 
 analogy of faith. 3 So that we are led, of necessity, to that 
 deeper view of Church -authority which the two preceding 
 chapters suggested. They compel us to seek for it in those 
 fundamental characteristics of the Gospel Covenant which 
 are revealed in Holy Scripture, and are witnessed by the 
 undoubted consent of the Catholic Church. 
 
 For Church-authority has its basis in the principle, that 
 all wisdom comes from God, and that it is communicated to 
 mankind only through the Incarnation of Christ. And, there- 
 fore, as it dwelt entirely in His Manhood when He was present 
 in the Flesh, so its presence ever since is to be sought in 
 that community " which is His Body, the fulness of Him that 
 filleth all in all." The Presence which was to be found in 
 His Body Natural, when He was upon earth, is to be sought, 
 since His Ascension, in that Body Mystical, which is His per- 
 petual medium of approach. For the gifts of grace, which 
 had their dwelling in the one, are imparted through the other. 
 And, therefore, Our Lord concluded that address to the 
 Father with which He ended His earthly ministry, by setting 
 forth the twofold presence of Himself and of the Blessed 
 Spirit, by which the Church was to be sanctified and pos- 
 sessed. " I have declared unto them Thy name, and will 
 declare it ; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may 
 be in them, and I in them." Inasmuch as the attributes of 
 Deity pertain to the essence of Itself, therefore, the love, 
 wherewith the Second Person in the Glorious Godhead is for 
 ever bound to the First, is no other than that Blessed Spirit 
 who is the bond of the whole Trinity. So that in these 
 words we are assured of that indwelling of the Holy Ghost 
 whereby He animates the Body of Christ, while Our Blessed 
 
 3 Vid. Eus. iii. 29, and vi. 12. The same rule is laid down in the Apos- 
 tolical Constitutions, vi. 16. "You ought not to attend merely to the names 
 of the Apostles, but to the nature of the things stated, and to the pure doc- 
 trine." St. Jerome tells us that the authority of St. Jude's Epistle was disputed 
 in consequence of his reference to the Book of Enoch. De Scrip. Eccl. 4. 
 
30 THE NATURE OP 
 
 Lord is present likewise Himself, through the power of His 
 Godhead, and through His Flesh and Blood, which is be- 
 stowed in the Holy Eucharist. The Church's authority, 
 therefore, is no accidental office with which she happens to 
 be entrusted it has its basis in the laws of her nature, and 
 in the original constitution on which she was built ; it flows 
 directly from that life, which emanates from her Head, and 
 cannot be dissociated from her existence. So that Our Lord 
 set forth the principle and measure of her coherence by 
 reference to the highest of all standards : " As Thou, Father, 
 art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us." 
 And, therefore, do we read that " there is one Body and one 
 Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ;" 
 " for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body." 
 
 This principle was so fully recognized by the early writers, 
 that they attribute all separation from the Body of Christ to 
 the lack of Christian love. For since the Holy Ghost, who 
 is the very principle of love, is the life of the whole Christian 
 society, its dissolution and division into parts can result only 
 from the withdrawal of this principle of coherence. This is 
 the great truth inculcated in every part of St. Ignatius's 
 Epistles. He identifies any lack of concord among Chris- 
 tians themselves with the loss of that Divine life which has 
 its source in their Lord. So long as they obey that attrac- 
 tion which binds them to their Head, they must needs be 
 attracted to one another. " Where division and anger is, 
 God does not dwell. To all, therefore, who repent the Lord 
 forgives, if they enter by repentance into the oneness of 
 God." 4 So possessed is he of the oneness of that principle 
 
 4 Ad Philadel. 8. " As Our Lord without the Father did nothing, being 
 alone, either by Himself or by His Apostles, so neither do you do anything with- 
 out the Bishops and the Presbytery. Do not aim at attaining things which 
 may be specious to your individual minds. But let there be one prayer, one 
 intercession, one mind, one hope, in love and blameless joy. There is one 
 Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better" Ad Magnes. 7. " Jesus Christ is 
 praised by your unanimity and accordant love. Do you, therefore, all of you, 
 make up one band, in symphony and concord, taking your direction from 
 God in unity sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, that 
 He may hear you, and may recognize through whom you do well, being mem- 
 bers of His Son. It is profitable for you, then, to continue in blameless love, 
 that you may by all means partake of God." Ad Ephes. 4. 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 31 
 
 which has its root in God, and diffuses itself as the impulse 
 of life through Christ's mystical Body, that he identifies faith 
 which apprehends the mysteries, with love which binds to- 
 gether the members of Our Lord. When speaking of per- 
 sons who rejected the Holy Eucharist, he says, " Those who 
 contradict the gift of God perish through their reasonings. 
 But it had been better for them to love that they might 
 share in the resurrection." * 
 
 To the same purpose is the assertion of St. Irenasus, that 
 those who " separate themselves from the Christian body," do 
 so " from self-conceit, vain-glory, blindness, or ill-judgment." 6 
 The like conviction respecting the moral guilt of division 
 is expressed by all the writers of the second century St. 
 Ignatius, 7 Hernias, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, 
 Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria as it was also by their 
 successors. Neither ought their conduct to be attributed 
 to a narrow jealousy, or to any wish to institute a spiritual 
 monopoly, which might restrict the religious privileges of 
 mankind. The point aimed at, was not to impose a restraint, 
 which might limit the gifts of grace, but to secure the unity, 
 which might preserve them. Its cause was a deep con- 
 viction of the reality of that Divine system which had been 
 committed to human hands, and could only be maintained 
 through the permanence of the Society through which it 
 was communicated. Hence St. Cyprian's well-known state- 
 ment : " he cannot have God for his Father, who has not 
 the Church for his Mother. If any one could escape, who 
 was out of Noah's Ark, then he who shall have been out of 
 the Church can escape also." 8 He explains his principle, 
 when stating the grounds on which he denied the validity of 
 
 5 Ad Smyrn. 7. 
 
 6 iii. 3. 2. He speaks of those "who make divisions" as wanting in the love 
 of God, and considering their own interest, not the unity of the Church. For 
 on account of small and contemptible causes, they rend and divide the great 
 and glorious Body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it. Peace is 
 in their words, but their acts are those of war : they truly strain at a gnat, and 
 swallow a camel. No benefit which such men can confer is a counterpoise for 
 the mischief of division." iv. 33. 7. 
 
 7 Passages on the subject from all these writers are collected by Rothe 
 Anfange der Christlichen Kirche, p. 589-594. 
 
 8 De Unitate, p. 181. [Paris, 1666.] 
 
32 THE NATURE OF 
 
 heretical baptism ; 9 he identifies the life of the Christian 
 community with the agency of that Blessed Spirit, who 
 takes up His dwelling in Christ's Mystical Body. And so, 
 too, St. Augustin, 10 who though not asserting the invalidity 
 of lay-baptism, yet affirms as strongly as St. Cyprian, that 
 forgiveness can only be obtained through the Church, because 
 Her life is that gift of the Spirit, which she ministers to 
 individuals. 
 
 The principle, then, of Church-authority, as understood by 
 the ancient writers, is that the mystical Body of Christ is an 
 organized whole, inhabited and guided by the Holy Ghost, 
 who by dwelling in it gives it life, and infuses charity and 
 concord among its members. So that the interpretation of 
 doctrine and custody of truth is no separate and accidental 
 office, with which it is entrusted, but a function of its life, and 
 a consequence of its being. " We guard the faith, which we 
 have received from the Church, and which proceeds per- 
 petually from the Holy Spirit, as though it were some precious 
 deposit, in an excellent vessel, which can renew itself, and can 
 make new the vessel which contains it. For this is the office 
 committed to the Church of God, that it should, as it were, 
 breathe inspiration into His creatures, so that all its members 
 should receive the gift and live. And here lies the principle 
 of our communication with Christ, that is, the Holy Spirit, 
 the pledge of incorruption ; here is the confirmation of our 
 
 9 " It is the Church alone, which heing spiritually joined and united to Christ, 
 hears children, as the Apostle says, ' Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself 
 for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water.' If, there- 
 fore, this is the beloved one, and the spouse, which alone is sanctified by 
 Christ, and alone is cleansed by His laver, it follows that heresy, which is not 
 the spouse of Christ, can neither be cleansed nor sanctified by His laver, and 
 cannot bring forth children to God." Epis. Ixxiv. 6. [Goldhorn, 1838.] 
 
 10 In the Church " sins are remitted, inasmuch as out of her there is no re- 
 mission. For she herself has received the Holy Spirit as a peculiar pledge* 
 without which no sins are remitted." Enchiridion, Ixv. Again : " That it is 
 in the Catholic Church alone, by the imposition of hands, that the Holy Ghost 
 is given, was understood by our fathers to be expressed by the Apostle's words, 
 'since the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
 Ghost, who is given to us.' For love is the very gift which they do not possess? 
 who have been cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church. They 
 cannot have the love of God, who do not love the unity of the Church, and 
 by this circumstance the Holy Spirit may be rightly understood not to be 
 received except in the Catholic Church." De Bapt. C. Don. iii. 21. 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 33 
 
 faith, and the ladder, whereby we ascend to God. For in the 
 Church, St. Paul says, God has placed Apostles, Prophets, 
 Teachers, and all the rest of that system whereby the Spirit 
 operates, of which Spirit they are not partakers who do not 
 betake themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of 
 life by ill-thinking and worse deeds. For where the Church 
 is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God, 
 there is the Church, and all grace ; and the Spirit is truth. 
 Therefore, those who do not participate in it, are neither 
 nourished to life from the breast of their mother, nor do they 
 taste of that purest fountain which proceeds from the Body 
 of Christ." 1 So does St. Cyprian speak of the Church, 
 which " having its Lord's light diffused through it, extends its 
 beams throughout the whole world ;" 12 and Origen says, that 
 " the Church enlightened by the light of Christ, is herself 
 also made the light of the world." 13 
 
 II. The principle of Church-authority, then, was not sup- 
 posed to rest upon that mere accident of propinquity, which 
 belonged to the first age, but to arise out of that fundamental 
 law of Christ's Church, whereby its life depends upon the 
 presence of the Informing Spirit of God. " By one Spirit are 
 ye all baptized into one Body." As St. Augustin explains 
 it : " He who ought to unite us into a body is one Spirit.", 14 
 And this leads us to the next point. What is the extent of 
 Church-authority ? Does it refer to all subjects, or is it 
 limited in its sphere of operation ; is it a final rule, or does it 
 admit of appeal to some higher tribunal ? 
 
 Since Revelation was bestowed, and the Church appointed, 
 to teach us our faith, it has always been supposed that 
 questions which do not belong to the faith, are out of their 
 province. Those things, therefore, of which sense informs us, 
 with ah 1 their deductions, relations, and circumstances, belong 
 to another region of knowledge. The Holy Ghost has been 
 given to the Church to enable her to judge not about matters 
 of fact, but matters of doctrine. But it appears to be doubted 
 often, whether her authority extends to all matters of doc- 
 trine. There are those who say, " the Church is no doubt 
 
 11 S. Iren. iii. 24, 1. " De Unitate. p. 181. 
 
 13 In Gen. Horn. i. 6. " Ad Donat. post Coll. 58. 
 
34 THE NATUKE OF 
 
 entitled to respectful and deferential attention, so long as she 
 agrees with Holy Scripture, but if she goes against the Word 
 of God, it is impossible to accept her statements. We ought 
 'to obey God rather than man.' " This, of course, is indu- 
 bitable : but does it mean that men ought to abandon the 
 Church, if she professedly abandons the Scriptures ; or 
 does it mean that men ought to reject such statements or 
 orders of the Church as may seem to them at variance with 
 the Scripture ? If it means the first, it may be replied, that 
 the Church never has professed to abandon the Scriptures, 
 and that if we believe Our Lord's promise, we may be sure 
 she never will make such profession. But if it means the 
 second, the question at once arises, who is to decide whether 
 the Church's order or statement is, indeed, at variance with 
 Holy Scripture or no ? For the points in dispute are com- 
 monly those in which some peculiar interpretation is put upon 
 a passage, on the authority of the Church, to which the 
 words themselves might not have conducted men. Some 
 promise of Our Lord, or some allusion of His Apostles, is 
 supposed to refer to a practice or doctrine of the Church, 
 which it does not clearly teach. Thus, the sixth chapter of 
 St. John receives its interpretation from the institution of the 
 Holy Eucharist ; and Our Lord's statement that He came to 
 " give His life a ransom instead of many," is explained by the 
 Sacrifice on the Cross. The question always is, then, is the 
 Church right in interpreting, as she does, the promise or 
 allusion ? To say that she is, so long as her interpretation is 
 not forced or constrained, is only to evade the question, for 
 by whom is this last point to be decided ? It may be replied, 
 perhaps, that in ordinary cases it may be right to take her 
 opinion, but that some things are so clear and momentous that 
 upon them men cannot give up their convictions, by what- 
 ever authority they may be overborne. On these points, 
 therefore, it may be said, that men must ultimately judge for 
 themselves, subject, of course, to that responsibility which 
 attaches to all decisions on matters so important, and respect- 
 ing which they will soon have to render their account before 
 the unerring tribunal of Almighty God. 
 
 Now, what is this but to affirm, in fact, that the Church is 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 35 
 
 a sufficient authority in easy cases, but that in difficult ones 
 there lies an appeal from her judgment to that of each in- 
 dividual ? For unless her decision is accepted as final, we 
 may take her testimony r , as we should that of common report, 
 but the sole authority is with the individual mind. Authority 
 in all instances belongs to those by whom judgment is finally 
 pronounced on the last appeal. And it is assumed that this 
 must be done by private reason. Now, unless persons set up 
 a claim to immediate inspiration, they can hardly pretend that 
 their private reason is in all cases influenced by the Spirit of 
 God. Indeed, considering the variety of private judgments, a 
 man who maintained that he himself was the favoured pos- 
 sessor of such a privilege, would .only render himself ridicu- 
 lous. So that the private interpretation of Scripture must 
 mean its interpretation by each man's own reason ; and in- 
 deed its defence is usually grounded on its furnishing an 
 obvious and common-sense explanation of the Divine words. 
 Now, if this be contrasted with the judgment of the Church, 
 the difference is, that the latter does not profess to be 
 guided by common sense, or human reason, but to obey the 
 teaching of that Divine Spirit, by which she is guided in the 
 interpretation of God's will. The argument, then, which is 
 alleged for private judgment is plainly misapplied : that " we 
 ought to obey God rather than man," is a reason for accept- 
 ing, and not rejecting, the Church's decision. Its determina- 
 tion may seem strange, harsh, and unexpected to human reason, 
 but the very ground for taking it is, that the Body, by which 
 it is given, is inhabited and directed by the Holy Ghost; 
 whereas, private judgment is ultimately nothing but the 
 exercise of that human reason, of which each child of Adam 
 is the possessor. So that private judgment is avowedly only 
 the reason of man, while the Divine Spirit is professedly the 
 guide of that Society in which He abides. And, therefore, 
 to allow an appeal from the explanation of the Church to that 
 of individuals, is in reality to subordinate grace to reason, and 
 God to man. 
 
 Since the Church, then, is an organized Society, and its 
 life is derived from that presence of the Holy Ghost, by 
 which the whole Mystical Body of Christ is inhabited, it is 
 
36 THE NATURE OF 
 
 plain that her authority in controversies of faith cannot be 
 limited. To say that her authority extends to all subjects, 
 and is final in each, is only to say that God is wiser than 
 man. Can it be admitted that in easy questions we are to 
 refer to God's Spirit, but in difficult ones to trust to our own? 
 Is grace to decide in usual cases, but the final appeal to be 
 left to nature ? " Having begun in the Spirit are we made 
 perfect in the flesh?" And is not the fit answer to such 
 difficulties as have been suggested, that a contradiction be- 
 tween Scripture and the Church is an impossible supposition, 
 seeing that the Divine Spirit, whose presence is her life, is 
 the same, " who spake by the Prophets ?" 
 
 All this, which is manifest from the nature of the case, is 
 fully borne out by the Church's own testimony respecting her 
 office. It is witnessed by her manner of proceeding in Coun- 
 cils, which always professed to refer to the Scriptures, but to 
 be guided in their interpretation not by logical argumenta- 
 tion, but by the Spirit of God. A certain habitual, inherent 
 indwelling of the Holy Ghost was supposed to preserve the 
 collective Body of Christ in that ancient track, which had 
 been marked out by the Apostles. As new errors arose, and 
 new emergencies, the Spirit of a Divine wisdom was believed 
 to supply the materials for meeting them, out of the inex- 
 haustible storehouse of the original revelation. If a fresh 
 meaning, or an additional force, was given to ancient state- 
 ments, it was only because the " instructed scribe" was bring- 
 ing " forth out of his treasures things new and old." And 
 this constant practice of the Church in her public actions is 
 avowed by her writers from the very beginning. They all 
 assume her to possess a collective wisdom, to which indi- 
 viduals were bound to render practical submission ; and 
 how could practical submission be claimed save for a body, 
 which had the right of final adjudication ? For why would it 
 have been men's duty to submit, instead of adopting that 
 course which was suggested by their private reasonings, un- 
 less the body, which demanded their obedience, had been 
 guided by a higher wisdom ? And this, accordingly, is the 
 principle which is asserted by ancient writers that men 
 ought not to set up their private reason against the judgment 
 
THE CHUECH'S AUTHORITY. 37 
 
 of the Church, because theirs are mere human theories, whereas 
 she is guided by the Spirit of God. Thus does St. Irenseus 
 speak of the duty of obeying those " who with the succession 
 of the Episcopate have received the unfailing grace of truth, 
 according to the pleasure of the Father:" l5 and again, " where 
 the gifts of grace have been deposited by Our Lord, there we 
 ought to seek the truth, among those who possess that suc- 
 cession of the Church which is derived from the Apostles." 16 
 And while in the former of these places he censures those 
 who from their own reasonings depart from the " great suc- 
 cession of the Church," he finds fault elsewhere with the Mar- 
 cosians, who pretended to a private inspiration, and asserted 
 that they could " announce the unknown Father," " boasting 
 themselves to be the pure and discerning ones." 17 " Un- 
 happy people," he says again, " who choose to be false pro- 
 phets, and deny the grace of prophecy to the Church." 18 
 
 These passages not only exhibit the Church as a final 
 authority, and as supplying interpretations which did not 
 admit of being carried on appeal before the higher tribunal of 
 individual reason ; but they illustrate the principle on which 
 this belief depends, namely, that the Divine Spirit which has 
 its dwelling in the collective Body, is our sole guide in the 
 things of God. So that as Origen expresses it, Scripture 
 cannot be properly understood unless men keep to " the rule 
 of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ, as it has been handed 
 down to us by the Apostles." 19 And, therefore, in speaking 
 of the Old Testament, he says, " if the Law of God is re- 
 ceived according to that mode of understanding it, which the 
 Church teaches, then it plainly excels all human laws." 20 
 But the ultimate proof of this, after all, is the Church's prac- 
 tice. For as time went on, new points of doctrine were con- 
 tinually decided, and the Creed grew up from the primordial 
 simplicity of the second century until it attained the structure 
 of the symbol of St. Athanasius. How could the Church 
 have required assent to the various results which were thus 
 evolved, unless she had been conscious of authority to pro- 
 pound them ? How could she have been justified in excluding 
 
 15 iv. 26, 2. 16 iv. 26, 5. ir i. 19, 2, and 20, 3. 18 iii. 1 1, 9. 
 
 19 De Principiis, iv. 9, p. 166. 20 Horn. vii. in Levit. v. p. 226. 
 
38 THE NATUKE OF 
 
 objectors from those sacraments which she held to be neces- 
 sary to salvation, or in giving opportunity for those divi- 
 sions which formed the most effectual obstacle to the growth 
 of Christ's kingdom, unless she had been possessed of some 
 peculiar office, and some unfailing criterion ? Yet was this 
 the whole course of her history. And her greatest minds 
 refer, like St. Augustin, to that (e most firm corroboration, 
 which was derived from the consent of the Catholic Church 
 throughout the world," 21 and excuse those who had pre- 
 viously held erroneous opinions on an important point of doc- 
 trine, "because the Church had not as yet the decision of a 
 plenary Council concerning this subject." 2 " For if it be 
 always open to human opinions to dispute," says St. Facun- 
 dus, "there will never be wanting those who dare to resist the 
 truth. And truly what will be the end of contentions and 
 disputes, if it be allowed that those things, which have been 
 settled by the consent of the whole Church, should again be 
 brought to judgment? Why may not this further judgment 
 itself be judged over again f 23 
 
 III. But was the Church's office of judge intended to be 
 perpetual ? We have seen that it was a power which in early 
 days she both claimed and exercised : and in doing so, she 
 did but execute that function which was assigned her by Our 
 Lord. And since it was an office, which followed directly 
 from her nature, and resulted from that presence of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was the principle of her existence, and cause of 
 her life, her decision could not fail to be final, and must 
 needs cover the whole field of Gospel truth. But was 
 this system to continue, or were Christian people in after 
 times to be left without the benefit of that Divine guidance 
 which had been once possessed? What is stated on this 
 subject in Scripture, as explained by the voice of that early 
 Church, which on every principle has a right to be its in- 
 terpreter ? 
 
 Now, if we consider the nature of the Church's authority, 
 
 21 De Bapt. c. Don. iii. 2. 
 
 22 Quia plenariura de hac re concilium nondum habebat Ecclesia. De Bapt. 
 c. Don. iv. 8. 
 
 23 Pro Defens. Tr. Cap. ii. 6. Bib. Pat. Max. x. 20. 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 39 
 
 how can we doubt of its perpetuity ? For it has been shown 
 to depend upon the presence of that Holy Spirit, who is the 
 very principle of her life. To ask, therefore, whether the 
 Church is to continue to possess authority, is to ask, in fact, 
 whether she is to continue to exist. And this question can be 
 answered only by reference to those promises of Our Lord, 
 and to those statements of His Apostles, which imply that 
 He had founded a Kingdom of which there should be no 
 end. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the 
 world." Whether we look to Our Lord's Parables, or to 
 the vision of the beloved disciple, we see no hint that the 
 Gospel Kingdom was to terminate like those earthly empires 
 by which it had been preceded. " This Gospel of the King- 
 dom shall first be preached throughout all nations, and then 
 shall the end come." When Our Lord, therefore, asks the 
 alarming question, "when the Son of Man cometh, shall 
 He find faith upon the earth," He does not refer to the 
 existence of His Church, but to the consistency of its mem- 
 bers. That faith, which leads men " always to pray and not 
 to faint," has too often been wanting among His servants. 
 But this gives us no reason to suppose that " the pillar and 
 ground of the faith" would be altogether destroyed ; or that 
 there would be wanting those who would render to God 
 "glory in the Church by Christ Jesus thoughout all ages, 
 world without end." 
 
 The question, then, whether the Church is always to 
 judge, resolves itself, in fact, into another whether it is 
 always to continue. So long as the Israelites had the pillar 
 of the cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, how 
 could their path fail to be indicated by these heavenly 
 monitors? And as Holy Scripture teaches us that the 
 Church was meant to be a perpetual provision for the wants 
 of the Spiritual Israel, so in that period of her history when 
 she is admitted to have acted as a judge, and when she 
 exercised this office in that most important particular of 
 sanctioning the Canon of Scripture, her perpetuity was 
 already understood, and spoken of as a necessary condition 
 of her nature. In proof of this we need only appeal to 
 that wonderful presentiment of its future greatness, by which 
 
40 THE NATURE OF 
 
 the Ancient Fathers of the Church were possessed. There 
 is no clearer proof of their faith, than that they should have 
 accepted so literally the predictions of Our Lord, and un- 
 derstood that He was speaking not merely of the diffusion 
 of a literature, or the extension of a school, but of the growth 
 of a Church. If the followers of Socrates appreciated the 
 merits of their language, the noblest organ of spoken com- 
 munication which has ever existed among men, and per- 
 ceived the vast advance which their master had made on all 
 former teachers of philosophy, they may well have formed 
 high expectations of the influence which the system they 
 had received was calculated to exercise. But here was a 
 small band of men, who started in an obscure corner of 
 the earth, among a despised and illiterate people; and yet 
 they believed not only that their teaching was to influence 
 the thoughts of others, but that the very institution which 
 they founded was to be coeval with the world, and to ex- 
 tend throughout all nations. Yet the diffusion of a single 
 religion through many countries, of which Christianity and 
 Mahometanism have since been instances, was at that time 
 without example in the history of the world. But they 
 knew who had told them, that the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 which as yet was only as a grain of mustard-seed, would be 
 the "greatest among herbs," and become a tree, so that 
 the birds of the air might " lodge in the branches thereof." 
 Herein they discerned the meaning of those majestic promises 
 of the earlier covenant, which had hitherto lain like pearls at 
 the bottom of the great deep. Thus does St. Ignatius assign 
 a meaning to the devotion of Mary : " On this account Our 
 Lord received the myrrh upon His head, that He might in- 
 fuse into His Church incorruptibility." 24 And St. Clement 
 speaks of the Church as a a city upon earth, which can 
 neither be taken, nor tyrannized over, being administered by 
 the Word. It is God's will upon earth, as it is in Heaven. 
 And of this city, that which the poets have feigned of the 
 Hyperborean or Arimaspian states, and of the Elysian fields, 
 is a parable." 25 And so Origen, comparing the New with 
 the Old Covenant : " Isaac builds an altar under the Law, 
 21 Ad Ephes. xvii. 2S Stromata, iv. 26, p. 642. 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 41 
 
 and fixes his tent there. But in the Gospel he does not fix 
 a tent, but build a house, and lay a foundation. For hear 
 Wisdom speaking concerning the Church : Wisdom, she says, 
 has built her a house, and laid her seven columns. And hear 
 St. Paul speaking about the same thing : Other foundation 
 can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now, 
 a tent, though it be fixed, is doubtless moveable, but where 
 there are foundations, and the house is built upon a rock, 
 that house is immoveable." 26 And again on the Psalms: 
 " By the mountain of God is to be understood the Church." 
 " To this mountain it has been the Father's good pleasure to 
 give an unshaken power; and the Church reigns mightily 
 over aught besides upon earth, ruling together with Christ." 27 
 Nowhere is this strong presentiment of the Christian 
 mind more strikingly shown than in that very early docu- 
 ment, the letter to Diognetus. " What the soul is in the 
 body, such in the world are the Christians. The soul is 
 diffused through all members of the body, and the Christians 
 through all cities of the earth." " When the soul is strait- 
 ened in food and drink, it is amended, and the Christians 
 being daily persecuted, are increased. Such a post has God 
 assigned them, which they may not lawfully decline." 28 For 
 already could St. Irena3us speak of " the Church" as " diffused 
 throughout all the world," but " having one soul, and one 
 heart," " as though it inhabited a single mansion :" 29 and 
 somewhat later the Council of Alexandria speaks of " the one 
 and only Catholic Church" as "for ever indestructible, though 
 the whole world should war against it, and victorious over 
 every rising of heretics." 3 ' Nor do these writers fail to point 
 out that the teaching office of the Church is to be as enduring 
 as its existence. The belief of the Church during the second 
 century is expressed by an ancient writer against the Monta- 
 nists : " That the gift of prophecy must remain in the whole 
 Church till the final coming of Our Lord, is avouched by the 
 Apostle." 31 And so St. Athanasius, explaining the words of 
 the Psalm, " his seat is like as the sun before Me :" " By the 
 
 28 In Genesim, Horn. xiv. 2. 2r In Psalm xxix. 8. 
 
 28 Ad. Diognet. 6. 29 i. 10, 2. 
 
 30 Harduin i. p. 305. 31 Eusebius, v. 17. and Epiph. p. 403. 
 
42 THE NATURE OF 
 
 throne of Christ understand the Church, for He has His 
 abiding in it. The Church of Christ, he says, therefore, shall 
 shine, and enlighten the whole region under Heaven, and con- 
 tinue permanently as the sun and the moon." 3 And so St. 
 Chrysostom : " The Church is more firmly fixed than Heaven 
 itself. Perhaps some Greek charges me with madness : but 
 let him wait for the truth of the matter, and learn the force 
 of the truth, that it is easier that the sun should be extin- 
 guished, than that the Church should be obscured. Who 
 is it, he asks, that proclaims this ? He who has founded her. 
 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not 
 pass away." 33 And St. Peter Chrysologus : " That you may 
 confess that the Church, as the bride of Christ, will abide in 
 union with Him for ever." 34 
 
 But nowhere is the statement, that the Church is designed 
 to te a permanent instructor, brought out so forcibly as in 
 St. Augustin's controversy with the Donatists. The first 
 great party which separated from the Church, on a point of 
 discipline, rather than of doctrine, St. Augustin's main 
 argument against them was, that the Church universal was 
 intended to be a permanent witness to the truth, and that 
 this perpetuity of its office was matter of revelation. " Hence 
 it comes," he says, " that the true Church can never be con- 
 cealed. From which follows that, which Our Lord says in 
 the Gospel, ' a city which is set on an hill cannot be hid.'" 35 
 And again : " Sion, the city which is set on a mountain, has 
 this certain sign, that it cannot be hidden. Therefore, it is 
 known to all nations." 36 "Think upon the seed of Abraham 
 which in God's Testament is said to increase as the stars of 
 Heaven, and as the sand upon the sea-shore, and then ven- 
 ture to think whether for some few hidden tares in Africa so 
 copious a harvest can have been able to perish from the soil 
 of the world." 37 Then referring to the case of St. Cyprian, 
 who, he says, had not separated himself as the Donatists had, 
 
 32 In Psalm, Ixxxviii. 38. p. 1160. 
 33 Horn, in illud vidi Dominum, iv. 2. vol. 6. p. 122. 
 
 34 Sermo. Ixi. Bib. Patr. vii. 893. 
 
 35 "Ut Ecclesia vera neminem lateat." Cont. Lift. Petil ii. 74, 158. vid. 
 also De Unit. 72. 
 
 36 Id. 239. vid. Con. Crescon, iii. 71. 37 Con. Crescon. iii. 79. 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 43 
 
 he adds, " The Church stands forth manifest and conspicuous 
 to all nations, as a city set on a mountain, which cannot be 
 hid, through which Christ reigns from sea to sea, and from 
 the river to the ends of the earth." " It was so much the 
 object of Cyprian's eulogy, that he speaks of it as besprinkled 
 with the Lord's light, and as extending its rays throughout 
 the world." 38 u This Church, which was matter of promise in 
 Holy Scripture, and which now is afforded us throughout the 
 world, Cyprian loved, and held to." 39 
 
 Such is the view of the Church's authority, which is given 
 to us by those to whom we owe the Canon of Scripture. 
 They maintain that the Church is the interpreter of doctrine, 
 by reason of that indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which is 
 the very condition of its existence ; and that this circum- 
 stance renders its judgment final and without appeal. And 
 that such an office, was to pertain to it in perpetuity, they 
 gather from the promises of Holy Writ. But before passing 
 to another subject, it will be well to notice some difficulties, 
 by which these conclusions will seem to be embarrassed. 
 
 It may be thought that this view of things is derogatory 
 to the dignity of Holy Scripture, and an infringement on the 
 rights of individual conscience. On this subject something 
 has been said in another place, 40 where it was shown that the 
 existence of Church-authority is in perfect harmony with the 
 principles of the Christian Dispensation, and results from that 
 law of the New Creation, whereby the natural reason of the 
 children of Adam has been exalted into the higher wisdom 
 of the family of Christ. And this was shown to be so far 
 from being derogatory either to scripture or reason, that it has 
 been found, in fact, to be the real means of preserving the one, 
 and of perfecting the other. For reason has attained its 
 most perfect growth, where a central authority has restrained 
 its eccentricities ; and Scripture has been most reverenced by 
 those, who admitted that its custody was with the Church. 
 Here, then, it will be enough to make a few remarks of a more 
 practical character. 
 
 The objection that Church-authority interferes either with 
 
 88 Con. Crescon. lib. ii. 45. 39 Id. 42. 
 
 40 Doctrine of the Incarnation, cap. xiv. 
 
44 THE NATURE OF 
 
 the respect which is due to the Inspired Volume, or with 
 its use, arises entirely from a forgetfulness that the real 
 question is, not what is the law, but who is the judge. The 
 laws of the land do not lose their validity, because one judge 
 succeeds another; why should the laws of God suffer detriment, 
 because their appointed interpreter is not individual reason, 
 but the collective wisdom of the Body of Christ ? It is idle, 
 therefore, to allege passages from the ancient writers, in which 
 they insist either on the perfection of Holy Scripture, or on 
 its capacity to render those who duly study it, wise unto sal- 
 vation. For the question is, who is the right student 1 the 
 failure is not alleged to be in the rule, but in its interpreter. 
 And the same writers who know not how to express them- 
 selves highly enough respecting the perfections of Scripture, 
 are as express as possible in declaring that it cannot be 
 studied rightly without reference to the guidance of the 
 Church. " They all quote Scripture," says St. Hilary of the 
 heretics, " but without the sense of Scripture ;" 41 for " those 
 who are out of the Church cannot have any understanding 
 of the Divine word." 42 "In this matter," says St. Augustin, 
 " we hold the truth, when we do that which has been decided 
 upon by that Church Universal, which is commended to us 
 by the authority of the Scriptures themselves ; that since 
 sacred Scripture cannot be erroneous, he who fears to fall 
 into error through the obscurity of this question, may con- 
 sult about it that same Church which Holy Scripture unam- 
 biguously points out to him." 43 The Holy Apostles, we may 
 well suppose, discerned the whole scope and relations of the 
 covenant of God : the secrets of His unknown kingdom were 
 laid open to them ; but they applied themselves to the cor- 
 rection of existing evils ; and they fed their converts with 
 milk or with meat, according to their need. Hence, many 
 points of great moment did not become subjects of de- 
 tailed instruction in the Apostolic writings. We hear little 
 about the existing office and duties of the Christian Priest- 
 hood ; and nothing respecting that interference of kings and 
 governments in the affairs of the Church, which is now a 
 
 41 Ad Constant, ii. 9. p. 1230. 4Z In Matthseam, xiii. 1. p. 675. 
 
 43 Cont. Cresc. i. 33. 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 45 
 
 subject of so much perplexity. For the one was not disputed 
 apparently in the age of the Apostles, and the other had not 
 yet commenced. On such points, then, we may argue from 
 the principles which have been laid down in Holy Writ, and 
 we may draw inferences from the allusions which have been 
 made to them. But who is to judge the fairness of our in- 
 ferences, and the cogency of our arguments ? Is it the pri- 
 vate reason of men, or the Divine Wisdom speaking through 
 the Church ? Whichever judge we take, it is plain that the 
 authority of the law remains unaltered. " The sacred Scrip- 
 tures themselves are of no use unless you understand them 
 rightly. For all heretics, who admit them to be of authority, 
 appear to themselves to follow them, when they rather follow 
 their own errors ; and it is not, therefore, because they con- 
 temn the Scriptures, but because they misinterpret them, 
 that they are heretics." 44 For " the Scripture does not con- 
 sist in reading certain words, but in understanding them." 45 
 
 But, then, it may be said, this is to dethrone human reason, 
 which God has given to every man as his guide in the deter- 
 mination of truth. Now it is not disputed that reason has 
 its functions : reason is supreme in things natural, and it is 
 the guide which leads us to that higher Teacher, by whom 
 we are instructed in things divine. But it cannot, surely, be 
 maintained that a man's own reason ought always to be con- 
 fided in, even by himself. Is it ever made a ground of 
 complaint, that the private reason of the people of England 
 is interfered with by the decisions of the Courts of West- 
 minster *? Yet many a law would be interpreted differently, 
 if men were left to apply it by individual reason to their own 
 case. But that laws may not be a mere mockery, it has 
 been found necessary that there should not only be a statute- 
 book, according to which justice should be administered, but 
 a judge to administer it. Now, if men are admitted to be 
 partial in deciding for themselves things earthly, why should 
 they be supposed infallible in interpreting things divine ? 
 
 Further : If it is inconsistent with reason to allow of a judge 
 of faith, it is inconsistent with it also to allow of a revelation. 
 For is not our reason interfered with by the fact, that God 
 
 44 St. Aug. Ep. cxx. 13. 45 St. Jerom. ad. Lucif. vol. iv. 2, p. 360. 
 
46 THE NATURE OF 
 
 spoke once, as really as it is by the fact, that He speaks 
 always ? It requires to be proved, of course, that God has 
 given His Church " authority in controversies of faith," and 
 grounds for believing it have already been adduced ; but if 
 this fact be rejected as an infringement on the independence 
 of human reason, why should we not also reject revelation at 
 large ? 
 
 But it may be asked again, if Church-authority be indeed 
 so weighty, how came Our Lord and His Apostles to reject 
 that of the Jewish Church ? For they disregarded the judg- 
 ment of the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat "in Moses's seat" 
 as his official representatives. But it is not the judgment of 
 every Society which is to be accepted, but only the judgment 
 of that particular Society, which makes up the Body, and 
 is instinct with the Spirit of Christ. Now to all this the 
 rulers of the Jewish Church had no claim. As Adam's body 
 consisted of inert matter till God breathed into it the breath 
 of life, so the very College of Apostles had no claim to the 
 gift of guidance till the day of Pentecost. Therefore, did 
 they complete their own number by lot, and not by election. 
 Much less could the chiefs of the ancient Covenant assert for 
 themselves a prerogative, which belongs specifically to the 
 New. No doubt the Jewish authorities possessed certain 
 powers, which were recognized by Our Lord, and had been 
 committed to them by Moses. But these powers did not 
 grow out of the constitution of their body, but depended 
 upon express enactment ; and they related rather to that 
 legal superintendence which pertained to the Theocracy, than 
 to the interpretation of doctrine. That their authority in 
 this respect should have been superseded by Our Lord's, is 
 only a part of a wider question, which is not free from diffi- 
 culty. For was not the Law of Moses, in fact, superseded 
 by its fulfilment in Christ? So that the rejection of the 
 Jews might seem to have arisen from their attachment to the 
 Mosaic ritual; and how could this be a fulfilment of those 
 predictions of Deuteronomy, which were denounced against 
 its abandonment 1 It may be replied, that if the Jews had 
 obeyed the Law of Moses more perfectly, they would have 
 perceived that Our Lord was "that prophet" of whom their 
 
THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY. 47 
 
 Lawgiver spoke. And the same thing which is true of the 
 people is true of their rulers. They, too, had they used 
 their authority more properly, would have accepted Him, of 
 whom they were the unconscious delegates. But that their 
 office differed wholly from that which He conferred on His 
 disciples, is obvious from the different manner of its appoint- 
 ment. The commission which Moses gave was in writing ; 
 and its solemn ratification before his death prescribes the 
 exact limits of the system which he established. There was 
 nothing like the institution of a body, which succeeded to 
 peculiar powers from the very frame of its constitution. And 
 there are obvious reasons for the difference. For the Law of 
 Moses was a republication of natural religion, accompanied 
 by a complicated ritual, which might sever his people from 
 all other nations, and supply a typical prediction of the 
 coming of Christ. But it did not enter into those deep 
 mysteries respecting the nature of God and the nature of 
 man, which have been revealed to the Church. Its most 
 important statements related to the obligations of con- 
 science, or led to the future actions of the Word made flesh. 
 On them, therefore, we find a continual advance in the 
 discernment of Jewish teachers, as we rise from Samuel 
 to the Psalmist, or the Evangelical Prophet. So, too, the 
 writers of the Apocrypha show knowledge respecting a future 
 state, which implies an advance in the mind of the nation. 
 But all this differs greatly from those majestic conceptions 
 respecting the Blessed Trinity, and that wide opening into 
 the mysteries of grace, which were reserved for the final 
 Revelation. If Judaism, then, did not supply the same au- 
 thoritative principle of guidance, which has since been ex- 
 hibited, it must be remembered, that she did not deal with 
 the higher mysteries of Theology : she had her pathetic 
 Psalms and her inspired Prophets, but the Eucharistic Lit- 
 urgies and the Creed of St. Athanasius are the heritage of 
 the Church. 
 
48 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, THE MEDIUM OF CHUBCH- 
 AUTHORITY. 
 
 THE Church's existence has been shown to result from 
 Christ's coming in the flesh. For it is no factitious institu- 
 tion, depending for its perpetuation upon arbitrary rules, but 
 an organized body, which derives life from union with its 
 Incarnate Head. And hence arises the extent and perpetuity 
 of its office as a witness to doctrine. For its power to judge 
 is not an accidental character with which it is invested, but a 
 function of that life which is the condition of its being. We 
 must now consider what means it has pleased God to be- 
 stow upon it for the discharge of its trust ; what organs it 
 possesses, what is the arrangement of its frame. For it 
 would be a contradiction to suppose that an institution was 
 founded by God for some great purpose, but left destitute of 
 any means by which that purpose should be attained. Every 
 machine has some fitness for the work assigned to it ; much 
 more, then, a machine of which "the Maker and Builder" was 
 God." 
 
 But before entering upon this subject we must retrace our 
 steps, and consider somewhat more fully what is meant when 
 the Church is called an organized Society. Hereby she is dis- 
 tinguished from all such institutions as arise merely from the 
 voluntary association of individuals, who combine because 
 their inclination leads them, and may separate as readily 
 as they unite. Whereas an organized society is one which 
 has grown into shape through the operation of some fixed 
 law ; the parts are united by an external bond, and cannot be 
 
THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, ETC. 49 
 
 dissevered without its disruption. Of this sort is pre-emi- 
 nently the society of mankind ; it has its bond of association 
 in that natural order of relationship, which follows from our 
 descent from a single parent ; it is the indefeasible law of our 
 being ; God " has made of one blood all nations of the earth.'' 
 And even the tie of separate nationality falls in a measure 
 within the same rule. For national union has its root in that 
 division of languages, which was imposed as an external re- 
 straint upon the self-sufficiency of mankind. True, political 
 divisions have not always respected this principle of demar- 
 cation ; but the difference of language first occasioned the 
 divergence between different races ; it has given fixedness to 
 those varieties of national character which have been pro- 
 duced by climate, circumstances, or institutions; and thus 
 has given birth to those distinctions, which have gone on 
 increasing ever since " the nations" were " divided in the 
 earth after the flood." Thus does national distinction re- 
 semble that which obtains among the subordinate species of 
 the same class of animals ; it may be effaced by the fusion of 
 races, but to each individual it is an external and unalter- 
 able tie. And, therefore, does such union engender a pecu- 
 liar character, which reflects itself in the institutions of dif- 
 ferent states. 
 
 Now that the natural associations of mankind have had 
 their origin in creation and language, renders it probable that 
 the new law of the Gospel was designed to initiate some 
 analogous institution. For its introduction was built upon 
 two circumstances, which bear distinct reference to these two 
 great antecedents in human history. The gift of Pentecost, 
 whereby the Church was quickened into actual life, was the 
 counterpart of the division of tongues ; and thereby has the 
 spiritual Jerusalem become an exact antithesis to Babel. 
 And the elements of the new kingdom received their original 
 being through that re-creation of humanity in Christ, whereby 
 Our Lord became the last Adam. These two events, then 
 the re-creation of humanity through the taking of the man- 
 hood into God, and the reunion of mankind in the oneness of 
 the Spirit might be expected to lead to some association as 
 permanent as nationality or descent. Such, then, must be 
 
 E 
 
50 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 the law whereby men are united as members in the Body of 
 Christ. For this is that organized institution which answers 
 to the natural associations of mankind : the members of 
 Christ answer to the seed of Adam : Christ is incarnate in 
 history, because He was incarnate in His Flesh. " For He 
 is Head over all things to the Church ; which is His Body, 
 the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." 
 
 Let us dwell somewhat on the meaning of these wondrous 
 words. Our Lord was not complete without a body : His 
 Infinite Godhead found itself abridged without this addition 
 through the infinity of His love, not the deficiency of His 
 nature. To supply this want did He take our flesh of the 
 substance of His Virgin Mother, and made that nature, 
 which He had created, a part of Himself. But neither was 
 His Manhood complete without further addition ; He needed 
 to take into it all Christians, that the end for which He had 
 assumed it might be absolutely reached. Humanity had 
 been originally exhibited in the person of Adam. But some- 
 thing more was contemplated by its Maker ; His promise of 
 " dominion over all the earth" implied the multiplication of 
 the species ; the principle of humanity must reproduce itself; 
 it must take up fresh matter from the earth, and mould it into 
 a multiplicity of human limbs. So has it gone on ever since ; 
 Adam has multiplied himself in the types of his being ; the 
 impulse is still extending ; the wave grows larger as it spreads ; 
 and a greater measure of the dust of the earth is now organized 
 in human forms than at any previous period. This is effected 
 through the operation of two laws, birth and nourishment. 
 By the first new candidates are brought upon the stage ; the 
 second clothes them with strength. And the same happens 
 in respect to Christ's Body. Since it cannot do without us, 
 since it needs to take fresh members into its constitution, 
 therefore, have two means been provided, analogous to the laws 
 of birth and nourishment, whereby the growth of its orga- 
 nization might be produced. The first is that ordinance of 
 Baptism, which answers to natural birth. For " thus does 
 Christ generate in His Church through His priests. And so 
 the seed of Christ, that is, the Spirit of God, gives forth 
 through the hands of the priest the new man received 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH- AUTHORITY. 51 
 
 through the birth of the Font." l The second is that Holy 
 Eucharist, which not only nourishes individuals by bestowing 
 upon them the Body of Christ, but likewise augments the 
 Body 2 of Christ, by the assimilation of those living elements 
 of which it is compounded. For in this sacrament that which 
 is bestowed is Christ's Natural Body, which is given to each 
 receiver under the form of bread and wine ; but that which is 
 built up is Christ's Body Mystical, which grows by this per- 
 petual communication of Himself. Thus do these two laws 
 produce that effect of which St. Paul speaks ; the perpetual 
 addition of His members is the complement which Our Lord 
 has been pleased to render necessary to the full purpose of 
 His Incarnation in the flesh ; thus does He " see His seed," 
 and like our first parent, assimilate ta Himself materials, 
 which may be moulded into the organization of the primary 
 type. So that Christ's members are indeed the "fulness of 
 Him that filleth all in all ;" they are bound to Him by that 
 actual incorporation, which renders them part of Himself: 
 they are a members of His Body, from His flesh and from His 
 bones." And, consequently, they are plainly bound to Him 
 by an actual union ; as strong as that of the old, must be the 
 relation of the new nature ; the latter also must depend upon 
 law, and not merely upon consent ; there must be a real life 
 in this society, which must maintain the coherence of all its 
 parts. " The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last 
 Adam was made a quickening Spirit." The society to which 
 the first man gave birth is amenable to natural observation, 
 and sense and reason assure us of its existence ; but since the 
 second depends upon that divine teaching which is given 
 through the Gospel, its evidence is through revelation and its 
 acceptance by faith. And hence have all following genera- 
 tions been pledged by their forefathers in the faith, to " be- 
 lieve in one Catholic and Apostolic Church." 
 
 1 Ex his nuptiis Christiana plehs nascitur, veniente desuper spiritu Domini. 
 Atque ita Christi semen, id est, Dei Spiritus novum hominem alvo matris 
 agitatum, et partu fontis exceptum, manibus Sacerdotis effimdit, fide tamen 
 pronuba. S. Parian, de jBaptis. Bib. Pat. iv. 318^ 
 
 2 Dominus noster Jesus Christus vult pasci ministerio servorum suorum, hoc 
 est in suum corpus quasi mactatos et manducatos transferre credentes. S. 
 Aug. Quces. Evan. ii. 39. 
 
52 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 Such, then, is the nature of the Christian Society ; this is 
 the thing intended, when it is maintained, as in the preceding 
 chapters, that the Body of Christ is an organized ivliole. But 
 what was this Society designed to effect ? What were the 
 ends and objects of that Gospel Kingdom, which Our Lord 
 proposed to Himself to set up ? They are stated in sum at 
 the opening of the last Gospel : " the Law was given by 
 Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." This 
 twofold object, to communicate grace, and to witness to truth, 
 was stated also by Our Lord before Pilate, and by St. Paul 
 in his chief Epistle. To Pilate Our Lord stated the more 
 external portion of His office, to " bear witness to the truth :" 
 to the Romans St. Paul explains its interior operation to be 
 " the power of God unto salvation." " For if any man have 
 not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." These two main 
 effects, then, were to be produced by the institution of that 
 society, which arose through the extension of the Body of 
 Christ. And to effect them required no little wisdom, con- 
 sidering the difficulties which were opposed to its advance. 
 For the world was already occupied by the societies to which 
 the principles of nature had given birth. And though Our 
 Lord declared that His Kingdom was " not of this world," and 
 implied that the several nations of the earth should exist till 
 His final return, yet Daniel's vision indicated that there would 
 be a certain resemblance between the Fifth Empire, and those 
 by which it had been preceded. Like them it was to be an 
 actual government or kingdom upon earth, implying, there- 
 fore, a system of law, and the relation and obedience of its 
 several parts. Since it was to co-exist, then, with other 
 forms of society, and not destroy them; to gather in all 
 mankind, but not do away with those institutions in which 
 every individual had already his place ; it must in some way 
 interpenetrate the existing mass without displacing it, as light 
 pervades glass, or the galvanic shock the material by which 
 it is communicated. 
 
 Here, then, lay the great difficulty of the task. For would 
 not these several governments, by which the world was al- 
 ready possessed, be jealous of such an aggression? Would 
 they not denounce as anti-national the attempt to unite their 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHUKCH-AUTHORITY. 53 
 
 subjects into a new association, which should take precedence 
 of all hereditary attachments 1 This was the very ground of 
 the Pagan persecutions, and suggested itself naturally enough 
 to each patriotic lover of his several country. Every nation 
 on the earth had its hereditary religion, which was associated 
 in common with the dearest recollections of its inhabitants. 
 It was much to part with this ; but still more to allow a new 
 society, which professed to derive its root from foreign sources, 
 to spread silently and secretly through the mass of the com- 
 munity, and associate men in a new form of citizenship. For 
 this was not only an innovation on the national belief, but an 
 assault upon the very principle of nationality. And, there- 
 fore, it appeared at variance with the original constitution of 
 society, in which national union was the shape which Provi- 
 dence had assigned to the relations of mankind. 
 
 Again : If the hostility of governments was to be feared in 
 the commencement, there was not less danger in the issue 
 from their friendship. For suppose the principles of the 
 Church to leaven the mind of a people, till they had not only 
 expelled its old superstition, but formed the standard of its 
 faith and morals. Suppose not only that all its citizens had 
 become members of the Church, but that the maxims of the 
 Gospel had been allowed to become political axioms in the 
 land. In such a case the Church and State would so exactly 
 coincide, that they would come to be looked upon as iden- 
 tical. Those who bore rule, therefore, in one, would proba- 
 bly be selected to bear rule in the other. So that the State 
 would be absorbed by the Church, or the Church by the 
 State, because the one left no room for the existence of the 
 other. Would there be any evil, it may be said, in such an 
 arrangement ? For the Church's power of transmitting grace 
 might be preserved, though it was intrusted to persons who 
 were charged also with secular offices. But how could her 
 office of witnessing to the truth be maintained 1 For the 
 rulers of a nation must of necessity be affected by the national 
 will, and cannot preserve that independence of local influ- 
 ences, which is essential to the guardianship of Catholic 
 truth. We may see an instance in the case of the Bishop of 
 Rome, whose position as an Italian prince must interfere at 
 
54 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 times with his relations to the Episcopate, of which he is a 
 member. Of this circumstance, Ranke's history affords ex- 
 amples, and they would be more apparent if the Papal States 
 possessed a more popular government. Still more striking 
 instances are afforded by the Protestant States of Germany, 
 in which the temporal ruler has taken possession of the spiri- 
 tual power, and prescribes the faith and worship of his sub- 
 jects. So that it has become a motto, cujus est regio, illius 
 est religio. And a Prussian writer 3 of ability and earnest- 
 ness has lately told us, that the Church was an excellent in- 
 stitution in early times, and for the infancy of Christianity, 
 but that its proper course and order was to be swallowed up 
 finally in the State. He maintains the Church to have been 
 a necessary medium of education, till nations had attained to 
 that higher order of moral principles, which has now been 
 reached; but since Christian maxims have become predomi- 
 nant, and the civil rulers of the world have qualified them- 
 selves for interfering in things spiritual, by professing belief 
 in the Gospel, the duty of maintaining the truth has devolved 
 upon them ; and the scaffolding need not be retained, because 
 the building is completed. Thus apparently would he justify 
 the German Reformation : the functions, which once belonged 
 to the Kingdom of Christ, are now discharged by the several 
 nations, because the institutions of grace were meant to die 
 out, and to be succeeded by the institutions of nature. So 
 that it would seem as though the ancient creed ought to be 
 amended, and in place of a one Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church," we should express our belief in many uncatholic 
 and unapostolic nations. 
 
 Such were the difficulties which opposed the Gospel King- 
 dom, from the opposition, or the friendship, of the kingdoms 
 of the world. How should the new Society interpenetrate 
 the old ones, without coming into collision with them in its 
 youth, or being absorbed by them in its age I Those who be- 
 lieve that Christ had founded a Church, which was designed 
 
 3 This is maintained by Rothe, Die Anfange der Christlichen Kirche. His 
 conclusion is, that " the form under which the religious, or to speak more ex- 
 actly, the Christian Life in its completeness the religious, or to speak more 
 exactly, the Christian community in its completeness in a word, the com- 
 pleted Kingdom of God upon earth is realized, cannot be thought of as the 
 Church, but by all means only as the State." p. 61. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 55 
 
 to extend as widely as the earth, and to endure throughout 
 all time, will conclude that its constitution was so framed, as 
 to guard against these dangei's. And such a provision He 
 was pleased to make, by laying down as the law of its organi- 
 zation, that the same persons, who were individually the dis- 
 pensers of grace, should collectively be the witnesses to doctrine. 
 Through this simple arrangement, the Church both extended 
 itself in spite of the opposition of governments, and continues 
 to exist, notwithstanding their support. The first point was 
 secured through the simplicity and unobtrusiveness of the 
 means which were adopted. If the Apostles had been in- 
 vested with a power of government, in the same formal man- 
 ner, in which this office was committed to Moses, they must 
 have excited the immediate jealousy of the rulers of the 
 world : without a special miracle, the new society must have 
 been extinguished, by the destruction of its chiefs. But 
 when the Apostles went forth one by one to communicate to 
 individuals the gifts of grace, there was nothing to excite 
 jealousy. The mustard-seed escaped notice through its very 
 insignificance, till it had sprung up, and filled the earth. 
 " So is the Kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed 
 into the ground, and should sleep and rise night and day, and 
 the seed should spring and grow up he knoweth not how." 
 Against such an assault the masters of thirty legions could 
 not guard, any more than they could prevent the darkness of 
 night from being penetrated by the beams of day. The new 
 system had come to its maturity before they were aware of 
 its existence ; and suddenly " men cry that the state is beset, 
 that the Christians are in their fields in their forts in their 
 islands. They mourn as for a loss, that every sex, age, con- 
 dition, and now even rank is going over to this sect." 4 
 
 And as the first growth of the Christian Society was facili- 
 tated by the simplicity of that power, which was committed 
 to individual teachers, who having "freely received" must 
 " freely give ;" so was its continuance guaranteed by the cir- 
 cumstance that their office, as the witnesses to doctrine, was 
 bestowed upon them collectively. For this condition secures 
 the Christian society from those dangers, to which it would 
 * Tertullian, Apol. i. 1. 
 
56 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 otherwise be exposed, wheresoever its rulers are hampered by 
 the appendages of worldly greatness. So long as the prin- 
 ciple is maintained, that the custody of doctrine is a deposit, 
 which has been committed to them in common, the Church's 
 representatives in each several country, cannot adapt the one 
 unalterable faith to national prejudices or local influences. 
 The preponderance of race and institutions is balanced by 
 that Catholic element, which speaks in the consent of the 
 Church throughout the world. For a season, indeed, the 
 Church was almost conterminous with the Roman Empire ; so 
 that this principle may have seemed scarcely powerful enough 
 to save it from corruption. But it had so recently existed as 
 an independent body, that its new governors could hardly 
 pretend that they had conferred upon it its commission ; and 
 there can be no plausibility in such an opinion, now that it 
 extends through various continents, and interpenetrates the 
 heterogeneous states of modern Christendom. 
 
 We must show, then, that this was the system which it 
 pleased God to appoint: that the custody of doctrine was 
 lodged in the same hands, to which the dispensation of grace 
 was committed : but that the last was to be exercised indivi- 
 dually, while the former was a common trust, which apper- 
 tained in co-partnership to the collective whole. Now, so 
 long as the Christian system dwelt in its Head, it is obvious 
 that its several offices were united ; while Our Lord was upon 
 earth, the Christian dispensation centred in His Humanity ; 
 so that grace and doctrine dwelt together in His single Per- 
 son for the renewal of the world. " We beheld His glory, 
 the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace 
 and truth." And that which had dwelt perfectly in Him- 
 self, He bestowed in degree upon His Apostles. For "as 
 My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when 
 He had said this, He breathed on them, and said unto them, 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they 
 are retained." Here was something bestowed upon them 
 individually, and something as a common trust. The gift of 
 the Holy Ghost, from which they possessed those powers of 
 communicating grace, which they exercised both in person and 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 57 
 
 by deputy this was a separate endowment, of which each of 
 them became individually possessed. But the common com- 
 mission, the authority to represent their Lord, the trans- 
 mission of that one system, which Our Lord had commenced, 
 and which was now intrusted to their keeping this was a 
 federal trust, in which they all equally partook. And, there- 
 fore, so soon as the gift of Pentecost had given life to the 
 office, with which they were intrusted, we find the Apos- 
 tles showing that they were the inheritors of His commission, 
 who came to witness to the truth, and to impart spiritual 
 blessings. For, " with great power gave the Apostles wit- 
 ness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace 
 was upon them all." So that while individually they 
 exercised those spiritual functions, for which they were 
 ordained; they possessed among them that one deposit of 
 truth, with which they w r ere intrusted. 
 
 This trust, committed collectively and individually to the 
 College of Apostles, is expressed figuratively by St. John, 
 when he speaks of the one spiritual city as having " twelve 
 foundations ; and in them the names of the twelve Apostles 
 of the Lamb." And so St. Paul describes the one Christian 
 household, as " built upon the foundation of the Apostles and 
 Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone." 
 Its reference to the transmission of the one common doctrine 
 is evidenced by the choice of St. Matthias into the vacant 
 " ministry and apostleship," in order that he might be " or- 
 dained to be a witness" to Christ. And St. Paul, who was 
 called after the rest into co-partnership in this common com- 
 mission, received the " Gospel" which he preached " not 
 after man," nor " of man," " but by the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ." Thus was the transmission of doctrine intrusted to 
 those, to whom, through their office of laying on of hands, the 
 government of the infant society was of necessity committed. 
 For since its extension depended on the giving or withhold- 
 ing of the offices of the ministry, to decide whom they should 
 trust, and on what principles, must have rested with the 
 Apostles. So that St. Peter speaks of them as possessing 
 the power of making laws in the infant Church : he bids his 
 brethren to "be mindful" "of the commandments of us, the 
 Apostles of the Lord and Saviour." 
 
58 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 It is by reference to this principle that we must under- 
 stand the proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem. When 
 " the Apostles and elders came together for to consider," the 
 inferior members of the Church cannot have had the same 
 voice in questions of doctrine with those inspired Apos- 
 tles, to whom Our Lord had committed the commission, 
 which He had received from His Father. Indeed, on natural 
 principles this would have been unreasonable, for while the 
 whole College of Apostles were gathered together, those of 
 an inferior order, and the lay brethren, were either dwellers 
 at Jerusalem, or consisted of the few who had come up from 
 Antioch. How could these undertake to make laws which 
 should be binding on the collective Church ? So far, indeed, 
 as the decision was a concession on the part of the 
 Jewish Christians to their Gentile brethren, there was a 
 fitness in gaining the concurrence of those, whose acquies- 
 cence might otherwise have been doubtful. But the " elders 
 and brethren" at Jerusalem could only express their indi- 
 vidual consent, and not pledge the general will. More than 
 this they could not do, unless God had delegated them to 
 command, or men to assent. Whereas, the commission with 
 which the Apostles had been endowed, gave them authority 
 to speak as the collective body, to which had been intrusted 
 the government of the Church. 
 
 The office, then, which Our Lord committed to the Apos- 
 tles was to represent Himself : " I appoint unto you a King- 
 dom, 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." So has their 
 office been always understood in the Church : " the Apos- 
 tles," says the Church's earliest writer, " were put in trust 
 with the Gospel for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus 
 Christ by God." 5 And they are perpetually spoken of by 
 later authorities as " the foundations, in which the faith of 
 the Church was laid," 6 as "the chiefs of our system, and the 
 leaders of the Christian doctrine." 7 But this office, which 
 had been bestowed upon the Apostles, could not be designed 
 
 5 St. Clem, ad Cor. 42. St. Jerome on Ps. 86. 
 
 7 Id. in Jovin. i. 14. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 59 
 
 to pass away with themselves. For they were but one link 
 in a chain, which time was not to outreach. Our Lord had 
 commissioned them to be His witnesses even to " the utter- 
 most part of the earth," and had pledged to them His Pre- 
 sence " even to the end of the world." The whole earth was 
 filled by that Mountain which was beheld by Daniel. The 
 prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah refer to a covenant and a 
 blessing, which should never pass away. 8 These things could 
 not be accomplished unless persons were appointed to carry 
 on that work, which had been commenced by the Apostles. 
 
 Now, there is sufficient evidence both that their office was 
 transmitted to others, and that their successors, though not 
 endowed with that individual inspiration, which the Apostles 
 had possessed, yet exercised the same superintendence singly 
 in the government of the Church, and collectively discharged 
 the same function in witnessing to its doctrine. For besides 
 those two inferior orders of Presbyters and Deacons, on which 
 had devolved the ordinary duties of the Ministry under the 
 Apostles, distinct mention is made of a higher class of officers, 
 to whom the Apostles before their death bequeathed the gov- 
 ernment of the Churches. To this circumstance St. Irena3us, 
 a most competent witness, bears full testimony. He appeals 
 to the notorious fact that the body of Bishops were the repre- 
 sentatives of the Apostles, as the best proof that the inheri- 
 tance of doctrine had not been impaired. " We can number 
 up those, whom the Apostles appointed Bishops in the 
 Churches, and their successors down to ourselves." " For 
 if the Apostles had possessed any hidden mysteries, which 
 they were wont to teach apart and secretly to the perfect, 
 they would have communicated them to those more especially, 
 to whom they committed the care of the Churches." 9 And 
 Tertullian in like manner represents it as the criterion of ortho- 
 dox Churches, that they should be able to " unfold the roll of 
 their Bishops, so coming down in succession from the begin- 
 ning, that their first Bishop had for his ordainer and predeces- 
 sor some one of the Apostles, or of Apostolic men, so he were 
 one that continued stedfast with the Apostles. For in this 
 
 8 Vide Jer. xxxi. 31, as explained Heh. viii. 8. Is. xxx. 20; Ixvi. 22, &c. 
 
 9 iii. 3, 1. 
 
60 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 manner do the Apostolic Churches reckon their origin ; as the 
 Church of Smyrna recounteth that Polycarp was placed there 
 by John ; as that of Rome doth that Clement was in like man- 
 ner ordained by Peter. Just so can the rest also show those, 
 whom being appointed by the Apostles to the Episcopate, 
 they leave as transmitters of the Apostolic seed." l ' And that 
 it was a distinct order to which this power was committed, 
 we know from the manner in which it is mentioned along 
 with the other two, not only by St. Clement 11 at the end of 
 the second century, but by St. Ignatius at its commencement. 12 
 The history, also, of St. Ignatius's martyrdom recounts how 
 " the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Churches of 
 Asia" 13 came forth to receive him on his way to Rome. 
 
 Now, to object that such a power as devolved upon the 
 Bishops would require some distinct charter in their favour 
 that an inheritance of so much importance could not have 
 passed to them without some more formal document is to for- 
 get that the very principle of the Church is to be a corporate 
 body, which must needs, therefore, have organs for trans- 
 mitting the gift of which it is the depository. For the 
 authority of which the order of Bishops was possessed, re- 
 sulted from the single fact, that in them lay the organization, 
 through which the life of the Body was continued. And the 
 circumstances of the time account for their silent accession 
 to the functions which they inherited. When Joshua suc- 
 ceeded to the rule of Moses, it was natural that the office 
 which had been borne by the one, should be transferred in 
 the most public manner to the other. The progress of a 
 conquering nation made it necessary that its chief should 
 have power of life and death over the whole people ; and the 
 notoriety with which this power was imparted, increased the 
 terror which it was desirable to diffuse among the surround- 
 ing tribes. We have, therefore, a recorded acknowledgment 
 on the part of his followers : " Whosoever he be that re- 
 belleth against thy commandment he shall be put to 
 death :" and he took care to make the law, which he ad- 
 ministered, known to the people : " there was not a word, 
 
 10 De Praescrip. 32. " Stromata, vi. 13. 
 
 12 Magnes. 6. Philad. 7. Trallian. 3. 13 Martyr. St. Ign. 3. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 61 
 
 which Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all 
 the congregation of Israel." But the Gospel Kingdom was 
 not to conquer by force, but by persuasion. To call attention 
 to the power which its rulers possessed, was inconsistent 
 with its purpose of interpenetrating the existing institutions 
 of the world. " The kingdom of God cometh not of obser- 
 vation ; neither shall they say, Lo here, or Lo there, for behold 
 the kingdom of God is among you." All which is requisite, 
 therefore, is to show that those, on whose agency its con- 
 tinuity depended, made provision for extending the system 
 which had been administered by themselves. And this is 
 abundantly proved by the manner in which the last surviving 
 Apostles filled up the offices of government. On the death 
 of St. James, the surviving Apostles assembled to appoint a 
 Bishop for the Mother-Church at Jerusalem ; 14 St. Peter pro- 
 vided his successsor at Rome ; 15 while St. John is not only 
 known to have left his disciple, St. Polycarp, as Bishop at 
 Smyrna, 16 but to have visited the adjoining provinces after his 
 return from Patmos to Ephesus, that he might choose clergy 
 and select Bishops. 17 Hence we find his disciple Papias 18 
 Bishop of Hierapolis, and Tertullian 19 refers to him as the 
 more immediate head of the Episcopal order. Had St. John 
 supposed that individuals were designed to make out their 
 religion for themselves, from that written law which was pro- 
 vided for them in Scripture, he would surely have given this 
 season to the work of collecting and authorizing its various 
 books ; his conduct, therefore, shows a belief that the Church 
 would continue to be guided by living teachers. And by 
 this means did it pass safely through that momentous crisis, 
 which attended the removal of its first founders ; so that 
 when Hegesippus travelled to ascertain its state, a few years 
 afterwards, he " held intercourse with many Bishops," and 
 " found everywhere one and the self-same doctrine." " And 
 men spoke of the Church as virgin, for as yet it was not cor- 
 rupted with vain words." 2 
 
 14 Euseb. iii. 11. 
 
 15 St. Iren. iii. 3. 3. as limited by Tert. de Praes. 32. 
 16 St. Jerome Cat. Scrip. 17. St. Iren. iii. 3, 4. 
 
 17 Euseb. iii. 23. 
 
 18 St. Iren. v. 33. 4. 19 Adv. Marc. iv. 5. 
 
 20 Euseb. iv. 22. 
 
62 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 The Episcopal order, then, succeeded to that care and 
 government of the Church, which in their day had belonged 
 to the Apostles. And that simple law, out of which had 
 grown the authority of the Apostles, will be found to have 
 given its character to that of their successors : the self-same 
 body, of which the members individually were the dispensers 
 of grace, was collectively the witness to doctrine. These two 
 functions belonged to the Bishops, and out of them grew all 
 their authority in the Church of God. 
 
 For there were two principles at work in every town or 
 district visited by the Gospel, of which the combined result 
 was manifested in that peculiar position which was occupied 
 by the successors of the Apostles. One of these lay in the 
 internal constitution of each portion of the Church ; the 
 other in the relation of each several portion to the whole. If 
 we turn to the first, we find that everywhere men were con- 
 scious of an impulse to associate themselves with those 
 societies, which rose up suddenly and simultaneously through- 
 out the world. St. Paul, in his first written Epistle, ex- 
 presses his feelings at that wonderful success, with which 
 God was pleased to favour him. " We thank God without 
 ceasing, because when ye received the Word of God which ye 
 heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it 
 is in truth the Word of God, which effectually worketh also 
 in you that believe. For ye, brethren, became followers of 
 the Churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus ; 
 for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, 
 even as they have of the Jews." St. Paul was in no doubt, 
 indeed, as to the cause of his success ; he attributes it to that 
 wondrous efficacy of God's Spirit, which alone could breathe 
 order and unity into the moral world. " Our Gospel," he 
 says, " came not unto you in word only, but in power." It 
 was as when the seeds of plants, which have lain dormant 
 during the cold of winter, are quickened into life by the 
 warmth of spring. For the long winter of heathenism had 
 passed away ; the Sun of Righteousness had arisen ; it was 
 the spring-time of the new creation : 
 
 " Ver illud erat, ver magnus agebat 
 orbis." 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 63 
 
 Just as plants, then, at this season have a power of assimilating 
 to themselves the inert materials of the earth, and of mould- 
 ing them into organic shapes, so had a Spirit gone forth 
 among the nations, which was everywhere displaying itself 
 in the forms of social life. It was a compelling efficacy, 
 which excited in turn the alarm and derision of the world. 
 " Though Celsus, or his Jew may jeer at it," says Origen, 
 " I will nevertheless affirm that many have approached the 
 Christian religion as though against their will ; a certain spi- 
 ritual power having suddenly changed their ruling principle 
 from hatred to the word, to a willingness to die for it." 21 
 Now in nothing was the effect of "this Spirit more remark- 
 able, than in the manner in which it united many wills into a 
 sacred unity, and absorbed all other ties in the fellowship 
 of the Church. The martyr Sanctus, write the Christians of 
 Gaul, withstood his torturers " so manfully, that he would 
 neither tell his name nor his nation, nor of what city he was, 
 nor whether bond or free, but to every question he replied, 
 * 1 am a Christian.' This stood in place of name, and city, and 
 race." 22 And this forgetfulness of all other ties, was accom- 
 panied by that intense attachment to those with whom their 
 new relationship connected them, which attracted the atten- 
 tion even of the heathen a See, how these Christians love 
 one another." So that they yielded ready obedience to the 
 Apostle's injunction, " that ye all speak the same thing, and 
 that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be per- 
 fectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same 
 judgment." 
 
 Now, since the actions of the Christian societies were acts 
 of worship and communion, since these gave expression to 
 their common thoughts, and compensated to them for so 
 many worldly sacrifices, it was impossible but that those 
 who presided in their public assemblies, and whose ministra- 
 tions were essential to their corporate existence, must hold a 
 high place in their regard. For the very life of a Christian 
 society lay in the functions which were thus discharged. The 
 Christians had no worldly power or temporal position ; the 
 only thing which they could give or refuse was communion in 
 21 Cent. Cels. i. 46. * Bus. v. 1. 
 
64 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 the offices of the Church. And hence grew up that intense 
 interest in one another, as members of a common body, and 
 especially in those who discharged the public functions of the 
 Church, which finds expression in the Epistles of St. Ignatius. 
 " All of you, receiving the same divine accordance of temper, 
 respect one another, and let no one think of his neighbour 
 according to the flesh, but love one another continually in 
 Christ Jesus." Such was to be the character of the people 
 over whom " the Bishop was to preside in the place of God, 
 and the Presbyters in the place of the Synod of the Apostles, 
 and the Deacons to be intrusted with the ministry of Jesus 
 Christ." 23 Thus did that new principle of affection and unity, 
 which God the Holy Ghost had infused into mankind, lead 
 to the building up in every district of a Christian Society, in 
 which each man's personal affections and interests attached 
 themselves to those who ministered among them in things 
 sacred. And this feeling had its focus in him, who was neces- 
 sarily the head and tie of the whole spiritual society, by reason 
 of that ministerial commission of which he was the centre. 
 
 Such was the Bishop's position as viewed from beneath ; 
 as it was the result and culminating point of those forces, to 
 which the Christian society owed its existence. The creative 
 love of God, reproducing itself on earth in the love of the 
 brethren, found in his person its especial centre of regard. 
 For to be in union with him was to be in union with all the 
 brethren, and " he that loveth not his brother whom he hath 
 seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?" So 
 that the Bishop was a sort of representative of the whole com- 
 munity, because in him centred all those ties, by which the 
 whole body was bound together. Thus the letter of the 
 Church at Rome to that at Corinth during the first century, 
 was in fact written by Clement, its Bishop, because he sup- 
 ported the person of the whole Church. Hence the ancient 
 rule, " the Church is in the Bishop, and the Bishop in the 
 Church." 2 * " If I in a short time," writes St. Ignatius to the 
 Ephesians, " have gained such intimacy with your Bishop, not 
 of an earthly, but a spiritual kind, how happy are you who 
 have the same perfect union with him as the Church has with 
 13 Ad Magnes. 6. u St. Cypr. Ep. Ixvi. 8. [Goldhorn.] 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 65 
 
 Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ with the Father, so that your 
 unity and concord is complete." 2 And so when those who 
 had been led into schism by Novatian returned to the Church's 
 communion, their confession was, " we are not ignorant that 
 God is one, that Christ Our Lord, whom we have confessed, 
 is one, that one is the Holy Ghost, and that there ought to be 
 one Bishop in a Catholic Church." 26 
 
 But this relation between Christians and their spiritual 
 rulers did not depend merely upon the feelings of individuals, 
 even though derived from a divine source. Besides those 
 causes of unity which resulted from the combining affection of 
 many brethren, the Church had its higher cause of oneness, 
 as the channel of those mysterious and ineffable operations, 
 whereby the One Head communicated Himself to His mem- 
 bers. " For 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." If the Bishop's office, then, result- 
 ed from those sympathies, which grew up from beneath ; it 
 depended, likewise, upon those graces, which were communi- 
 cated from above. It was not only the means whereby many 
 individuals united themselves into a whole ; but whereby also 
 they were put into relation with that greater whole, which 
 was Catholic and universal. For the Church was not a mere 
 democratic confederacy, having its principle of union in the 
 consent of mankind ; but it was the infusing into the world of 
 a supernatural life, by which many hearts were kindled into 
 flame. True, the light extended itself into the darkest re- 
 cesses, as the beams of the mid-day sun penetrate the deep ; 
 but the light had not its origin in any earthly source, but in 
 the parent luminary from which it was reflected. The Church 
 did not derive its existence from the consent or necessities of 
 mankind, but from the Incarnation of the Son of God. " Here- 
 in is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and 
 sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." As the 
 Gospel, then, had its origin in the Word made Flesh, so was 
 it a life which extended itself from Him to all members of His 
 Mystical Body. And, therefore, did it exist in the world as 
 25 Ad Ephes. 8. 86 Cyp. Ep. xlix. 2. 
 
 F 
 
66 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 one Body of life, and truth, and holiness, quickened by the 
 indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and perpetuated by the minis- 
 trations of His servants. In this work the Apostles had been 
 the first labourers, and through them did He, whom they had 
 seen Incarnate in the Flesh, become mystically Incarnate in 
 the congregation. " That which we have seen and heard," 
 St. John says, " declare we unto you, that ye also may have 
 fellowship with us ; and truly our fellowship is with the 
 Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." 
 
 This work, begun by the Apostles of the Lord, was per- 
 petuated by their successors. They became, in turn, the 
 spiritual fathers, through whom the Body of Christ was ex- 
 tended through the world. As Adam has multiplied himself 
 through all those families of mankind, in which his primary 
 type has been repeated, so the last Adam had his progeny 
 through the spiritual law of grace and the ministration of 
 sacraments. And thus might the chief minister of every 
 Church say, in some sort, with the Apostle, " though ye have 
 ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many 
 fathers ; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the 
 Gospel." For since the power of ordaining inferior ministers 
 lay in their chief, through him flowed that full stream of 
 grace which gave life to the whole Church through the sacra- 
 ments of the Gospel. Thus was the Bishop the medium of 
 relation with the universal Church ; through him the gifts of 
 grace and truth were extended from the Body to individuals ; 
 to be out of communion with him was to be separate from 
 that collective unity which had been sanctified by the taking 
 of the manhood into God. Epiphanius, in his book on here- 
 sies, records the "rash innovation" of one Zacchasus, 27 who, when 
 heresy and division had become rife in the Eastern Church, 
 separated himself from all Christian communion, and thought 
 to serve God alone. How could one who was thus separated 
 from the Body hold the Head? "Do not be deceived 
 brethren," writes St. Ignatius. " If any one follows a separa- 
 tist, he inherits not the kingdom of God. If any one walks in 
 another mind, he has nothing to do with the Passion. Be 
 diligent, therefore, to keep to the one Eucharist. For there 
 
 27 Adv. Haer. iii. 2, 13, vol. i. p. 1094. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 67 
 
 is one Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup whereby 
 we are united to His Blood ; one altar, as there is one Bishop, 
 with the Presbytery, and Deacons my fellow-servants, that 
 whatsoever you do, you may do according to God's will." 28 
 
 If the Bishop, then, was the centre of unity to each par- 
 ticular community, because in him the spiritual affections of 
 all had their focus, so still more because he was their organ of 
 communion with that Church Universal through which they 
 were united to Christ. For thus did the one Catholic Body 
 extend its ramifications throughout the world. Let us trace 
 the action of either principle, as it was exhibited in the early 
 growth of the Faith. This will show how completely the 
 whole organization of the Church was the result of that one 
 law, that those who were intrusted individually with the 
 communication of grace, were collectively the witnesses to 
 doctrine. 
 
 For though the Bishop's position in each Church was that 
 which the affection of the people would naturally confer upon 
 him, yet because he was their channel of communion with the 
 Church Universal, his rights did not stand simply upon their 
 concessions. The sole instrument of control which the early 
 Church possessed, was its power of admitting or excluding 
 from communion. This stood to it in place of all worldly 
 sanctions, and was a prerogative which it could not lawfully 
 forego. To be received into the Church by Baptism, to be 
 restored to its communion after penance, to be admitted to 
 the Holy Altar these were blessings which no earthly power 
 could obtain, but with which no one would dispense, who was 
 acquainted with their value. The complaint made by heretics 
 against the members of the Church was, that " without cause 
 they abstained from their communion." 2 Now, to admit, or 
 not to admit, men to such privileges, lay with the Bishop. So 
 was it by the very nature of the case ; for as none could 
 minister these blessings without Holy Orders, and none could 
 possess Holy Orders, save by his act, it was in his power to 
 cut off the stream through which blessings were communi- 
 cated. And as this power was inherent in his office by the 
 nature of the case, so did the Church's laws give it completely 
 
 28 Ad Philad. 3, 4. 29 S. Iren. iii. 15, 2. 
 
68 
 
 into his hands. For every Priest was the Bishop's deputy, 
 and was constantly responsible to his superior for those acts 
 which he was commissioned to perform. That power which 
 Our Lord bestows upon the Priesthood, he was supposed to 
 bestow through the perpetual intervention of the Bishops : 
 the Bishop is the immediate representative of Christ, but the 
 Priest is the representative of his Bishop. So that the first 
 holds immediately, but the second mediately only, from Our 
 Lord. This is why the Primitive Church always spoke of the 
 Bishops as in the place of Christ. St. Ignatius reminds the 
 Magnesians, that they have not to do merely u with the Bi- 
 shop himself, but with the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Bishop of all." 30 So again, Onesimus is the " Bishop in the 
 j#esA" 31 to the Ephesians ; and the Trallians 32 are bidden to 
 "be subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ," and to regard 
 him as " the Son of the Father ;" while the Priesthood are 
 compared to the Holy Apostles. 
 
 In accordance with these principles it was unlawful for any 
 Priest to baptize or minister the Holy Eucharist without the 
 Bishop's sanction. Not only were such offices originally con- 
 ferred by consecration, but their continuous performance re- 
 quired a perpetual delegation. " Let no one perform any of 
 those functions which relate to the Church independently of 
 the Bishop. Let that be esteemed a valid Eucharist, which 
 is ministered under the Bishop, or by some one to whom he 
 gives authority. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the 
 multitude be, as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic 
 Church. Neither Baptism nor the Eucharist may be minis- 
 tered independently of the Bishop." 33 The principle which 
 is thus expressed by St, Ignatius, is more fully explained by 
 Tertullian : " The right to confer" Baptism " lies with the 
 High-Priest, that is, the Bishop ; then, with Priests and 
 Deacons, yet not without the Bishop's authority, in order to 
 secure to the Church its due honour; the preservation of 
 which is the preservation of peace." 34 This rule, which is 
 attested by various writers, 35 of necessity lodged the whole 
 
 ?0 S. Ignat. ad Magn. 3. 31 Ad Eph. 1 . 82 Ad Trail. 2, 3. 
 
 33 S. Ign. ad Smyr. 8. 34 De Baptismo, 17. 
 
 35 S. Jerome cont. Lucif. S. Ambros. de Sac. iii. 1. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 69 
 
 discipline of the Church in the Bishop, because it left to him 
 the power of granting or withholding all spiritual rights. So 
 was it likewise with the reconciliation of penitents, which lay 
 of right with the Bishop, 36 and with inferior ministers only 
 by his concession. For those powers and privileges which 
 had been bestowed by Christ upon the collective society of 
 His disciples, were understood to have been conferred upon 
 it, in the persons and through the instrumentality of its 
 chiefs. Such had certainly been the case with the original 
 commission of Our Lord, which was bestowed upon the 
 Church at large through the medium of His Apostles. " Our 
 Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the 
 Church." 37 " They represented the person of the Church," 38 
 and the same, therefore, must have been the position of the 
 Bishops, by whom " they were succeeded, and who governed 
 the Lord's Church by the same power." 39 And so Firniilian 
 expresses it : " The power of remitting sins was given to the 
 Apostles, and to the Churches which they founded when 
 sent forth by Christ, and to the Bishops who have succeeded 
 to their place by ordination." 4 
 
 The principle, then, of the Ancient Church was, that the 
 whole power of government lay in the Bishop. He " repre- 
 sented the Person of Christ," and was " Christ's Vicar," 41 
 the Father of the people ; 42 there could be no Church without 
 him ; 43 to his care the souls of all the people were committed ; 44 
 the charge of Christ's Spouse had been intrusted to him ; 45 
 " all God's people stand on his side ;" 4e the very definition of 
 a Church was " a people united to its Bishop;" 47 those who 
 formed congregations in opposition to their Bishop were 
 adjudged heretics. 48 But this power was not derived from 
 arbitrary enactment ; it sprung out of that original constitu- 
 tion of the Church, which rendered her an organized body. 
 
 86 S. Cyprian. Ep. xviii. 1, xix. 2 ; Coun. of Elib. Can. 32. 
 37 Tertull. Scorp. 10. 38 S. Aug. de Baptis. iii. 23. 
 
 39 Id. vii. 84. 40 S. Cyp. Ep. Ixxv. 16. 
 
 41 S. Ambros. in I. Cor. xi. 10. 42 Papam Cyprianum, &c. Cyp. Ep. yiii. 1. 
 
 43 S. Ig. ad Trail. 3. 44 Apos. Can. xl. 
 
 45 Con. Car. sub. Cyp. Hard. i. p. 171. 
 48 S. Ign. ad Philad. 3. 4T S. Cyp. Ep. Ixvi. 8. 
 
 48 Con. Constan. Can. 6. Hard. i. 811. 
 
70 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 Its commencement was that commission to bind and loose, 
 from which spiritual authority was inseparable. " Thence 
 flows the ordination of Bishops, and the system of the 
 Church," says St. Cyprian, " through lapse of time and suc- 
 cession, in order that the Church may be built upon Bishops, 
 and its every act may be determined by them as its leaders." 41 
 Nor was this constitution without those checks, by which its 
 apparent absoluteness might be abated. There was first the 
 habit of consulting both with clergy and people on all matters 
 of moment, 50 and the voice or acquiescence of the people in 
 the appointment of their head. 51 But the main check was 
 drawn from that very source, which gave its weight to the 
 Episcopate the relation of each Bishop to the general body 
 of his brethren. Though the Bishop's office was the natural 
 expression of Christian unity, and gave utterance to that 
 longing for communion, which led men to unite themselves 
 into a social form, yet its power was derived from its relation 
 to the general body of the Church Universal, and from the 
 fact that the Bishop was the channel, through which the spiri- 
 tual gifts, which dwelt in the body at large, were dispensed 
 to individuals. Now, this circumstance put a limit upon his 
 power ; it made it essential that he should remain in commu- 
 nion with all his brethren ; he was exposed to their censure 
 if he did amiss ; he was liable to be cut off from them for 
 heresy; and might cease, therefore, to supply that link between 
 his own Church and the body of his brethren, on which the 
 very existence of his office was dependent. 
 
 For if the Bishop's position in his own Church was fixed 
 by the fact, that by him alone could spiritual power be trans- 
 mitted ; his position in the Church Catholic was no less fixed 
 by the fact, that it was only from the body of his brethren 
 that spiritual power could be received. As his relation to his 
 subordinate Priesthood grew out of his power of ordination, 
 so did the necessity of consecration link him to the general 
 body, from which his character was derived. The necessity 
 of receiving his commission from his brethren 52 bound him to 
 the same system and faith with them ; and thus secured the 
 
 49 Ep. xxxiii. 1. 50 Cyp. Ep. xiv. 4. 
 
 51 Id. Iv. 7. 2 S. Cyp. Ep. Ixvii. 5. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 71 
 
 transmission of the rule and order which they had inherited in 
 common. And this relation to the collective body was kept 
 up by various public acts, by which its continuous nature was 
 attested. The most solemn of these was the practice of 
 sending the Holy Eucharist from one Bishop to another, as 
 a sign of intercommunion a practice which is spoken of as 
 ancient by St. Irenaeus. 53 Then came the custom, that a new 
 Bishop announced his accession to his brethren by communi- 
 catory letters. Such letters are spoken of as in full use by 
 the Council at Antioch 54 in the third century ; and their 
 general employment is shown by the remark of a later 
 writer, 55 that to withhold them implied an intention of refus- 
 ing to communicate. The connexion thus commenced was 
 kept up by letters, written on any occasion of importance, as 
 a means of maintaining oneness of doctrine and discipline. 
 " Inasmuch as the body of the Catholic Church is one," writes 
 Alexander of Alexandria to his brethren, on the appearance of 
 Arianism, " it is fitting that we should write, and tell one 
 another what happens among each of us." 56 Such letters 
 were widely diffused (St. Cyprian says " through the whole 
 world," 57 ) and were the means of securing accordance, as the 
 case of Marcion shows, in the exercise of discipline/ 58 And 
 thus does St. Optatus speak of the " whole world" as " bound 
 together in the alliance of a single communion by the inter- 
 change of communicatory letters." 59 
 
 Nor was this intercourse by letter reserved for those 
 solemn occasions, when public occurrences required to be 
 communicated. It was a standing part of the ordinary dis- 
 cipline ; so that every individual felt his own Bishop to 
 be the channel, through whom he maintained his relation to 
 the Church Universal. For no one, whether lay or clerical, 
 could be admitted to communion at any place which he 
 visited, unless he brought with him commendatory letters : 60 
 and such letters could only be given by the Bishop of the 
 Diocese. 61 So that if the Bishop lost his place among his 
 
 53 Euseb. v. 24. M Euseb. vii. 30. 
 
 85 Liberati Brev. 17. as cited Bingham, ii. xi. 10. 56 Socrates i. 6. 
 
 87 Ad Anton. Ep. Iv. 4. 68 Cyp. Ep. xxx. 1. 59 S. Opt. c. Don. ii. 3. 
 
 60 Apost. Can. 12. 61 Cod. Eccl. Afric. 106. Con. Ant. Can. 8. 
 
72 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 brethren, he separated all his people from the communion ot 
 the faithful. But such a contingency was prevented by that 
 right of interference on the part of the body at large, by 
 which any heretical Bishop was liable to exclusion. The 
 most remarkable instance of its exercise in primitive times 
 was in the case of Paul of Samosata. But the principle was 
 of perpetual application : it proceeded on the supposition, 
 that the gift bestowed upon the Apostles, and which had been 
 inherited by their successors, had been given to them as a 
 body ; that no Bishop or Bishops could possess it apart from 
 the communion of the whole ; that as grace and truth lay in 
 Christ Our Lord, and afterwards in the college of Apostles, 
 so it had been inherited by the whole Episcopate as a trust, 
 in which they had a common share. 
 
 This- principle is laid down clearly by St. Cyprian : its 
 acceptance and effect is manifest from the weight attached 
 to General Councils. And it shows how the position of 
 individual Bishops, as well as that of the order at large, was 
 dependent on the fact, that the guardianship of doctrine had 
 been committed to it collectively. Cyprian was led to speak 
 on the subject by the disputes which arose respecting Nova- 
 tianism,and which especially distracted the African Church. 
 For though the greatest lights in antiquity arose in that 
 country, yet none was more troubled by differences in re- 
 gard to discipline. " The Episcopate," he says, " is a single 
 trust, administered collectively by many individuals." 6 He 
 does not mean that it is divided into many parts, each of 
 which has been assigned to a separate individual ; but that 
 it remains undivided as a common trust, for which many 
 individuals are respectively accountable. " For though we 
 are many pastors," he says, " we feed one flock ;" 63 and " we 
 all of us ought to watch for the body of the whole Church, 
 the members whereof are divided through every different 
 province." 64 And again: "As Christ has divided His one 
 Church throughout the whole world into many members, 
 so is there one Episcopate, which is extended through the 
 accordant multiplicity of many Bishops." 65 The same state- 
 
 62 " Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." De 
 Unitate, p. 180. 
 
 63 Ep. Ixviii. 5. "Ep. xxxvi. 4. " Ep. Iv. 20. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 73 
 
 ment occurs in the Apostolical Constitutions, where the 
 Apostles are represented as writing " for the confirmation of 
 you who are put in trust with the universal Episcopate ;" 66 
 and it accords with the assertion of St. Ignatius, that " the 
 Bishops who are appointed for all the ends of the earth," are 
 the expression of " the mind of Christ Jesus." G7 
 
 Since the Episcopate, then, was a trust, which was held by 
 many collectively, it followed that to depart from the federal 
 union was to lose all claim on this common trust. " He who 
 separates himself from the bond of the Church, and from the 
 Sacerdotal College, can neither have the power nor honour of 
 a Bishop, since he has chosen not to retain the unity and 
 peace of the Episcopate." 6 Such a person " cannot retain his 
 Episcopate, even though he has been made a Bishop," because 
 he " secedes from the body of his brother Bishops, and from 
 the unity of the Church;" 69 by "not holding the unity of 
 the Church," he " is put out of the body, and can have no 
 ecclesiastical authority." 70 The " Divine Scripture teaches 
 that the Church cannot be rent in parts or divided ; it main- 
 tains the unity of an indivisible and individual house." 71 For 
 its unity has its cause and exemplar in the unity of the Divine 
 Nature. 72 St. Cyprian shows us further, how this necessity 
 of accordance throughout the whole Episcopate, and this 
 responsibility of each for the acts of all, led to the mainte- 
 nance of the true faith throughout the world. " The wide 
 body of Bishops," he writes to St. Stephen, " is kept together 
 by the adhesion and bond of a mutual concord and unity, that 
 if any one of our college should attempt to introduce heresy, 
 and to rend and waste the flock of Christ, the others may 
 come to the rescue, and like helpful and kind shepherds may 
 gather the Lord's sheep into His flock." 73 Such instances of 
 interference, both in defence of truth, and in confutation of 
 error, occur constantly in early times. They followed from 
 the principle that no Bishop could be appointed without the 
 
 66 66. vi. 14. 67 o< titlffxovoi ol xctroi ra titfctrct opuQivrts. Ad Eph. 3. 
 
 68 Cyp. ad Anton. Ep. Iv. 20. 69 Id. 
 
 T0 Foris fiat necesse est nee habeat ecclesiasticam ordinationem. Id. Ep. 
 Iv. 7. 
 
 71 Cyp. ad Magnum. Ixix. 4. " Id. 5. 73 Ep. Ixviii. 3. 
 
74 
 
 concurrence of the whole existing body, and, therefore, that 
 its collective power was exercised individually by each of its 
 members. Thus Cornelius, of Rome, had been appointed " by 
 the testimony of his brother Bishops, whose whole number 
 throughout the world agreed with one accord." 74 And the 
 trust thus imparted was in its nature co-extensive with the 
 whole Church, however limited might be the sphere in which 
 its possessor was called to execute it ; as Nazianzen 75 observes, 
 that St. Cyprian was not Bishop only of Carthage or Africa, 
 but that his authority spread as widely as the Christian 
 name. And Symmachus illustrates its principle by the 
 highest of all comparisons : " as in the Blessed Trinity there 
 is one undivided power, so have various Bishops a single 
 priesthood." 76 
 
 The view which has been taken of the nature and origin of 
 Episcopal authority may be confirmed by two circumstances 
 in early Church History : first, the nature and origin of Coun- 
 cils ; secondly, the arguments employed against the Donatists. 
 It may surprise those who expect every part of the Gospel 
 scheme to be authorized by some direct texts of Scripture, 
 that an institution which has exercised so much influence as 
 the Councils of the Church, should be wholly unnoticed there ; 
 except so far as it derives incidental sanction from the assem- 
 bly of the Apostles at Jerusalem. But this is no difficulty 
 to those who suppose that the teaching of Scripture was given 
 as it was required, and, therefore, that the statement of cer- 
 tain general principles was all which in such a case could be 
 expected. For the existence and influence of Councils re- 
 sulted naturally from the principle, that the Bishop was the 
 connecting link between his own Church and the Church 
 Catholic ; and the means, therefore, whereby those gifts, 
 which are promised to the Church, as a whole, may become 
 available for the guidance of each individual. To collect the 
 writings of the Apostles and Evangelists into a single volume 
 showed a belief that their teaching was designed to form a 
 
 74 Ep. Iv. 7. 75 Orat. 18, vol. i. p. 281. [Paris, 1630.] 
 
 76 Ad Trinitatis instar, cujus, tina est atque individua potestas, unum per di- 
 
 versos Antistites sacerdotium. P. Symmach. ad JEon. Arelat. in Baronius A. D. 
 
 499. n. 36. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 75 
 
 whole, and to set forth a system of connected doctrines ; and 
 the same belief that they formed a whole, and had a certain 
 collective character, was exhibited by the Church's rulers, 
 when they combined themselves into a body, and gave united 
 decisions respecting the faith. 
 
 Such assemblies of Bishops appear to have been held from 
 the very earliest times. Tertullian speaks of Church assem- 
 blies, which he calls a " representation of the whole Christian 
 name," 7T as peculiarly prevalent in Greece, and he refers to 
 such assemblages, as having fixed the Canon of Scripture ; 78 
 but the discussions respecting the keeping of Easter 79 show 
 them to have been in existence at a still earlier period, and 
 as soon as the first half of the second century. Indeed they 
 were a necessary consequence of the Apostolical succession; 
 for as the Episcopal office was perpetuated by the assembling 
 of Bishops to consecrate, and as it was a special condition of 
 this act that a the things heard" should be committed " to 
 faithful men who" might " teach others also" therefore, meet- 
 ings or Synods of Bishops must have been held from the 
 first, and to maintain true doctrine must always have been 
 understood to be their purpose. Such a connexion between 
 the meeting of a Synod, and the consecration of a new Bi- 
 shop, is recognized by the Council of Antioch. 80 Now, since 
 the operation of Councils arose in this way from the constitu- 
 tion of the Church, and was not prescribed by any positive 
 law, they would naturally grow up without that definition 
 of their nature and rights, which is essential to such powers 
 as depend merely on positive enactment. The American Con- 
 gress and Courts have definite rights, which are limited by 
 precise rules, because they depend upon a written constitu- 
 tion : but the authority of the British Parliament has grown 
 insensibly out of the Anglo-Saxon principle, that taxes are 
 not to be levied without the consent of the nation. In like 
 manner, the authority of Councils is an acted commentary 
 upon the fact, that the Apostles left their power to the body 
 of Bishops as a common trust ; and the very absence of any 
 external enactment, coupled with the circumstance that such 
 
 " De Jejuniis. 13. 78 De Pudic. 10. ; 79 Euseb. v. 23. 
 
 80 Can. 19, Hard. i. 602. 
 
76 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 was the shape into which the Church's institutions everywhere 
 grew, shows that this principle was an organic law of her 
 existence. 
 
 For there are three points to be observed respecting Coun- 
 cils : first, that their decisions depended on the votes of the 
 Episcopal order; next, that they were possessed of a living 
 power, through the presence of the Holy Ghost, who was be- 
 lieved to dwell in them ; thirdly, that their authority varied 
 as they represented a smaller or greater part of the Bishops 
 of the Church, and was not final, unless it had the concur- 
 rence of the whole body. Now, these principles evidently 
 imply, that the interpretation of doctrine was lodged as a per- 
 petual trust in the Episcopate, but that the exercise of this 
 function implied the co-operation of all Bishops as a collec- 
 tive whole. 
 
 That the decision in Councils was given by the Bishops, 
 we know from the testimony of St. Cyprian. 81 Indeed, how 
 could it have been otherwise, since it was only through them 
 that there was anything like a representation of different 
 Churches. The Presbyters and the Laity of the vicinage 
 may have been present, as was certainly the case when each 
 Bishop assembled his own Diocese, 82 but what right had they 
 to settle matters, which required the consent of all their bre- 
 thren? Such a power would have implied a representation 
 of each class, as it exists at present in America ; but of this 
 the Primitive Church presents not a vestige. The Bishops, 
 therefore, who formed the principle of coherence, were the per- 
 sons by whom different Churches were naturally represented ; 
 they may have listened to the argument of others, as of Mal- 
 chion at Antioch, and of Athanasius at Nice, but the decision 
 lay with themselves. This was maintained even when the 
 Emperors entered the Church, a circumstance which evi- 
 dently involved the utmost danger to her independence. 
 Constantine formally conceded the decision of doctrine to the 
 Bishops at Nice, and so did the officers of Marcion, at Chal- 
 cedon. " When did you ever hear, most Gracious Emperor," 
 writes St. Ambrose, " that laymen have judged a Bishop in a 
 matter of faith 1 Are we so debased by flattery, as to be 
 
 81 Cyp. Anton. Ep. Iv. 5. 82 Id. xxx. 6. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHUKCH-AUTHOKITY. 77 
 
 unmindful of our priestly rights ; and that what God has 
 committed to me, I should suppose ought to be intrusted to 
 others ? If a Bishop ought to be taught by a layman, what 
 will follow? Then let a layman expound, and the Bishop 
 hear ; let the Bishop learn from a layman. But, surely, whe- 
 ther we look back to the Sacred Writings or to ancient times, 
 who is there that can deny, that in a matter of faith, I repeat, 
 in a matter of faith, Christian Emperors ought to be judged 
 by Bishops, and not Bishops by Emperors." 83 
 
 It was not till a comparatively late period, therefore, that 
 the Conciliar acts were ever attested by laymen: or even by 
 Presbyters except as representatives of their Bishops ; and 
 this lay attestation, when it was introduced, only gave a tem- 
 poral sanction to that which had been decided by the proper 
 spiritual authority. But that the decision of doctrinal ques- 
 tions lay entirely with the Bishops in Primitive times, is 
 absolutely certain. And their office on such occasions was not 
 merely that of witnessing what had been done or said in their 
 Churches in times past, but also that of meeting those new- 
 difficulties in faith or practice, which successively arose, by new 
 decisions. Not that Bishops in Council have any claim to 
 supernatural guidance, which is not bestowed upon Bishops 
 at large. Our Lord's promise, that when two or three are 
 gathered together, He will be in the midst of them, no doubt 
 sets forth a principle ; but it would apply as well to the confer- 
 ence of a few friends, antecedent to a Council, as to the more 
 formal discussions of the Council itself. The faith of Bishops 
 grew like that of other men, out of the hereditary system in 
 which they were educated, aided by their own study of Scrip- 
 ture, and of the arguments of their contemporaries. Thus fur- 
 nished, they came together, and gave judgment according to 
 the convictions by which they were severally possessed. It 
 made little difference, therefore, whether they staid at home, 
 and communicated their opinions by writing, or met together 
 and explained their sentiments viva voce. So that the judg- 
 ment of the Church diffusive was no less binding (as was 
 shown in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy,) than that 
 of the Church collective. But the proceedings of Councils 
 
 83 Epist. Class. 1. 21. 4. vol. ii. p. 861. The same thing is expressed hy Valen- 
 tiriian. Sozom. vi. 7. 
 
78 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 are important, as showing the nature of that authority, with 
 which the Episcopal order was supposed to be invested, as 
 proving it to be a living power of interpretation, capable of 
 grappling with new questions, and requiring to be listened to 
 in matters of faith. 
 
 The Church's mode of acting in such cases, and the use 
 and authority of her decisions, may be illustrated by the con- 
 duct of those whose standard is private judgment. For pri- 
 vate judgment is just as much a living principle, and gives 
 judgment as peremptorily respecting truth or falsehood, as 
 do the Church's rulers the only difference is, that in the 
 former case the reference is to human reason, in the latter to 
 divine grace. Every commentator on Scripture gives that 
 turn to its sacred words, which suits the general theory with 
 which he associates it : and his interpretations seem natural 
 or strained, according as his readers partake or not of the 
 same prepossessions. Is it not notorious that Anglican Com- 
 mentaries are approved in England, and Romish on the Con- 
 tinent : that the Laudian school is read by Churchmen, and 
 the Puritan by Dissenters ? Whence can this be, but that 
 each man's private judgment is the ultimate judge to which 
 these various shapes of the one original Revelation are sub- 
 mitted 1 Some will say, indeed, that the guide ought not to 
 be private reason, but that spiritual illumination, which may 
 be hoped for by individuals as well as by Churches. But 
 individuals cannot allege any promise of guidance, except that 
 which is made to all men who read Scripture, with prayer 
 for direction. Unless men are self-sufficient enough, then, 
 to assert that they are themselves inspired, while all others 
 are in darkness, they must either suppose that the Holy 
 Ghost leads different students to irreconcilable conclusions 
 a thing contrary to His office of guiding into all truth or 
 they must allow, that so long as there are contrarieties of 
 opinion, no individual can be sure that his conclusions stand on 
 a higher basis than his private reason. And the ground on 
 which the Church as a body claims that illumination, to 
 which individuals cannot pretend without arrogance, is be- 
 cause she has that specific promise of guidance, of which 
 they are not possessed. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 79 
 
 Such being the condition of the two parties, it is manifest, 
 however, in practice, that those who go by private judgment, 
 acknowledge a present authority as well as the others. For 
 common consent the opinion of mankind at large is as real 
 a standard of appeal as Church-authority. The only differ- 
 ence is, that it rests upon the principles of nature, not on 
 those of grace. And it likewise has its councils, by which at 
 different times and in different degrees it expresses its mind ; 
 but which are only an expedient for gaining an utterance of 
 that popular will, which has its root in the accordance of 
 mankind. For what are Parliaments, or Scientific Societies, 
 but councils which express the collective judgment, respecting 
 either the social relations of men, or philosophical truth? 
 The individuals, of whom such bodies are constituted, make 
 up their minds either previously or in concert ; they think, 
 study, converse, and the common decision embodies their 
 collective conclusions, and shoAvs the living action of the pub- 
 lic judgment. And the judgments thus given are accepted 
 by the world at large, with more or less of obedience, just as 
 the decisions of Councils by the Church's children, although 
 it is felt in each case that no local assembly can claim to 
 speak in behalf of all mankind. Yet such exponents of the 
 collective reason, exert a practical influence over the gene- 
 rality of men. One man's private judgment might lead him 
 to say that murder was not a crime, as another's to deny the 
 Copernican system ; but would not the first be put down by 
 law, and the second by ridicule ? 
 
 To assert, then, that Councils have a living power, and 
 apply new remedies to each emergent difficulty, is to attribute 
 to their members that peculiar authority, which belongs to 
 them through the promises and indwelling of the Holy Ghost. 
 That which reason does for the natural Societies of men, is 
 done for the Church Catholic by grace. Its authorities, 
 therefore, employ all those resources of mind which God has 
 given, whether individually or in concert, whether by thought 
 or study ; but they do so in dependence on the unfailing pro- 
 mise that they shall be led into all truth. And that such has 
 been their conviction is evident from their conduct. The 
 Bishops who have assembled have always acted as if the 
 
80 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 Christian system was a connected body of truth, which those 
 of their order had an especial commission to interpret : they 
 have accepted every previous statement which has been made 
 by the whole body of their predecessors, as believing that it 
 must stand on a super-human authority ; such statements as 
 have been either partial in their authority, or incomplete in 
 their expression, they have thought themselves at liberty to 
 re-open, and determine. This is plainly the conduct of a 
 living body, which supposes itself to have power to deal with 
 every issue which events may bring up. " Local and Pro- 
 vincial Councils," says St. Augustin, " must yield clearly to 
 the authority of plenary Councils of the whole Christian 
 world; and even as respects plenary Councils themselves, 
 earlier ones are often improved upon by later, when expe- 
 rience lays open that which was hidden, and makes known 
 that which was concealed." 8 Thus the term, "Homoousion," 
 which had been proscribed by the local Council at Antioch, A.r>. 
 264, was approved by the General Council at Nice, 61 years 
 later; and again, the General Council at Ephesus ordered that 
 no alteration should take place in the Creed ; yet the Symbol of 
 St. Athanasius 85 in effect embodied that which was agreed 
 upon at Chalcedon. For this restriction was not meant to 
 prevent the Church from adding those new cautions which 
 the Holy Ghost might teach her to be essential, but merely 
 to fix the authority of that which had already been ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 But the relation of Councils to the Church's judgment is 
 rendered still more manifest, as we proceed to the third point, 
 i. e. that their authority was held conclusive just in propor- 
 tion as they approached that condition of universality, which 
 identified their decision with that of the whole Episcopate. 
 Thus do they witness to St. Cyprian's principle, that the 
 authority which had been possessed by the Apostles, had been 
 bequeathed to the collective body of Bishops. The gift 
 which had dwelt personally in Our Lord, and had been trans- 
 mitted to the college of Apostles, was handed on, as a com- 
 
 84 De Baptism, c. Don. 4. 
 
 85 Even if this Creed was composed before 430, as Waterland maintains, yet 
 it contains additions to the Nicene Creed. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 81 
 
 mon trust, to their successors throughout the world. It 
 resided in each Bishop, but only while he held his place in 
 the rank, and was in communion with his brethren. And, 
 therefore, a Council of the whole Church was of necessity 
 conclusive, because its acts were equivalent to the decision of 
 the Bishops as a body. And exactly in proportion as this 
 end was attained, was the decision of a Council authoritative. 
 Thus, St. Cyprian, anticipating that an African Council 
 might not suffice in the case of the lapsed, wrote, he says, 
 to the Bishop of Rome, who laid the matter before a larger 
 Council. 86 For even General Councils received their sanc- 
 tion not merely from the sentence of those Bishops who were 
 present, but from the understood concurrence of those who 
 were absent. The Council of Nice itself contained but a few 
 Western Bishops ; the assent of the rest was involved in that 
 of the Bishop of Rome, with whom they were known to har- 
 monize. On the other hand, the Council of Ariminum was 
 meant to be general, but the heresy which its members were 
 beguiled into tolerating, was never accepted by the rest of the 
 Episcopate. So that the whole authority of such decisions, 
 arid the final acceptance, which is due to that which St. 
 Augustin describes as a plenary Council, arises out of the 
 original law, which lodges the decision of doctrine in the 
 Episcopate at large. And the system of Councils was only 
 the form, into which the Church's organization resolved itself. 
 Again : The effect of this law was exhibited in a very re- 
 markable manner, in the history of the Donatists. They af- 
 ford an example, not unhappily without parallel, that a personal 
 quarrel may grow into a heresy. The ground of difference 
 had been a dispute respecting the appointment of a Bishop at 
 Carthage, in which the larger part of the Bishops of Africa 
 had come to be on one side, and the Church Catholic on the 
 other. The division arose insensibly. When Secundus, of 
 Tigisi, Primate of the adjoining Province of Numidia, and 
 the seventy Bishops who assembled with him in Council at 
 Carthage, A. D. 311, declared Cascilianus to be unduly elected, 
 and notified to the rest of Africa that they had appointed 
 Majorinus in his room, they had no reason to suppose that 
 
 86 Plurimi coepiscopi. Cyp. Anton. Iv. 5. 
 G 
 
82 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 their decision would not be generally accepted. Roman 
 Africa was a district as big again as France ; according to 
 Bingham's 87 calculation, it contained six Provinces, and 466 
 Bishops, who were able to settle their ordinary affairs among 
 themselves. The supporters of Majorinus seem, at first, to 
 have taken it for granted that so it would be : when they 
 addressed Constantine, their application purported to be " the 
 petition of the Catholic Church," 88 and at a later period some 
 of their party speak of the views of Donatus, as though 
 accepted " by nearly the whole world." 8 In neither of these 
 cases does there seem to have been any reference to parties 
 out of Africa. Perhaps the dispute might have been settled 
 among themselves, had it not been for the appeal which the 
 Donatists made to the civil power. Constantine, indeed, 
 decided against them, A. D. 316 ; as Melchiades, the Bishop 
 of Rome, and the Council of Aries (both of whom had 
 previously heard the cause at his request,) had already done. 
 The Donatist party, however, persevered, notwithstanding it 
 now became manifest that the rest of Christendom held them 
 to be in the wrong ; party-spirit kept them together, and forti- 
 fied them against the opinion of what they called the Transma- 
 rine Churches. The consequence was, that all foreign Bishops 
 withheld those letters, 90 by which intercommunion was indi- 
 cated, so that they were practically cut off from the fellow- 
 ship of the Catholic Church. For a considerable time they 
 seem to have taken no notice of this loss, and St. Optatus, 
 who wrote against them about sixty years after the schism, 
 speaks of them as still offering up prayers for " the one 
 Church, which is scattered throughout the whole world." 9 
 By this time, however, they found it necessary to explain their 
 position; and many of them, as Tichonius, 92 one of their 
 number, records " with pain," defended themselves by " speak- 
 ing slightingly of Christ's kingdom." They denied Ticho- 
 nius's assertion, that the prophecies proved that Christ's Body 
 
 87 Ant. ix. II. 6. 88 St. Aug. Ep. Ixxxviii. 2. 89 St. Aug. in Cresc. iii. 62. 
 90 St. Augustin explains what happened, when observing what they should 
 have guarded against : they should have perceived that the foreign Church, 
 which, of course, could only communicate with one Bishop in any place, would 
 preserve the connexion which it already had with Caecilian. Ep. xliii. 8. 
 81 ii. 12. 92 De Regulis. i. Bib. Pat. vi. 50. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHOEITY. 83 
 
 would extend throughout the world, and affirmed it to exist 
 merely among themselves. " Parmenianus, and the other 
 Donatists," says St. Augustin, " saw this to be a necessary 
 consequence, and chose rather to harden their minds against 
 that obvious truth, which Tichonius affirmed, than through 
 this concession to yield to those African Churches, which 
 communicated with that Unity which Tichonius vindicated, 
 and from which they had separated." 93 
 
 For this decision respecting the rest of the Church, it was 
 necessary to find a reason ; and such a reason was found in 
 the lax state of discipline which was alleged to prevail. The 
 original charge against Caecilianus had been, that his con- 
 secrators had lapsed during the Dioclesian persecution;" and 
 it had become an article of their belief, that to tolerate offen- 
 ders was fatal to the life of the Church. Parmenianus 94 and 
 his partizans maintained that on this account the whole 
 Church had fallen away except the Donatist body. And 
 their alienation was increased by a custom which had long 
 distinguished Africa from the residue of the West that of 
 re-baptizing those who had been baptized in heresy. For 
 since they had settled, that all the rest of Christendom had 
 lapsed into heresy, they were compelled, of course, to re-bap- 
 tize all strangers who joined them from any other country. 
 And whereas all the rest of the Christian world was held 
 together by the bond of one communion, their revenge for 
 exclusion from this common intercourse, was to treat all the 
 rest of the world as heathen. 
 
 Now, what were the arguments employed against them by 
 the Catholic advocates, and especially by St. Augustin ? He 
 adduced every consideration which Scripture or reason could 
 suggest, whether to affect the body at large, or to win over 
 individuals; and tried to disentangle the original dispute 
 from the complications which had been produced either by 
 private passion, or by the interference of the civil govern- 
 ment. But his main topic, on which he always falls back, is, 
 that the Donatists could not be in the right, because they were 
 cut off from that common body of the Church Catholic which 
 inherited the promises. " O senseless perversity of man," he 
 93 Con. Parmen. i. 1. M Id. i. 4. 
 
84 
 
 exclaims, "you suppose yourself to be praised for believing 
 about Christ that which you do not see ; and you do not 
 suppose you will be condemned for denying respecting His 
 Church that which you do see ; although the Head is in 
 Heaven, and the Body upon earth!" 95 "As we do not be- 
 lieve," say the Catholic Bishops at the Conference at Car- 
 thage, " that Christ's dead Body was lost from the tomb 
 through any theft, so neither ought we to believe that 
 through any sin His living members have perished from the 
 world. Since Christ, then, is the Head, and the Church His 
 Body, it is easy to find Scriptural authority which at once 
 defends the Head against the calumnies of Jews, and the 
 Body against the accusations of heretics." 96 
 
 The great argument, then, employed against the Donatists 
 was, that the continued existence of Christ's Body Mystical 
 was as clearly revealed as the reality of His Body Natural ; 
 that to deny the endurance of the one, was as fatal to men's 
 salvation as to deny the assumption of the other ; that " He 
 was born of the Virgin Mary" was not a more essential 
 article of the Creed than " One Holy Catholic Church." 
 Now, the conclusions to which this argument leads, and the 
 principles on which it is built, are exactly those which have 
 been set'forth in this chapter as characteristic of the system 
 of the Gospel. For it implies that the whole Episcopate was 
 one body, which must needs act in concert ; and it leads to 
 the conclusion, that this one body must of necessity be the 
 judge in matters of faith. This may be seen from every 
 argument to which the question gave occasion. There were 
 naturally some among the Donatists who excused themselves 
 by shutting their eyes to their exact position. Such was 
 Fortunius, Bishop of Tubursica, of whose personal character 
 St. Augustin speaks highly, though he never suppresses his 
 conviction, that the state of schism in which the Donatists 
 lived, was an impediment to their salvation, for which no 
 personal piety could compensate. When St. Augustin, then, 
 pressed Fortunius with the usual arguments, he replied that 
 he was in communion with the Church throughout the world. 
 
 95 Con. Cresc. iii. 71. 
 96 Gest. Coll. Garth, i. 16. Gallandi. v. p. 592. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 85 
 
 St. Augustin's answer shows what was the practical test 
 of the Church's unity, and proves how completely it depend- 
 ed upon that connexion between the whole body of Bishops, 
 through which each individual Christian retained his relation 
 to the Catholic Church. "I inquired/' he says, "whether 
 he could give communicatory letters, which we call Litterce 
 Formatce, to any place to which I desired him, and I affirmed, 
 which was evident to all, that this was the readiest way of 
 trying that question." 97 Fortimius, of course, shrunk from 
 the trial ; for the very circumstance which had separated the 
 Donatists from the Church Catholic, and had compelled them 
 in their turn to deny its existence, was, that the rest of the 
 Episcopate had withheld such letters, and, of course, would 
 refuse to accept them. 
 
 But there were other Donatists who were too consistent 
 to lay claim to any communion, virtual or otherwise, through- 
 out the world; and who justified their isolation either by 
 their right of succession in their own Sees, by the great pre- 
 ponderance which they had in their own Province, or by the 
 purity of their doctrine and sacraments. The two first argu- 
 ments seem to have been mainly depended upon at the Con- 
 ference at Carthage ; the Donatist Bishops were careful to 
 display their numbers, which in the Province of Numidia 
 were allowed to exceed that of the Catholics ; 98 they insisted 
 that each Bishop should show his right to his See, and prove 
 the validity of his spiritual descent ; 99 and maintained that it 
 must be settled by such considerations as these, which party 
 had a right to the title of Catholic. 10 At other times, and 
 especially by the smaller parties, which split off from the 
 main body of the Donatists, the purity of manners and doc- 
 trine was principally insisted on; those were rightly to be 
 called Catholics, " who observed all the divine precepts, and 
 all the sacraments ;" " in them alone would the Son of Man 
 find faith at His return." 101 
 
 Now, the answer given to these arguments shows how 
 
 97 Epis. xliv. 3. 98 1. 18, Gall. v. p. 593. 
 
 99 Unde caepisti ? Quern habes patrem, &c. Id. iii. 229, p. 653 ; iii. 236. p. 
 654 ; and i. 65, p. 600. 
 
 100 Id. iii. 93, 99, p. 643, 644. m St. Aug. Ep. xciii. 23 and 49. 
 
86 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 entirely the witness to truth was supposed to depend upon 
 the decision of the collective body. The title of Catholic, St. 
 Augustin said, was not meant to express an opinion, but a 
 fact ; 102 it merely indicated what was that body, which was 
 known to exist throughout the world ; if to attribute it was 
 to admit the powers of the body which was thus described, it 
 was only because the predictions of Scripture . had declared 
 this condition to be essential to their exercise. The number 
 of the Donatist Bishops, and their right to their individual 
 Sees, was met again by the fact, that at most they made but 
 one Province, and that no single Province could claim to be 
 that Body of Christ, which was spread throughout the world. 
 "As we do not listen to those enemies of Christ, who say 
 that His Body was stolen from the tomb by His Disciples, so 
 neither ought we to listen to those enemies of His Church, 
 who say that it has no existence, save among the Africans 
 alone, and their few associates." 103 And, finally, their assertion 
 of the necessity of a pure communion was overthrown by the 
 consideration, that in such matters there could be no certain 
 judge except the Church Catholic. " The collective body," 
 says St. Augustin, "judges with certainty, that those cannot 
 be good men, wherever they may be, who separate themselves 
 from the collective body." 104 
 
 St. Augustin explains the principle, on which all these argu- 
 ments are founded, in a letter, in which he states what ought 
 to have been the conduct of Secundus, and the other Bishops, 
 by whom Ca^cilianus had been deposed. They should have 
 remembered, he says, that they were not judging merely a 
 Priest, or a Deacon, respecting whom, as was shown in the 
 instance of Apiarius, the Provincial Council of Africa had a 
 right to decide without appeal, but a Bishop, who " might 
 reserve his cause to be heard by the judgment of his col- 
 leagues, and especially of the Apostolical Churches." Their 
 course should have been, therefore, " to go to their brethren 
 and colleagues, the Bishops beyond the sea," that having ob- 
 
 102 Cont. Pet. ii. 91. 
 103 Gest. Coll. Cart, i, 18 ; Gall. v. 592. 
 
 104 Securus judicat orbis terrarum, bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe 
 terrarum in quacunque parte terrarum. Con. Parmen. iii. 24. 
 
THE MEDIUM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 87 
 
 tained their concurrence " they might safely ordain another 
 Bishop for the people of Carthage, when the opponent was cut 
 off by the whole Church." 105 The same principle is apparent in 
 the mode of argument which he employed against re-baptism. 
 This had been a peculiarity of long standing in the African 
 Church, having been introduced, as it would seem, early in 
 the third century. It is one of the charges of Hippolytus 106 
 against Callistus, that this practice was introduced among the 
 members of his communion, while he was Bishop of Rome, 
 and then probably was held the Council 107 at Carthage, in 
 which Agrippinus presided, at which re-baptism was first 
 authorized. Subsequently, it gave rise to the contention be- 
 tween St. Cyprian and St. Stephen. The last threatened to 
 separate its abettors from his communion ; but it would seem 
 from St. Augustin's mode of speaking, that the threat was not 
 carried into execution. For he makes it a matter of great 
 praise to St. Cyprian, that there was no actual separation, 108 
 and contrasts his case with those in which there had been a 
 real disruption. But why give such praise to St. Cyprian, 
 since either St. Stephen had no right to require the change, 
 or it should not have been refused by St. Cyprian ? Now, St. 
 Augustin cannot have thought the first, or he would censure 
 St. Stephen, which he does not : yet why praise St. Cyprian, 
 who, though he made no separation, yet persevered in prac- 
 tising re-baptism ? The reason would seem to be the peculiar 
 nature of the dispute. St. Cyprian was anxious to shut 
 a door, by which, as he thought, unfit persons entered 
 the Church. St. Stephen insisted that the door should be 
 left open. Now, so long as the whole Church remained in 
 communion together, the party which took the milder view, 
 and allowed men to enter the Church from heresy without 
 re-baptism, gained its point. Though St. Stephen, there- 
 fore, refrained from taking the steps he threatened, yet so long 
 
 105 Epis. xliii. 7, 8. 
 
 106 Philosophumena ix. 12, p. 291. The statement that it happened in the 
 time of Callistus, while it is not implied that he was concerned in it, would 
 imply, as Db'llinger observes, that the thing complained of did not take place at 
 Rome. Hippolytus and Callistus, p. 190. 
 
 107 St. Cyp. Ep. Ixxi. 4. St. Aug. de Bap. ii. 12. 
 108 De Bapt. c. Pet. 23. De Baptismo, v. 36. 
 
88 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, 
 
 as St. Cyprian remained in communion with the Church 
 of Rome, he was compelled to communicate with those who 
 entered it in the manner to which he objected. His only 
 mode of guarding against this, would have been by severing 
 his connexion with that part of the Church, in which this door 
 was still kept open. So that St. Stephen gained his point by 
 sitting still : while the same course in St. Cyprian was to 
 allow himself to be defeated. And, therefore, St. Augustin 
 might at once approve the one for what he required, and yet 
 praise the other for what he practically conceded. 
 
 St. Cyprian, however, continued to re-baptize heretics him- 
 self, and thereby gave the weight of his own example to the 
 side of the Donatists. And nothing shows more clearly that 
 the Church was regarded as a living whole, endowed with 
 power to act and decide respecting any new case which pre- 
 sented itself, and likewise that this power was supposed to 
 reside in the whole collective Episcopate, and not in any in- 
 dividual, however high his personal character, or in any pro- 
 vince, however extended, than St. Augustin's remarks on St. 
 Cyprian's conduct. He neither attempts to detract from St. 
 Cyprian's authority, nor does he deny that his decision was 
 adverse to his own. He allows that St. Cyprian and the 
 Bishops of Africa supposed themselves to have authority from 
 Holy Scripture for adopting this course. But since their time, 
 he says, a plenary Council had settled the matter otherwise ; 
 and had thus overruled the decision of the African Province 
 by that of the collective Church. The Council to which he 
 refers appears to be that of Aries, 109 A. D. 314, which, though 
 consisting only of the representatives of the Western Churches, 
 had yet been generally received, and which had requested Pope 
 Sylvester 110 to communicate its directions, and among them its 
 prohibition of this African usage of re-baptism, to the rest of 
 their brethren. St. Augustin's complaint against the Dona- 
 tists, therefore, was not grounded on the nature of this act, 
 which in St. Cyprian he thought a pardonable error, but on 
 the rejection of the authority by which it was prohibited. 
 Their fault was their adherence to the practice of a single 
 Province, now that it was forbidden by the Collective Church ; 
 109 Vid. note to De Bapt. ii. 14. 110 Harduin, i. 262. 
 
THE MEDIUM OIT CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 89 
 
 " whereas, that which has been decided by the appointment 
 of the Universal Church ought to be preferred to the authority 
 of a single Bishop, or to the Council of a single Province." m 
 For himself, he says, that he did not suppose himself better 
 than St. Cyprian, because he "saw something which the 
 latter did not see ; because the Church had not yet a plenary 
 Council concerning this subject." 1 2 The Scriptural argument, 
 he maintains, is on our side, " because we do that, which has 
 been approved by that Church Universal, which the authority 
 of the same Scripture commends to us." 113 Finally, he dis- 
 criminates in a single sentence between St. Cyprian, who 
 acted erroneously before the Church had given its judgment, 
 and the Donatists, who persisted in the same error against the 
 judgment of the Church. " To express my mind briefly on 
 this subject, I think, that to re-baptize heretics, as the former 
 is said to have done, was then an act of human frailty, but 
 that to re-baptize Catholics, as the latter do at present, is al- 
 ways a diabolical presumption." 114 
 
 The history of the Donatists, then, like the Church's prac- 
 tice of assembling in Councils, confirms the general principle 
 which has been laid down respecting the authority of the 
 Church. This authority was supposed to reside in the col- 
 lective body of Bishops, as inheriting that gift of spiritual 
 discernment, which had dwelt originally in the Person of Our 
 Lord, and had been bestowed upon the Apostles. The gift, 
 therefore, was bestowed upon them in common, and could 
 only be exercised by each, as the representative of all. But 
 because the Gospel Kingdom was designed to interpenetrate 
 all kingdoms of the earth without destroying them, therefore 
 this principle was not set forth in any formal charter, which 
 might be mistaken for a declaration of hostility against all 
 existing legislatures, but it was embodied in the constitution 
 and nature of the Church itself. Since each Bishop was the 
 centre of all spiritual power to his own flock, and also the 
 channel through which each individual communicated with 
 the Universal Church; since all grace was communicated 
 through him to individuals, while it was received by himself 
 
 111 De Baptis. ii. 2, and iii. 2. m De Baptis. iv. 8. 
 
 113 Con. Cresc. i. 39. < De Bap. c. Petil. 22. 
 
90 THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE, ETC. 
 
 through the communion of his brethren, it followed, of neces- 
 sity, that the decision of doctrine must lie in the Bishop, 
 while each Bishop could decide nothing save with the concur- 
 rence of his colleagues. In its practical office of conveying 
 the forgiveness of sins, the Church, as a body, must needs go 
 together. " The unity of the Church remits sins or retains 
 them." 115 So that if this unity were broken the commission 
 would cease, and Christ's promise of perpetual presence with 
 His ministers would be forfeited. But that such would never 
 be the case was the confident belief of the early Fathers, 
 which they grounded upon the promises of Scripture, and the 
 immutability of God. That the light might suffer partial 
 obscuration was possible, but not such eclipse as would destroy 
 its lustre and vitiate its office. 
 
 Thus, there were organs provided by which the Church's 
 work was to be performed. For if the Church be really 
 meant to exercise authority, there must be some media 
 through which its authority is to be exerted. And such 
 were those united successors of the Apostles, through whom 
 the Body Mystical of Christ went forth " conquering and to 
 conquer." That " a man shall reign in righteousness, and 
 princes shall rule in judgment," was the prophetic prediction 
 respecting the Church's founder, and His first disciples. But 
 the Spirit of wisdom and grace must needs outlast the 
 " earthen vessels" of those favoured Twelve, to whom it was 
 first intrusted. The Church must have its succession ; the 
 Apostles their spiritual descendants. And such were the 
 Bishops throughout the world ; the Church's sons, who in 
 their turn became her sires. Through their labours were the 
 mysteries of the Catholic Faith unfolded, and the order of its 
 discipline extended throughout the world. " Whithersoever 
 the Spirit was to go, they went, for the Spirit of the Living 
 Creature was in" them. And " instead of thy fathers, thou 
 shalt have children, whom thou mayest make princes in all 
 lands." 
 
 J " " Unitas tenet, unitas dimittit." S. Aug. De Bap. iii. 23. 
 
91 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 A HIERARCHY NECESSARY TO THE ACTION OF THE COL- 
 LECTIVE EPISCOPATE. 
 
 THE Church, then, is an organized body, guided by that 
 Gracious Spirit, who has vouchsafed to make it His dwelling, 
 because it is the Body of Christ. Thus has the blessing, 
 which was bestowed upon the Head, been extended to the 
 members. And the means provided for the communication 
 of this gift is the collective Episcopate. The Bishops, con- 
 sidered as a whole, are the heirs of that promise which was 
 bestowed upon the' College of Apostles. They still possess 
 that power and presence, which Our Lord insured to His 
 first disciples, when He declared, " as My Father hath sent 
 Me, even so send I you." Through their ministry the 
 Apostles still " sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel." And this office will they continue to dis- 
 charge till Christ returns with the company of His Saints, 
 and the Regeneration has its completion in the judgment of 
 the world. 
 
 But the last Chapter has shown that it is essential to the 
 exercise of their office, that they should be in unity with one 
 another. Every Bishop is a Bishop of the whole Church, for 
 each represents Christ, and is the means whereby His mem- 
 bers are united to the Body. Now, since the Church is one, 
 having one Head, one Spirit, and one doctrine, it is impossi- 
 ble that their trust should be discharged, except they are in 
 concord with one another. For how can they profess to dis- 
 
92 A HIERARCHY NECESSARY 
 
 pense the Spirit of love, if they are themselves at variance 1 
 How can they witness to the one Truth, if their testimony is 
 contradictory ? No doubt there must arise bad men and bad 
 Bishops ; but it is the condition of their office, that in public 
 matters they must agree together ; they derive an authority 
 from one another ; so that he who is separated from the 
 communion of his brethren, gives up thereby his own claim 
 to teach. St. Augustin 1 refers often to the confession of his 
 predecessor St. Cyprian, that the Church in his day, and 
 even the Episcopate, was disgraced by the existence of un- 
 worthy members ; but neither of them considered this cir- 
 cumstance to interfere with its claim to teach ; whereas both 
 asserted that such persons as separated from the one commu- 
 nion, lost thereby as well their privilege as private Christians, 
 as their claim to teach as successors of the Apostles. 
 
 But if it is necessary that all Bishops should agree, some 
 means must have been taken for securing their agreement. 
 We may use the same argument as in the last Chapter ; if 
 the Church was designed to teach, there must be an arrange- 
 ment for her teaching ; if it is essential that her teachers 
 should accord, there must be a provision for their accordance. 
 Now, while the Apostles themselves continued upon earth, 
 such a result might easily be effected. There was a super- 
 natural provision for their union; but its maintenance, 
 humanly speaking, was not a hard task. Their number was 
 small ; they continued long in the same place, or at least the 
 same country; they were united by habits, language, and 
 race. Add, that they were each guided by that one Divine 
 Spirit, by whom every one of them was led " into all truth." 
 Now, since truth is one, and God's Spirit is the Spirit of con- 
 cord, how could those twelve brethren " fall out by the way, ' 
 seeing that each of them was supernaturally directed by the 
 Holy Ghost ? But something more was needed, when the 
 successors of the Twelve increased to a great host, and spread 
 themselves through every land. The Children of Israel had 
 elders of their own, even when they lived in Egypt under a 
 foreign government; they clung together as one people in 
 
 1 De Baptismo, c. Don. iii. 22 ; iv. 3. 
 
TO THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE. 93 
 
 the midst of strangers : 2 and what in like manner was the 
 Church's government, while as yet its existence as a separate 
 kingdom was not understood by the nations of the earth I 
 
 The last Chapter has shown that the government of the 
 Church lay with its Bishops : each Bishop possessed authority 
 in his own diocese, and was the channel through which his 
 people held communion with the Body of Christ throughout 
 the world. But was it not possible that disputes should 
 arise among Bishops ; might they not administer discipline 
 on different principles, or hand down a different doctrine ? 
 No one, it was said, might be received into communion in 
 any place which he visited, without the sanction of the 
 Bishop, in whose diocese he had his abode as was witnessed 
 by the story of Marcion. But what remedy was there if this 
 obligation should be violated ? Had there been no risk of 
 its violation, it would hardly have been enforced so strongly 
 as it is by the 31st and 32nd Canons (so called) of the 
 Apostles. 3 And again: Should such differences ever arise, 
 they were sure to be accompanied by disputes as to the ap- 
 pointment of Bishops. That disputes did in fact take place 
 respecting the appointment of Bishops is but too manifest ; 
 though they did not always lead to such serious consequences, 
 as when Meletius was consecrated at Antioch, or Majorinus 
 at Carthage. But suppose such disputes to arise, how were 
 they to be settled? The ordinary mode of appointment* 
 was, that the neighbouring Bishops assembled, and with the 
 concurrence of the clergy and laity of the place, consecrated 
 some one to the vacant office. Suppose, then, that two parties 
 existed in any city, and that each, as was likely, had its 
 favourites among the adjoining Bishops was the election to 
 rest with those who got the start, or might not each, in fact, 
 proceed simultaneously? Disputes it is clear could not be 
 avoided, unless some ~ system prevailed, by which such diffi- 
 culties might be averted. 
 
 2 Exod. iv. 29. 
 
 3 These Canons formed part, no doubt, of the code of the early Church. 
 They are quoted in the order given by Bruns, Canones Apostolorum et 
 Condi. Berlin, 1839. 
 
 4 Vide Beveridge on the 4th Canon of Nice, Cypr. Ep. Ixvii. 4. 
 
94 A HIERARCHY NECESSARY 
 
 It was to guard against this evil that the system of Metro- 
 politans was introduced a system which appears to date 
 from the very age of the Apostles. All united action among 
 men assumes them to form themselves into bodies ; and 
 bodies imply the existence of a central power, and some defi- 
 nite bounds, by which its authority is limited. Such bounds 
 were provided for the ancient Church by the civil divisions 
 of the empire. The Bishops of each division were required 
 by Canon to act together, to recognize some one of their 
 number as their head, or Metropolitan, and to proceed under 
 his direction in the appointment of their brethren. Thus did 
 every new appointment become the collective act of the 
 whole Episcopate of the province. The priority was Spe- 
 cially conceded to such Churches as had been founded by an 
 Apostle, if one such existed in a province ; and together with 
 the election of Bishops, it provided the means whereby ques- 
 tions respecting that faith which was committed to them, 
 might be decided. For such " Churches, which the Apostles 
 themselves founded," were considered to be the "wombs 
 and originals of the faith." 5 " Go through the Apostolic 
 Churches," says Tertullian, " in which the very seats of the 
 Apostles, at this day, preside over their own places." " Is 
 Achaia near to thee 1 Thou hast Corinth If thou canst 
 travel into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. But if thou art near 
 to Italy, thou hast Rome." 6 Hence does St. Augustin 
 speak of such Apostolical 7 Churches, as having an especial 
 right to be consulted when disputes arose; and Innocent 1st. 
 when asserting the authority of his see, refers to the fact, 
 that " over all Italy, the Gauls, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, 
 and the interjacent islands, no one formed Churches, except 
 those, whom the venerable Apostle Peter, or his successors, 
 made priests." 8 For it gradually became the custom, that 
 those whom any Metropolitan 9 consecrated, should give a 
 promise of obedience to the See, from which they derived their 
 authority. An oath of Canonical obedience does not appear 
 
 6 Tertull. De Pra^s. 21. 6 Id. 3G. 7 Ep. xliii. 7. 
 
 8 Ep. ad Decent. Hard. i. 995. 
 
 9 Vid. Ivonis Cam. Ep. 73, as quoted by Beveridge on the sixth Canon of 
 Nice, sec, 9. p. 59. 
 
TO THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE. 95 
 
 to have been formally given before the time of Pope Leo, 10 
 by whom a written engagement of this kind is censured as a 
 novelty ; but the principle was recognized at the Council of 
 Chalcedon, where various Bishops admitted the authority of 
 the See of Constantinople, because thence they had derived 
 their own orders. 11 
 
 Such was the system of Metropolitans, as it grew up in the 
 early Church. Each province of the empire formed a whole, 
 for the purposes of consecration ; the Bishop of the chief 
 city, or of some Apostolical See, presided over his brethren ; 
 and thus were those disputes prevented, which party spirit 
 would otherwise have engendered. It may be objected, that 
 there is no direct Scriptural authority for such an arrange- 
 ment. Scripture, however, gives scarcely any details of the 
 Church's system, which it yet recognizes as a reality, pro- 
 ceeding from Apostolic appointment, and as co-ordinate, there- 
 fore, in its authority with Scripture itself. For why should 
 not those things which were done by the Apostles, through 
 the guidance of the Holy Ghost, be as reverently received as 
 those which they wrote or spoke ? And history witnesses 
 both that the Bishops received a trust in common, which 
 they could not have exercised without some such arrange- 
 ment, and also that this was the particular arrangement which 
 obtained from the first. It commenced probably from 
 the time when St. Paul addressed " all the Saints," which 
 were " in all Achaia," in the Epistle which he addressed to 
 the Church at Corinth ; and when he left Titus to " ordain 
 elders" in the hundred cities of Crete. Perhaps this is why 
 Ephesus is put first in St. John's address to the seven 
 Churches of Asia. The Apostolical Fathers witness both 
 to the right of interference on the part of the adjoining 
 Bishops of the province, and to the superiority over his bre- 
 thren, which belonged to the Bishop of the chief city. As to 
 the first point, St. Clement says, " Our Apostles knew from 
 Our Lord Jesus Christ, that strife would arise respecting the 
 Episcopal title. Having, therefore, exact knowledge of the 
 matter, they appointed the aforementioned persons, and gave 
 
 10 Epist. 12. ad Anast. Thess. sec. 1. 
 11 Actio xvi. Hard, ii. 639. 
 
96 A HIERARCHY NECESSARY 
 
 a right of mutual interference, 12 that when Bishops died, other 
 approved men might succeed to their office." And the 
 authority of the presiding Bishops appears from St. Ignatius, 
 who speaks of the Church of Rome, as "presiding in the 
 region of the Romans," 13 and identifies the Church of Antioch 
 with that of Syria, 14 of which it was the metropolis. 
 
 Towards the end of the second century arose the first 
 question of internal discipline which the Church had to de- 
 cide that respecting the time of keeping Easter. Such a 
 question was sure to bring out the governing power of the 
 Church ; it showed to whom the decision of questions was 
 committed. And it proves the system of Metropolitans to 
 have been in full vigour. In Italy a Synod was held under 
 the presidency of Victor, Bishop of Rome; the Bishop of 
 Ephesus presided in Asia Minor ; those of Caesarea and Jeru- 
 salem in Palestine ; while the circumstance mentioned by Eu- 
 sebius, that in Pontus the senior 15 Bishop presided, appears to 
 be an exception, which points to the existence of a general 
 rule. Soon afterwards a Council was held in Africa on the 
 subject of Re-baptism, which in like manner had for its 
 president Agrippinus, 16 the Metropolitan of Carthage. The 
 Church's practice is expressed in the thirty-third Canon 
 ascribed to the Apostles, which was afterwards confirmed 
 and put into more complete form by the ninth Canon of the 
 Council of Antioch. It required " the Bishops of each 
 nation to do nothing of importance without the concurrence 
 of their head," 17 whose concurrence, by the sixth Canon of 
 Nice, was absolutely essential to the consecration of any new 
 Bishop. 
 
 But the organization of the Hierarchy did not stop here. 
 It speedily advanced from the system of Metropolitans to 
 that of Patriarchs. It is generally admitted that the Churches 
 of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, were early possessed of 
 very extensive power. The references made by Novatian to 
 Alexandria, 18 in his opposition to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome 
 
 12 So I understand with Mb'hler the words /c*trf i> Invo^v SeSoixowf, in St. 
 Clement's Ep. sec. 44. vid. Mohler's Einheit in der Kirche, sec. 57. 
 
 13 Ad Rom. 1 . "Ad Magnes. 14. 15 Euseb. v. 23. 
 
 16 St. Gyp. Jubaiano, Ep. Ixxiii. 3, and St. Aug. de Bapt. Con. Petil. 22. 
 
 17 33rd Can. of Apos. Brims, p. 5. 18 Eusebius vi. 45. 
 
TO THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE. 97 
 
 the statement that Fabius of Antioch 19 was supposed to favour 
 him, together with the counter-statements sent by Cornelius 20 
 to these two Sees imply that some peculiar character and 
 authority was supposed to belong to them in the middle of 
 the third century. The exercise of something, which might 
 be called Patriarchal authority, did not necessarily imply that 
 the adjacent Metropolitans must apply to the Patriarch for 
 consecration ; though this no doubt was the tendency of 
 things, and as the institutions of the Church became fixed, 
 they gradually assumed this form. Tertullian refers to Rome 
 as " an authority close at hand," 21 thereby attributing some 
 superiority to that Church; but the African Bishops, whe- 
 ther ordinary or Metropolitan, were consecrated at that time 
 without foreign interference. Again : That the Patriarchal 
 authority, when it became a settled power, referred to other 
 points besides the appointment of Bishops, may be seen from 
 the conduct of the Egyptian Bishops at the Council of 
 Chalcedon. 22 They should give offence, they said, to their 
 people, if they agreed to any resolutions without the con- 
 currence of the See of Alexandria. The sixth Canon of the 
 Council of Nice seems to have been designed to give a more 
 settled shape to these indefinite forms of Patriarchal juris- 
 diction ; the authority exercised by the See of Rome was laid 
 down as a model, by which the relation of the Bishop of 
 Alexandria to his brethren in Egypt and the adjoining 
 districts, should be determined. The statements of Ruffinus 
 render it probable that the Roman Primate dispensed with 
 the services of Metropolitans in his own immediate neigh- 
 bourhood (the suburbican provinces) or at least was con- 
 sulted in regard to every Bishop whom they consecrated ; 
 and the like privilege seems to have been conferred upon the 
 Bishop of Alexandria. Such powers he certainly exercised at 
 a later period; for Synesius, 23 who was Metropolitan of 
 Ptolemais, states that the Bishops, who were chosen within 
 
 19 Eusebius, vi. 44. 20 Id. vi. 43, 46. 21 De Prascrip. 36. 
 
 22 Si extra voluntatem Prsesidis nostri aliquid faciamus, sicut prsesumptores 
 et non servantes secundum canones antiquam consuetudinem, omnes ./Egyp- 
 tiacae regiones insurgent in nos. Actio 4th. Harduin. ii. 418. 
 23 Epis. 76. ad Theoph. Bib. Patr. vi. p. 129. 
 H 
 
98 A HIERARCHY NECESSARY 
 
 his district, and approved by himself, could not be con- 
 secrated without the consent and confirmation of the Patri- 
 arch of Alexandria. 
 
 The institution of Patriarchates received a more formal 
 sanction at the Council of Constantinople, though it does not 
 appear, as Socrates 24 has been sometimes understood to say, 
 that they were first constituted by this Council. The refer- 
 ence which it makes to the Council of Nice in its second 
 Canon, shows that it only gave shape and definiteness to an 
 ancient institution. The reason assigned by the Council 
 itself ( Canon 2,) and alluded to by Socrates, is the necessity 
 of obviating those intrusions, to which the Arian disputes 
 had not unnaturally given occasion. Tlnis while St. Gregory 
 Nazianzen had been consecrated as Bishop of Constantinople 
 by Meletius, the Primate of Antioch ; 25 Peter, Primate of 
 Alexandria, 26 had sent Bishops who had consecrated Max- 
 imus the Cynic to the same See. Here was a ready opening 
 for disputes, which could only be obviated by some definite 
 and binding law. Yet because the Church system was only 
 the growth and unfolding of principles, which were implied 
 in the very existence of the Christian society, therefore, its 
 organization went on expanding itself, independently of any 
 positive enactments. The general authority of the See of 
 Antioch was recognized indeed by the second Canon of Con- 
 stantinople, as it had been by the sixth Canon of Nice. But 
 the relation of its Patriarch to the Metropolitans within his 
 district was not determined ; and a few years later we find 
 him recommended to assimilate the usage in his Patriarchate to 
 that which appears to have been the practice of the Patriarchate 
 of Rome. Innocent 1st. 27 in giving this advice, referred to the 
 Nicene Synod, as suggesting the principle on which the Patri- 
 arch of Antioch should proceed ; and he goes on to recommend, 
 that the Bishops in the more immediate neighbourhood of 
 Antioch should be consecrated by him, and that his sub- 
 ordinate Metropolitans, who now consecrated Bishops by 
 their own authority, should be required to do so by delega- 
 tion. He also refers to St. Peter's temporary occupation of 
 
 24 v. 8. 25 Sozomen, vii. 3, 7. 26 Id. vii. 9. 
 
 27 Innoc. Ep. ad Alex.Harduin i. 1012, 1013. 
 
TO THE COLLECTIVE EPISCOPATE. 99 
 
 the See of Antioch, as the ground of its superiority. This 
 is noticed by St. Chrysostom, 28 and St. Jerome. 29 
 
 Here, then, we see the gradual growth of that organization, 
 by which it was proposed to secure the unity of the Church. 
 As its Episcopate was held to be one, intrusted with a single 
 commission, and exercising a single power, it was essential 
 that its territorial extension throughout the world should be 
 accompanied by such relation between its parts, as should 
 preserve the harmony of their action. Such a relation 
 among the Church's rulers led to the formation of what 
 may be called a Hierarchy. It was not the introduction of 
 any new principle ; the Hierarchy was merely the form into 
 which the one body of the Church grew, under the guidance 
 of the Holy Ghost. It was only the expanding of those 
 organs, which are implied when it is said that the Church is 
 a living whole. An organized body must of necessity imply 
 parts ; those parts must of necessity arrange themselves ; 
 and since the unity of the whole was a condition of their 
 arrangement, it must needs unfold itself in some such form, 
 as the wisdom of God in fact provided. So that the Metro- 
 politan and Patriarchal systems were not an after thought, 
 added on to the system of Episcopacy, but merely that form 
 and arrangement of Episcopacy, which the law of its unity, 
 and the obligation of acting as a body, made a necessary con- 
 dition of its growth. For the Hierarchy was only an orga- 
 nized Episcopacy. Just as an oak implies the existence of 
 leaves and boughs, though no such things are to be seen in 
 its infant state ; so these future ramifications of the Church's 
 Hierarchy, were implied in the very conception of the 
 Christian kingdom, as it was instituted by Our Lord, and 
 established by His Apostles. 
 
 28 Vol. ii. p. 597. In St. Ign. M. No. 4. 
 
 29 On Gal. Cap. 2, vol. iv. pt. 1. p. 244. The same circumstance was referred 
 to at the Council of Chalcedon. Act. 7. Hard. ii. 491. 
 
100 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE FORM OF THE HIERARCHY PRESCRIBED BY THE 
 PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 THE last chapter showed by what means unity of action was 
 secured among the successors of the Apostles. Guided by 
 that Spirit of concord, which combined its whole body into 
 one, the Church's rulers resolved themselves into that system 
 of mutual interdependency, which is called a Hierarchy. 
 Through its subordination to its Metropolitans and Patriarchs, 
 the vast army of Bishops, though dispersed through all 
 countries, moved forward in its holy warfare with unanimity 
 and success. 
 
 But was this system of Metropolitans and Patriarchs all 
 which was implied in the conception of the Gospel King- 
 dom 1 Was it sufficient in itself to secure unity, and thus to 
 attain the object which it proposed to effect ? Or did the 
 Gospel contain the rudiments of any further design, and 
 imply that Metropolitans and Patriarchs themselves were to 
 be combined into one scheme and policy ? No doubt such 
 an idea would be wholly at variance with all worldly prece- 
 dents ; for earthly conquerors have never succeeded in sub- 
 jecting the whole earth to the unity of a single control; and 
 civilization has multiplied rather than diminished national 
 distinctions. And probably such a result contributes both to 
 individual happiness, and to intellectual and social improve- 
 ment. But the course of prophecy and the earlier history of 
 the Church seem to indicate that in this respect she would be 
 a contrast to the world; and that the Spiritual Kingdom 
 would restore that unity, which the division of languages had 
 rendered incompatible with the social relations of mankind. 
 
THE PKIMACY OF ST. PETEK, ETC. 10.1 
 
 Such an issue seems implied in those prophecies, which speak 
 of the Holy City as the antithesis of Babel, and declare that 
 " Jerusalem is built as a city, which is at unity in itself." 
 
 So much seems certain ; that unless some provision was 
 made for the interdependence of the great Sees upon one 
 another, disputes were as sure to rise lip; o^t^e^n^ them./ s 
 between their subject Bishops. The jSynod , of Antioeh 
 (Can. 14) had provided for the mte'rfeyeicBj, Jotifot ; iesftafti 
 circumstances, of the Bishops of one Province with those of 
 the next. But who was to determine on what principle thia 
 was to be permitted ? The Patriarchal Sees on various occa- 
 sions afforded the main subject of contention. In the third 
 century the Bishop of Antioch had been deposed for heresy 
 by a Council of his brethren, to whose decision he had refused 
 to submit. They were able to eject him from the See-house 
 by the aid of the civil power, but he still continued to have 
 his partizans. In the next century the majority of Eastern 
 Bishops had concurred in the election of Meletius to the same 
 See; but Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, suspecting him of 
 Arianism, consecrated Paulinus as a rival Bishop of Antioch. 
 In the year 403, Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, goes to 
 Constantinople with a number of Egyptian Bishops, holds a 
 Synod in a church in the suburbs, and deposes St. Chrysos- 
 tom, the Patriarch of that city. It was hardly possible that 
 such disputes should be altogether avoided, but their continual 
 occurrence must have satisfied all men, that without a fixed 
 order and rule there could be no united action in the collective 
 Episcopate. During the Arian divisions numerous Bishops 
 were expelled from their cities through the court favour of 
 heretics, while the defenders of orthodoxy interfered in cases in 
 which they had no regular jurisdiction. Thus the Oriental 
 Bishops complain that St. Athanasius, 1 on his way back from 
 his exile at Treves, " overthrew the Church's order through 
 his whole journey, and restored condemned Bishops." 
 
 Unless some remedy existed for this state of things, it 
 would seem idle to speak of the Church as the authoritative 
 
 1 Hilarii Frag. Hist. iii. 8, p. 1312. So St. Chrysostom deposed thirteen 
 Bishops, and appointed new ones, where he seems to have had no regular 
 jurisdiction. Sozomen, viii. 6. 
 
102 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER 
 
 witness to doctrine. For the Church cannot act without 
 organization ; and the unity of that organization was not 
 only from the first a condition of its existence, but the necessity 
 of such unity is implied in the very nature of the case. If a 
 man has two organs, of utterance, and they give discordant 
 i'owjckn; it be known what are his sentiments ; and 
 .Body of Christ speak at all, unless the organs of 
 hef 'Ut't'eRtncfe- are-'utoiimous'? A Bishop, therefore, who is 
 out of communion with his brethren, loses, ipso facto, all right 
 to speak as the Church's interpreter. He may be listened to 
 for his individual learning and piety, but his official claim 
 is destroyed by his isolation. Such is the necessary result 
 of those principles, on which the Episcopal office is grounded 
 by its acknowledged interpreter, St. Cyprian ; namely, that 
 "the Episcopate is one, and is a collective office exercised 
 by individuals." 2 
 
 Now, if we would inquire whether any means exist for the 
 correction of these evils, to whom can we turn more naturally 
 than to St. Cyprian himself? Being the first person who has 
 left a treatise on the Unity of the Church, he might be ex- 
 pected to point out how such a difficulty should be obviated. 
 Moreover, his authority has been admitted by all parties; 
 his works have been so widely quoted by subsequent writers, 
 that their authenticity cannot be questioned without discrediting 
 almost all ancient records ; 3 and as he preceded the conversion 
 of the Emperors, the system which he describes cannot have 
 owed its existence to their patronage. Does he suggest any 
 remedy, then, for the obvious evil that the Episcopate had 
 certain independent heads, who were as likely to differ as the 
 worldly leaders of different countries ? The guiding Spirit of 
 God had resolved the Church into a certain organization, in 
 order that this difficulty might not arise in its inferior por- 
 
 2 De Unit. p. 180. 
 
 3 This external evidence renders it needless to notice Mr. Shepherd's objec- 
 tions to St. Cyprian's authority. Similar objections might be made to any 
 ancient writer, as they have been to Holy Scripture. (Vid. Whately's Historic 
 Doubts.) It is enough that St. Cyprian is referred to by almost all subsequent 
 writers. Some of his letters might be restored, if lost, from the quotations of 
 St. Augustin. Mr. Shepherd's objections evidently arise from the fact, that he 
 is clearsighted enough to see the conclusion which results from St. Cyprian's 
 statements. 
 
GIVES ITS FORM TO THE HIERARCHY. 103 
 
 tions : the Bishop was the natural head and representative of 
 his Diocese ; the Bishops of each Province were held together 
 by their relation to a Metropolitan ; did St. Cyprian discern 
 any principle by which Metropolitans and Patriarchs them- 
 selves might be united, and by which that unity which 
 prevailed at the base of the building might extend to its 
 summit? 
 
 Now, St. Cyprian opens his treatise on the Unity of the 
 Church by reference to a certain prerogative, which he sup- 
 poses to have been bestowed upon St. Peter, with a view of 
 maintaining the oneness of the Body of Christ. " The Lord 
 saith unto Peter, / say unto thee (saith He) that 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 also in Heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 Heaven. To him again, after His resurrection, He says, 
 Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church ; 
 and though He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and 
 says, As My Father sent Me, even so send I you ; receive ye 
 the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be 
 remitted to him, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they shall be 
 retained ; yet in order to manifest unity. He has by His own 
 authority so placed the source of the same authority, as to begin 
 from one. Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter 
 was, endued with an equal fellowship both of power and 
 honour; but a commencement is made from unity, that the 
 Church may be set before us as one ; which one Church, in the 
 Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the 
 Person of Our Lord. My dove, My spotless one, is but one ; 
 she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. 
 He who holds not this unity of the Church, does he think 
 that he holds the faithf' 4 
 
 4 Several other sentences occur in the Benedictine edition, but have not 
 been introduced into the text, because their authenticity is disputed. And 
 it will be seen that statements equivalent to them occur in St. Cyprian's 
 letters, e. g. " Primacy is given to Peter, that the Church of Christ may be set 
 forth as one, and the See [Cathedra] as one. And they all are shepherds, yet 
 the flock is shown to be one, such as to be fed by all the Apostles with unani- 
 
104 THE PKIMACY OF ST. PETER 
 
 This general statement respecting the office of St/Peter 
 is borne out by the repeated assertions which St. Cyprian 
 makes in his letters, both that St. Peter possessed such a 
 pre-eminence, and that it had been bestowed upon him for the 
 purpose of preserving the Church's unity. " For to Peter, on 
 whom He built His Church, and from whom He caused the 
 principle of unity to take shape and form, did Our Lord first 
 give that power, that what was bound on earth should be 
 bound in Heaven." 5 It was Peter, then, "on whom the 
 Church was built by Our Lord;" 6 he it was "whom Our 
 Lord chose as first, and on whom He built His Church ;" 
 and who " had the Primacy." 7 In another letter he com- 
 plains that certain malcontents from Africa " dare to sail to 
 the See of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence sa- 
 cerdotal unity has arisen." 8 But they forget, he adds, that the 
 parties whom they designed to mislead, "were those Romans, 
 whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom perfidy -(i. e. 
 faithlessness in doctrine) cannot make its approach." For 
 the Bishop of Rome, according to him, was St. Peter's suc- 
 cessor ; Cornelius, he says, was chosen to be Pope, at a time 
 when " the place of Fabianus, that is, the place of Peter, and 
 the rank of the sacerdotal chair was vacant." 9 He speaks of 
 the Church of Rome as " the root and mother of the Catholic 
 Church," 10 and says, that to communicate with its Bishop 
 was "the same thing as to communicate with the Catholic 
 Church." n For " there is one Church which was founded by 
 Christ Our Lord upon Peter, on the principle, and by the 
 law of unity." 12 And during the vacancy of the See of Rome 
 he appears to recognize the claim to superintendence which 
 was set up by its Presbyters, because they say, " it is incum- 
 bent upon us, who appear to be put in authority, to guard the 
 flock in place of its pastor." * Neither does his correspondent 
 
 mous agreement." And again : " He who deserts the See of Peter, on whom 
 the Church is founded, is he assured that he is in the Church ?" De Unit. 3, 4. 
 
 6 Ep. Ixxiii. 7, ad Jubaian. 
 
 'Ep. lix. 9, ad Cornel. 7 Ixxi. 3, ad Quint. 
 
 8 Ep. lix. 19, Cornelio. ' Antoniano. Iv. 7. 
 
 10 Ut Ecclesiae Catholicas radicem et matricem agnoscerent. Cornelio. xlviii. 2. 
 11 Te secum, hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare. Antoniano. 
 Iv. 1. Ep. Ixx. 3. 13 Epis. viii. 1 . 
 
GIVES ITS FORM TO THE HIERARCHY. 105 
 
 Firmilian, though exhibiting the utmost hostility against St. 
 Stephen, the existing Bishop of Home, deny what he states 
 to be St. Stephen's assertion, that " he holds the succession 
 of Peter, on whom were laid the foundations of the Church ;" 
 and again, that " he has by succession the chair of Peter." L 
 Such are the statements of the earliest writer on the Unity 
 of the Church. He supposed that the whole Body of Christ 
 was intended to be one ; that its Unity was to be of a prac- 
 tical kind, enabling it to speak with authority on all ques- 
 tions which should arise ; that its utterance was to be through 
 the consentient determination of all its Bishops ; and, finally, 
 (which is the point immediately before us) that their co- 
 operation was secured by that peculiar commission which St. 
 Peter had received, antecedently to the general commission to 
 all the Apostles. And this Primacy he supposed to be in- 
 herited by the Bishop of Rome, as occupying the " seat of St. 
 Peter," " the principal Church," " the root and mother" of all 
 the rest. Here, then, is a principle, by which that arrange- 
 ment under Metropolitans and Patriarchs, which constituted 
 the original organization of the Church, as it was instituted 
 by the Holy Apostles, might receive its completion. For if 
 the mutual interdependence among these several authorities 
 issued in a relation to a single head, it was possible to obviate 
 those disputes, which must necessarily arise, so long as the 
 various parts were wholly independent. And these state- 
 ments of St. Cyprian are of peculiar importance, because 
 this Primacy was grounded, according to him, on Our 
 Lord's own appointment. For this raises it above those 
 other portions of the Church's system, of which it is the 
 consummation, but which have their origin not in any 
 precise words of Our Lord, but merely in the order which 
 was introduced by His Apostles. Whereas, if St. Cy- 
 prian's testimony be accepted ; if such a provision was made 
 by Our Lord, and such is the interpretation which the 
 Church has put upon it ; wherein does this differ from any 
 other elementary portion of the Gospel Revelation 1 Does 
 not the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, depend upon 
 certain statements respecting the Three Persons in the glo- 
 
 14 Cypr. Ep. Ixxv. 17. 
 
106 THE PKIMACY OF ST. PETER, ETC. 
 
 rious Godhead, which the Church, under the guidance of the 
 Holy Ghost, has collected into a system, and formed into a 
 whole 1 Now, what is there of which Our Lord speaks more 
 emphatically than the unity of His Church a condition, 
 moreover, which is essential to the exercise of that office of a 
 final judge, which the Apostles claimed for it I and what, 
 then, can be expected to be of more importance than a provi- 
 sion, which He is asserted to have laid down, antecedently to 
 its existence, as the means by which this end might be 
 accomplished ? 
 
 These considerations lead us to the three following inqui- 
 ries : 1st. Is there evidence from Scripture that a Primacy 
 was bestowed by Our Lord upon St. Peter? 2ndly. Was 
 such a Primacy exercised by St. Peter himself and his suc- 
 cessors? 3rdly. Has the collective Church explained the 
 nature and limits of the authority implied in such a Primacy ? 
 These questions shall be replied to in order. 
 
107 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 A PKIMACY IS ASSIGNED TO ST. PETER IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 IN the Gospels we find six several particulars, each of which 
 distinguish St. Peter from the other Apostles, and mark 
 him out as their chief. 
 
 1st. There are four lists of the Holy Apostles in the New 
 Testament ; and while there is considerable variety in the 
 order observed respecting the other names, in three things 
 they all agree St. Peter's name always stands first ; then 
 those of the sons of Zebedee, except when St. Andrew is 
 inserted as St. Peter's brother; that of Judas Iscariot (so 
 long as it appears) is always the last. Now such an arrange- 
 ment, as Olshausen observes, cannot have been accidental. 
 Persons have attempted to account for it, by saying St. Peter 
 was the first called, or that he was the eldest of the Apostles. 
 But the former of these assertions can be proved to be false, 
 the latter cannot be proved to be true. St. Andrew was 
 certainly a follower of Christ before St. Peter, As Hilary the 
 Deacon says, " If things were to be fixed by time, John be- 
 gan to preach before Christ: and Christ did not baptize 
 John, but John Christ. But God does not judge in this 
 way. Finally, Andrew followed Our Saviour before Peter, 
 and yet Peter, not Andrew, received the Primacy." 1 And 
 so far is there from being any proof that St. Peter was the 
 eldest of the Apostles, that it seems not improbable that he 
 was the younger even of the two sons of Jonas. For when 
 they are mentioned together, before they entered on their 
 
 In II. Cor. xii. 
 
108 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 office, we read of Bethsaida as the "city of Andrew and 
 Peter." 2 So that there is no improbability in the statement 
 of Epiphanius, who, after mentioning that St. Andrew was 
 the first to follow Our Lord, and then St. Peter, who was 
 called through his brother's instrumentality, goes on : " For 
 Andrew was the first to meet Christ, inasmuch as Peter was 
 younger in age. But afterwards, when they had given up 
 everything, the beginning was made from Peter. For he 
 took the lead of his own brother. It is to be added, that 
 God, who sees the disposition of the heart, and knows who 
 is worthy to be put in the first room, chose Peter to be the 
 leader of His disciples." 3 
 
 2ndly. Besides the position which it occupies, St. Peter's 
 name is, in every instance, introduced with some circumstance 
 which marks his pre-eminence. St. Mark and St. Luke refer 
 to the new name bestowed upon him, which will be noticed 
 presently : in the bare list given in the Acts, his name alone 
 has the Article prefixed a circumstance, which though the 
 natural result of its position, yet discriminates it from that 
 of the rest but by St. Matthew he is expressly called the 
 First* Now, what is the meaning of the Primacy, thus attri- 
 buted to him by the Evangelist ? Some may say that it was 
 a mere honorary distinction ; a pure concession of precedence, 
 which had no results. But this is at variance with the whole 
 scheme of the Gospel economy ; the very principle of which 
 appears to have been to confer real powers, but no honorary 
 titles. The Episcopal system grew insensibly out of those 
 powers, which were bestowed by the Apostles upon Timothy, 
 Titus, and others whom they appointed as their successors ; 
 the office of the Apostles grew out of the fact that Our Lord 
 sent them, as He had been sent by His Father : in each case 
 no title was bestowed, except such as was rendered necessary 
 by the reality itself. Now, Our Lord applies this principle to 
 the case of the Primacy : " Whosoever will be great among 
 you, let him be your minister ; and whosoever will be first 
 among you, let him be your servant." He does not declare 
 
 2 John i. 45. 3 Hseres. li. 14-17. 
 
 4 " The first," not " first," for -npuros " being an ordinal is not the less definite 
 by being anarthrous." Middletorfs Greek Article in loco. 
 
IN THE GOSPELS. 109 
 
 that no such power as that of Primate should exist among 
 them, any more than His following words derogate from His 
 own superiority ; but He requires that its effect should be to 
 dispose its possessor to take the lowest place. Such a state- 
 ment, then, is not inconsistent with the belief that a real 
 power was designed by that priority, which the Evangelists 
 give to St. Peter; but it is wholly at variance with the 
 opinion that Our Lord designed to constitute an honorary 
 Primacy. Grotius surely interprets St. Matthew's expression 
 rightly, when he says on this passage : " St. Peter was no 
 doubt appointed Head of the College of Apostles, with a 
 view of maintaining the connexion of the body." 
 
 Srdly. To this direct statement of St. Peter's priority, 
 must be added, that he, and he only, received a new name, 
 when he was admitted into the number of the Apostles. 
 Our Lord indeed bestowed the epithet of " Sons of Thunder" 
 on the two next of His Apostles ; but it was an epithet only, 
 by which their original names were not superseded. But in 
 St. Peter's case Our Lord gave notice, at their first meeting, 
 that He should impose upon him a new name (John, i. 43,) 
 and when the College of Apostles was constituted, He gave 
 effect to His purpose (Mark, iii. 16.) Now, that which ren- 
 ders this circumstance so remarkable is, that the Jewish, like 
 the Christian system, was ushered in by the attaching a new 
 name to its chiefs. Jacob, the immediate parent of the 
 Israelites, and Abraham, their great progenitor, had been 
 designated in this manner by Almighty God, when He 
 bestowed upon them names indicative of the offices to which 
 He called them. The like distinction, then, bestowed by 
 Christ upon one of His Apostles, seemed to mark him out, 
 as taking a place in the New Covenant, analogous to that 
 which in the old had been occupied by Abraham or Israel. 
 Moreover, the name itself was most remarkable. Our Lord 
 had been beheld by Daniel as that " stone, cut out of a 
 mountain without hands," which was to fill the earth. For 
 in Him the Divine nature was to enter into the world, and 
 to impregnate humanity with supernatural excellence. This 
 was to be effected through His Church, of which He was to 
 be the sole foundation ; and though to unbelievers He was 
 
110 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 " a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence," yet to Jeru- 
 salem "a chief corner-stone, elect, precious." When Our 
 Lord, therefore, bestowed on Simon the name of Peter, He 
 not only changed His disciple's name, but He changed it for 
 one which implied an immediate derivation and commission 
 from Himself. Since Our Lord was the true rock on which 
 the Church was founded, to bestow the name of Rock on one 
 of His disciples implied some peculiar delegation of His own 
 functions, and an especial authority to represent Himself. 
 So Origen explains it : Our Lord " said that he should be 
 called Peter, by a name borrowed from the rock, that is, 
 Christ, that as from wisdom a man is called wise, and holy 
 from holiness, so from the rock he should be called Peter." 5 
 And St. Leo : " I am the indestructible rock, I am the 
 corner-stone, who make both one ; I am the foundation, than 
 which other cannot be laid. Yet you also are a rock, because 
 you are consolidated by My excellence, so that those things, 
 which belong in property to Me, are common to you by par- 
 ticipation." 6 Thus, then, Our Lord not only marked out 
 St. Peter as the head of His College of Apostles, by chang- 
 ing his name, as had been done respecting the two main 
 founders of the Israelitish family ; but as in their case He 
 bestowed a name which conveyed a peculiar commission, 
 and indicated that the person who bore it was admitted to a 
 more immediate fellowship with His own character, and had 
 an especial authority to represent Himself. 
 
 4thly. These are preliminary grounds for supposing that St. 
 Peter must be designed to possess a certain Primacy in the 
 College of Apostles. The direct proof of it is the distinct 
 and peculiar commission with which he was intrusted. When 
 he had confessed Our Lord, saying, " Thou art the Christ ;" 
 Our Lord replied to him by saying, " Thou art Peter, and on 
 this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall 
 
 6 In Caten. ad Joh. i. 41. cited by Passaglia, i. 2, 19. 
 
 6 Sermo. iii. 2. Tertullian gives the same reason for the name of Peter, as 
 drawn from Our Lord's own character of a Kock : and he also refers to the 
 
 analogous case of Abraham. Cur Petrum ? An quia et petra et lapis 
 
 Christus? Itaque affectavit carissimo Discipulorum de figuris suis pecu- 
 
 liariter nomen communicare, &c. Con. Marc. iv. 13. 
 
IN THE GOSPELS. Ill 
 
 not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven." Now, these words have no paral- 
 lel in the address to the other Apostles. They were followed, 
 indeed, by that which appears to be the general gift of minis- 
 terial power, and which at a later period was extended also 
 to the residue of the Twelve. " Whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." To bind 
 and loose is that function, to which all possessors of priestly 
 power, and especially the Apostles and their successors, have 
 been admitted : but the preceding words of St. Peter's com- 
 mission look plainly to something connected with the found- 
 ing of the Church, and, therefore, to that peculiar privilege of 
 representing his Lord, which is implied in the name which 
 had been bestowed upon this chiefest Apostle. Of course 
 when Our Lord speaks of building "upon this rock," He 
 does not mean that He Himself, whom St. Peter had just 
 confessed, is not the real foundation ; " upon Me I will build 
 thee," says St. Augustin, "not Me upon thee." 7 The very 
 ground of this Apostle's superiority, the principle on which 
 his Primacy depends, is merely that he was chosen to be the 
 especial representative of his Master. As St. Jerome ex- 
 presses it : " What is meant by the words, And I say unto 
 thee f Because thou hast said to Me, Thou art the Christ, 
 the Son of the living God ; and I say unto thee, not in idle 
 and inoperative words, but / say unto thee, because My 
 saying makes it an act, that thou art Peter, and upon this 
 rock I will build My Church. As He Himself, who is the 
 light, gave to His Apostles to be called the light of the 
 world, and as they received their other names from the Lord; 
 so to Simon who believed in the Rock, Christ gave the name 
 of Peter, and by a metaphor drawn from a rock, it is appro- 
 priately said to him, I will build My Church upon thee" 8 
 
 The circumstance, then, which was declared respecting St. 
 Peter in these prophetic words of Our Lord, was that he 
 should be associated by peculiar co-partnership 9 in one of 
 
 7 Sermo. Ixxvi. 1. 8 In Matth. xvi. vol. iv. 1, p. 74. 
 
 9 There is probably a reference to this peculiar relation of St. Peter to Our 
 Lord, when we are told that Christ appeared to him shortly before his martyr- 
 
112 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 the functions of his Master, and become by grace that which 
 Christ was by nature. And this, which is directly expressed 
 in the particular from which he derived his name, is expressed 
 indirectly in the other particular which indicates his office. 
 For his function of bearing the Keys pertained primarily 
 to Christ : it is Christ who " hath the Key of the house of 
 David," who "openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth 
 and no man openeth." It was on a type of Christ that was 
 laid "the Key of the house of David." So that to bear 
 " the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," as well as to be the 
 Rock of the Church, did not imply any independent au- 
 thority in St. Peter, but arose merely from his being the 
 especial representative of his Lord. And this circumstance 
 answers the objection, that by the Rock, Our Lord may 
 either have meant Himself, or that He may have meant not 
 the person of St. Peter, but his confession. No doubt Our 
 Lord Himself is the real Rock on which the Church is found- 
 ed. But when He speaks of taking His chief Apostle into 
 association with Himself, the reference to Himself is not 
 excluded, but extended. Again : It was St. Peter's faith in 
 his Master's office, which not only fitted him to become the 
 means through which it should take effect, but led Our Lord 
 to declare the commission which he should receive. Both 
 these considerations, therefore, are noticed by those who 
 speak of St. Peter's confession. " Christ is the Rock," says 
 St. Ambrose. "To His disciple also He denied not the 
 grace of this name, that he also should be Peter, because 
 from the l petra' he hath the solidity of stedfastness, the firm- 
 ness of faith." 10 But such explanations are not meant to 
 exclude the personal application to St. Peter. St. Chry- 
 sostom, after explaining the Rock to be "the faith of St. 
 
 dom, and told him that He was come to Borne to be crucified. " Intellexit 
 ergo Petrus quod iterum Christus crucifigendus esset in servulo." S. Arnbros- 
 Ep. i. 21, 13, p. 867. 
 
 10 Expos. Luc. Lib. vi. 97. The word Rock is employed by the Ancient 
 writers for two persons, and two things Christ and Peter, the objective faith 
 taught by the Lord, the subjective faith entertained by His disciple. But 
 these senses are all relative to one another : Peter is the rock because he is 
 associated to Christ ; and his faith is rock-like, because it is based upon his 
 Master. 
 
IN THE GOSPELS. 113 
 
 Peter's confession," adds, as a mark of Our Lord's divine 
 power, that He could " exhibit a man that is a fisher more 
 solid than any rock." 1 And this was the sense in which 
 the promise was originally understood ; for every ante-Nicene 
 writer who refers to the passage, supposes that reference is 
 made to the person of St. Peter. He is called " the Rock of 
 the Church," both by Tertullian and Hippolytus, 12 " on whom 
 the Lord built His Church ;" 13 " that great foundation of the 
 Church, and most solid rock, on which Christ founded His 
 Church ;" 14 " Peter on whom the foundations of the Church 
 were laid." 15 
 
 The derivative interpretations which arise out of this first 
 and main one, were no doubt admitted more readily, because 
 the pointedness of Our Lord's words was diminished, by 
 their transfusion from His own Syriac into the Greek idiom. 
 " The name of a man could not, according to the Greek 
 usage, be expressed by the feminine 7reT/>a, while the masculine 
 7reT/Jo did not commonly signify that which Christ wished to 
 express, i. e. such a stone as is commonly laid for a founda- 
 tion." 16 Whereas in Syriac, as appears at present from the 
 Peschito version, the term in each member of the sentence is 
 identical. Had St. Augustin, for instance, known that Our 
 Lord's words were " Thou art Cepho, and on this Cepho I 
 will build My Church," he would not have employed the 
 argument which he does in his Retractations. 17 For after 
 stating that he had often applied the passage to the person 
 of Peter, as he had learned to do from a hymn of St. Am- 
 brose, he adds as a second interpretation, which might be 
 given, that " the Rock was Christ," " and so Peter, named 
 from this Rock, would represent the person of the Church, 
 which is founded upon this Rock, and has received the keys 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven." And then he proceeds, as the 
 reason for giving such an interpretation : " For it was not 
 said to him, Thou art Petra, but Thou art Petriis" Now, of 
 
 11 In Matth. Horn. liv. 3. 
 
 12 De Prgescrip. 22 In St. Theophan. 9. Gallandi. vol. ii. 494. 
 13 Cyp. Ep. Ixxi. 3, and De Habitu Virg. p. 164. 
 
 14 Origen in Exod. Horn. v. 4. 
 
 15 St. Stephen and Firmilian in Ep. Cyp. Ixxv. 17. 
 
 16 Grotius on St. Matt. xvi. 18. 17 1. 21. 1. 
 
 I 
 
114 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 this distinction between the masculine and the feminine 
 word, the original Syriac affords no trace. 
 
 In explaining the passage, however, as though it were 
 designed to exhibit St. Peter as there presentative of the 
 Church, St. Augustin as completely associates St. Peter in 
 another way with the Person of his Master, as do the words 
 of St. Matthew, when literally accepted. St. Peter, he says, 
 was the especial representative of the Church. " Our Lord 
 Jesus, as you know, before His Passion, chose His Disciples, 
 whom He named Apostles. Among these, Peter nearly 
 everywhere was thought worthy to represent the person of 
 the whole Church. On account of his thus representing the 
 whole Church, he was thought worthy to hear, * I will give 
 to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.' For these 
 keys, not any individual, but the unity of the Church re- 
 ceived. Hence the excellency of Peter is set forth, in that 
 he represented the universality and unity of the Church." 18 
 The reason why the Church was represented by an indivi- 
 dual, St. Augustin, like St. Cyprian, understood to be, that 
 it was a body, so that the unity of the whole was essential to 
 its life. " Therefore one stood for all, because unity is in 
 all ;" * ' the whole, that is, considered collectively, makes a 
 single body. But why was St. Peter its especial represen- 
 tative ? Not merely on account of that prominence of cha- 
 racter, which no doubt fitted him for his post, but by reason 
 of the free selection of that Master, who had indicated His 
 favour by bestowing upon him a name derived from Himself. 
 " For the Rock is not called from Peter, but Peter from the 
 Rock, just as Christ is not called from the Christian, but the 
 Christian from Christ." St. Peter, therefore, " by reason of 
 the Primacy of his Apostolate, supported the character of the 
 Church, and was a type of its universality." 20 For inasmuch 
 as the Church, being Christ's Body, was contained in Him, 
 it might be considered, says Augustin, to be identical also 
 with that Disciple, whom He associated most closely with 
 Himself. " It was the will of Christ to make Peter, to whom 
 He commended His sheep as to another self, one with Him- 
 
 18 Sermo. ccxcv. 2. 19 In Johan. cxviii. 4. 
 
 20 In Johan. cxxiv. 6, 
 
IN THE GOSPELS. 115 
 
 self, that so He might commend His sheep to him ; that He 
 might be Head, and the other bear the figure of the body, 
 that is, the Church, and that like man and wife they might 
 be two in one flesh." 21 So that this interpretation is an 
 extension of St. Cyprian's statement, that " the Church is in 
 the Bishop ;" St. Augustin carries on the image, and asserts 
 that the Church is in its chief Bishop. The idea is the same 
 as that which Hilary the Deacon (as it seems) deduces from 
 Our Lord's paying tribute-money. " When Our Saviour 
 ordered it to be given for Himself and Peter, He seems to 
 have paid for all. For as the Apostles were all included in 
 Our Saviour by virtue of His office, so after Our Saviour 
 they are all included in Peter. For He made him to be 
 head, that he might be shepherd of the Lord's flock." 22 
 So, then, St. Peter represents the united Church, because 
 he is especially identified with his Master: he is not first 
 because most prominent, but most prominent because chosen 
 to be first. " When Christ speaks to one, unity is com- 
 mended ; and He speaks first to Peter, because Peter was 
 first among the Apostles." 23 
 
 St. Augustin's interpretation, then, comes to the same 
 result with that which he had traditionally received, and 
 against which he has no objection to make, save one 
 which arises from the imperfect manner in which the Greek 
 language expressed Our Lord's words. He did not doubt, 
 more than any other early interpreter, that a personal re- 
 ference was made in this passage to the chief Apostle, by 
 which some characteristic of his office was indicated. What 
 that characteristic was appears from the particular, in which, 
 taking the words literally, St. Peter was especially associated 
 with his Master. For here were twelve men, who were de- 
 signed to be the foundations of the future Church. It was 
 to be " built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro- 
 phets ;" and their names, therefore, were beheld by St. John 
 in the foundations of the New Jerusalem. But they were 
 not the original foundation : they were themselves built upon 
 that true Eock, Jesus Christ, from which they derived their 
 
 21 Sermo. xlvi. 30. 
 
 22 Quses. Ixxv. Ex Novo Test, in App. S. Aug. iii. 2. p. 73. 
 83 S. Aug. Sermo. ccxcv. 4. 
 
116 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 solidity. When Our Lord, therefore, bestowed it as an 
 especial privilege upon one of their number, that he should 
 share individually in that peculiar attribute, whereby the 
 collective body of his brethren were qualified for their office, 
 He surely marked out, that this one, at all events, should 
 possess individually, that which the other members of the 
 body should possess among them. So the power to open and 
 shut the Kingdom of Heaven was bestowed upon the College 
 of Apostles at large ; but to put the keys into the hands of 
 one, implied that he must be a party to their joint action. 
 He may have stood in need of them, for the trust was be- 
 stowed upon them as a body ; but they could not do without 
 him. Any other member of the Apostolic College might, so 
 far as we are told, have been dispensed with ; but he who 
 bore the keys and was the Eock of the Church, could not 
 have been dispensed with. The loss of any other Apostle, 
 as, for example, of St. James, did not break up the body, but 
 it would seem to be broken up by the loss of St. Peter. For 
 it was the " one Church, founded by Christ Our Lord upon 
 Peter on the principle of unity." 2 
 
 5thly. That such was the relation between "the First" 
 Apostle and his brethren that he was chosen individually to 
 a trust which they received collectively accords exactly with 
 the remarkable words recorded by St. Luke, xxii. 31 : "Simon, 
 Simon, Satan hath desired to have ye, that he may sift ye 
 as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail 
 not, and when ihou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." 
 These words certainly imply that a specific trust was com- 
 mitted to the individual, who is thus singled out from the 
 body of the Twelve. " It is manifest that they are all con- 
 tained in Peter, for when praying for Peter He is understood 
 to have prayed for all. For a people is always corrected or 
 praised in its chief." 25 The commission, then, with which he 
 was intrusted, implied him to be indispensable to the rest. 
 They are spoken of as a body, which is to be succoured ; he 
 as the individual, from whom they are to receive support. 
 
 24 Cyp. Ep. Ixx. 3. 
 
 25 Hilary the Deacon (apparently) in Quaes. Ixxv. in Novo Test. App. to S. 
 Aus. iii. 2. p. 74. 
 
IN THE GOSPELS. 117 
 
 Gthly. The same individual commission appears in the 
 thrice-repeated charge to feed Christ's flock, which is record- 
 ed in the last chapter of St. John. This charge contains a 
 reference probably to St. Peter's threefold denial, and also to 
 his too confident declaration, that whatever might be done 
 by others, he would never forsake his Lord. But it is not 
 the less observable, that his restoration is accompanied by so 
 peculiar a commission a commission, whereby St. Chrysos- 
 tom says, " Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority 
 among the brethren." 26 "For the sake of securing the 
 blessing of unity," says St. Optatus, " the Blessed Peter, for 
 whom it would have been enough, if after he had denied he 
 had merely obtained pardon, both obtained a preference to 
 all the Apostles, and received singly the keys of the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, to be communicated to the rest." 27 Thus is he, 
 to whom most had been forgiven, required to love most ; and 
 to bring strength out of weakness, becomes the ordained law 
 of the economy of grace. 
 
 It is plain, then, from Scripture, that a Primacy was be- 
 stowed upon St. Peter : the commission given to him by Our 
 Lord was peculiar and characteristic. Now, how comes it 
 that a circumstance of so much importance should be past 
 over with the little attention which it commonly receives 
 among ourselves 1 The reason probably is, that the tradi- 
 tional interpretation of Scripture which is prevalent among 
 us, has been derived, in great measure, from writers who were 
 not Episcopalians. 28 For if Our Lord's appointment of His 
 Apostles had no further result, as Presbyterians suppose, than 
 the selection of certain individuals to attend upon His Person, 
 and preach the Gospel for a few years after His death, what 
 matters it whether one was put in greater trust than another 1 
 If no power was bestowed upon any of the Apostles, it can 
 only have been an honorary Primacy which was bestowed 
 upon their chief. For the inspiration of St. Peter has never 
 been alleged to have differed from that of the other Apostles ; 
 
 26 In Joh. xxi. 15. Horn. 88. 27 De Schis. Don. vii. 3. 
 
 28 As Calvin, Luther, Drusius, Grotius, Capellus, and in later days, Henry, 
 Doddridge, Macknight, &c. The one Anglican Commentator of importance is 
 Hammond. 
 
118 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 and his contribution to the volume of Scripture was small. 
 And so soon as Our Lord's earthly pilgrimage had been ac- 
 complished, the purposes of His mission would be supposed to 
 have been completed ; to lay the foundations of the Gospel 
 would, no doubt, have been a supernatural work, but natural 
 principles would have sufficed for its maintenance : thence- 
 forth every one would be left to interpret the new revelation 
 as he could, by the light of reason, and the individual 
 teaching of the Holy Spirit. Now, on this principle it would 
 be a mere matter of curiosity whether an especial commission 
 had been bestowed upon St. Peter : the inquiry would be of 
 no more practical importance than whether one of the dis- 
 ciples of Socrates possessed more fully than another the con- 
 fidence of their master. 
 
 But the subject has an entirely different aspect to those who 
 believe that the kingdom of Christ is a supernatural system, 
 which commenced, indeed, in the first Advent of the Son of 
 Man, but will terminate only in His Second Coming. On 
 this supposition the Gospel was not merely the declara- 
 tion of certain remarkable events, which happened at one 
 period of the world's history ; but the introduction of a new 
 creation, which began in the New Head of the human race, 
 and must extend through all its members. Such a system 
 requires to be perpetuated as well as commenced by super- 
 natural power. The gifts of grace, which dwelt first in its 
 Head, were extended, therefore, to His chosen Apostles, that 
 from them they might be communicated to the whole body of 
 their successors. Now, if this be so, the law, on which this 
 gift is bestowed, must plainly be of importance so long as 
 the gift continues. If the Bishops of Christendom are in the 
 place of the Apostles, it cannot be immaterial whether their 
 unity of action was secured by any peculiar provision. If the 
 thrones of the Twelve are perpetuated in the undying Episco- 
 pate, and the Apostles still rule in the persons of their succes- 
 sors, then must Peter still speak in the midst of his brethren. 
 So that the interest which is felt in his special commission 
 depends upon the general estimate which is formed respecting 
 the Gospel Kingdom, and respecting the perpetuity and extent 
 of the actions of Our Lord. Those who imagine that Christ 
 
IN THE GOSPELS. 119 
 
 was designing to institute an economy which should be as 
 lasting as the world, that He not only forecast every thing 
 which should happen, but laid the foundations of a spiritual 
 polity which was to take in all times and all nations, will 
 attach great weight to a prediction so solemnly given, and 
 calculated to produce so great an effect. Only twice, at all 
 events, did Our Lord speak of that Church, which was to be 
 a part of Himself, and which He died to found. The first of 
 these occasions was when His chief Apostle had borne that 
 remarkable witness to His hidden character, which was the 
 result of special revelation. In answer to the confession, 
 " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Our Lord 
 replied, by communicating the meaning of that name which 
 He had given to His disciple. "And I say also 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 I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven." Surely, then, this trust must live on as part of 
 the Church's general commission ; if the power to bind and 
 loose, of which it is a portion, be perpetuated in the succes- 
 sors of the Twelve, the provision thus made for their unity of 
 action must live also. To get rid of it, the Apostolic entail 
 must be cut off altogether ; and the arrangements of Our 
 Lord's Kingdom must be supposed to have been wholly 
 superseded. So long as the Episcopate is believed to be 
 built upon the foundation of the Twelve, it is impossible to 
 leave out that chief of their number, who by name and office 
 was associated to the true Rock, that he might give stability 
 to his brethren. So long as the Apostles are believed to 
 open and shut Heaven through the ministry of their succes- 
 sors, it is impossible to omit that centre of unity, who bore 
 the keys of office in the midst of his brethren. 
 
120 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 EPISTLES. 
 
 IT is commonly urged as an objection to the statements which 
 have been made in the last Chapter, that St. Peter does not 
 seem to have exercised such a power as has been attributed 
 to him ; neither does it appear to have been claimed by his 
 immediate successors. Here, then, are two points to be con- 
 sidered. Does it appear from the history of the Church that 
 St. Peter acted as Primate ; and was any such Primacy pos- 
 sessed by his earliest successors ? 
 
 Now, it is essential to bear in mind the exact point which 
 is to be established. What is meant by St. Peter's Primacy ? 
 It must not be confounded with that Supremacy of the Pope, 
 which has existed in later times, and which has derived its 
 shape from the decrees of Councils, and the custom of 
 Christendom. The See of Rome is older than all the thrones 
 of the earth ; and it has acquired various functions in those 
 eighteen centuries, during which all the institutions of Europe 
 have formed themselves around it. But the Primacy of St. 
 Peter, in its original shape, was not a defined power ; it may 
 from the first have enabled the Apostles to co-operate, but 
 its own nature and limits were not fixed by any positive 
 regulations. Let us go back, then, to the time when the 
 Church existed in its embryo form in the College of Apostles. 
 As yet there was no set of laws, or at least none has been pre- 
 served, by which their functions were discriminated from those 
 of their subordinate assistants ; and we are left uncertain 
 whether St. Barnabas succeeded to the full powers of the 
 
ST. PETER'S PRIMACY, ETC. 121 
 
 Apostolate, and whether St. James, of Jerusalem, was one of 
 the Twelve. Yet the whole Body was instinct with that 
 living power, through the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
 which was gradually to shape it into all the institutions of the 
 Church. The acts through which this organization was to be 
 attained, were the teaching of doctrine and the ministration 
 of sacraments ; and the condition on which the Church's life 
 depended, was that it should be that one Body of Christ, 
 which was inhabited by His Spirit. As yet, then, it would 
 be unreasonable to expect any rules respecting the functions 
 of the chief Apostle, since we have no rules respecting the 
 functions of his brethren. If Cyprian has preserved the right 
 interpretation of those events which are recorded in the Gos- 
 pels, Our Lord's reason for giving this especial commission to 
 His chief Apostle was to secure unity among the rest. We 
 have seen that such an opinion is countenanced by the Gos- 
 pels : is it negatived in the History which is recorded in the 
 Acts? 
 
 The most decisive argument against it would be to show 
 that some Apostle separated himself from St. Peter's commu- 
 nion, and formed a congregation apart. This is what some 
 of St. Paul's converts at Corinth seem to have contemplated 
 till they were reprehended by the Apostle. " Is Christ 
 divided, was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the 
 name of Paul ?" In order to maintain St. Peter's Primacy, it 
 is not necessary to affirm that the other Apostles acted by 
 his authority ; for they had previously received authority from 
 Qur Lord, which had never been superseded, and St. Paul 
 was subsequently admitted to the same privilege by special 
 miracle. Again : It was unnecessary that St. Peter should 
 instruct the other Apostles, since all of them were inspired. 
 All which the Primacy implies, is that which St. Cyprian 
 asserts, and which appears to have been expressed in the 
 words of Our Lord the foundation was laid in one, that the 
 whole Body might grow harmoniously the keys were put 
 into the hands of one, that the action of the whole Body 
 might be accordant. This by no means did away with the 
 authority of the rest, nor proves St. Peter to have had power 
 to supersede or displace them ; it implies only that it was a 
 
122 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 condition of their office, that each Apostle should be in union 
 with the chief. Now, there is nothing certainly in the Acts 
 which negatives this principle, for that book records no in- 
 stance of a division in the Christian body. It may be said, 
 perhaps, that so small a body might easily co-operate, espe- 
 cially since they were all taught by the Spirit, and that there 
 was no likelihood, therefore, of such difference of opinion as 
 parted St. Paul and St. Barnabas. This may be true ; but the 
 Ancient Church supposed that the thing was not left to acci- 
 dent ; for that particular provision had been made against 
 this danger by the appointment of St. Peter's Primacy. 
 " The Church is founded on Peter, although in another place 
 it is on all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the King- 
 dom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is consoli- 
 dated upon all, yet, therefore, is one chosen among the Twelve, 
 that, a head being constituted, occasion of division might be 
 done away." 1 
 
 It is plain, then, that the Acts do not negative St. Peter's 
 Primacy ; but do they confirm it ? Now, the Book of Acts 
 consists of two parts. First, come twelve chapters, which 
 present to us the history of the Church at large till the escape 
 of St. Peter, and the death of Herod. These are followed by 
 sixteen chapters respecting one particular mission, that of 
 St. Paul to the Gentiles. In the first portion of the book, 
 which describes the actions of all the Apostles, St. Peter is 
 so entirely prominent, that his position might almost be com- 
 pared with that which Our Lord Himself, while upon earth, 
 occupied towards His disciples. Scarcely a single thing 
 occurs, in which the Apostles take part as a body, in which 
 he is not the individual, whose words give expression to the 
 mind of the brethren. When a new Apostle is required in 
 the room of Judas, " Peter stood up in the midst of the 
 disciples ;" and the residue joined him in doing that, which 
 he pronounced " must" be done. No doubt he " does every 
 thing with the common consent ; nothing imperiously." But 
 " both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by 
 Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honour, he 
 
 1 St. Jerom. adv. Jovinian. i. vol. iv. pt. 2. p. 168, Martianay. 
 
IN THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. 123 
 
 always begins the discourse." 2 When the multitude, there- 
 fore, came together on the day of Pentecost, " Peter standing 
 up with the eleven lifted up his voice." His sermon only 
 is recorded ; and the multitude certainly regarded him as the 
 head of their new instructors, for they " said unto Peter, and 
 to the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall 
 we doT 
 
 The same thing is observable in regard to the especial acts, 
 whether of mercy or punishment, which were performed by 
 the Apostles. The power of working miracles had been be- 
 stowed upon all of them ; but when this power was to be ex- 
 ercised by the body, the act always proceeds from their chief. 
 When Peter and John heal the lame man, it is Peter who 
 " took him by the right hand and raised him up." Again : 
 When the same two Apostles encounter Simon Magus, his 
 sentence is passed by Peter. When Ananias and Sapphira are 
 struck dead, Peter pronounces their doom. So apparent was 
 this, that those who desired to profit by their miraculous 
 powers, " brought forth the sick into the streets," " that at 
 the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow 
 some of them." And so, in like manner, when that momen- 
 tous change w r as to be made, whereby Gentiles should be 
 admitted into the Church, Peter was chosen both to receive 
 supernatural instruction respecting the Divine will, and to 
 carry it into execution. 
 
 Now, if it be objected that this prominence of St. Peter 
 was the result of those natural qualities which led him to be 
 more active than his brethren, it may readily be admitted, 
 that the Divine wisdom had selected a man, who possessed 
 the talent of government, to be head of the Apostles. But 
 if we suppose that the infant Church was guided, not by 
 human wisdom, but by the Spirit of God, we shall not refer 
 the conduct of the chief Apostle merely to human courage. 
 As well might we suppose that the sagacity of Moses accounts 
 for the passage through the wilderness ; or that the conquest 
 of Canaan was owing to the valour of Joshua. And at any 
 rate such a mode of arguing shows that there is no force in 
 the objection, that if our Lord had given St. Peter the Pri- 
 8 St. Chrysostom on Acts i. 15. Horn. iii. 
 
124 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 macy, its exercise would have been more apparent. For to 
 argue that St. Peter took the lead through forwardness of 
 temper, is to admit his actual prominence. All the ancient 
 writers, however, agree in attributing St. Peter's acts to the 
 especial commission with which he was intrusted : and think 
 it necessary rather to account for the forbearance, with 
 which at times he kept back, than for the forwardness which 
 he usually exhibited. In the appointment of St. Matthias, for 
 example, St. Chrysostom, while observing that St. Peter took 
 the lead, yet praises his moderation, because he consulted the 
 disciples at large, whereas he might have acted by his single 
 authority. For "he had the same power to ordain, as they 
 all collectively." Such moderation he considers an instance 
 of " the noble spirit of the man," and that " prelacy then was 
 not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the govern- 
 ed." 3 Again : When St. Peter had visited Cornelius, " they 
 of the circumcision" took offence at this deviation from the 
 Jewish Law. Here St. Chrysostom notices on the one hand 
 the boldness of the objectors, who a were not abashed at 
 Peter's authority, nor at the signs which had taken place ;" 4 
 and on the other, the forbearance of the Apostle, in consent- 
 ing to be put upon his defence. " Observe how he excuses him- 
 self, and does not claim to use the authority of the teacher. 
 For he knew that the more mildly he speaks, the more he 
 shall subdue them." 5 In these remarks St. Chrysostom is 
 followed by St. Gregory the Great. After observing that 
 St. Peter " had received power over the kingdom of heaven," 
 that he had " cured the sick with his shadow, that his word 
 had slain sinners and raised the dead to life ;" he says, in 
 allusion to the remonstrances made on this occasion, "And 
 yet this same first of the Apostles, though overflowing with 
 such gifts of grace, though sustained by such power of mira- 
 cles, replied to the complaint of the faithful not by authority 
 but by reason ; he expounded the cause in order. For had 
 he, when blamed by the faithful, regarded the authority 
 which he had received in the Holy Church, he might have 
 replied, that the sheep, which had been committed to him, 
 should not venture to censure their shepherd. But had he, 
 Horn. iii. 3. In Acta. * Horn. In Acta xxiv. 2. 5 Id. xxiv. 1. 
 
IN THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. 125 
 
 when the faithful made complaint, said any thing respecting 
 his own power, he would not truly have been the teacher of 
 meekness." And then he goes on to deduce a lesson for his 
 own conduct from the example of this " Shepherd of the 
 Church," and "Prince of the Apostles." 6 
 
 In St. Peter's conduct, again, at the Council of Jerusalem, 
 the ancient writers remark upon the moderation of St. Peter, 
 but see no signs that he was wanting in authority. St. 
 Chrysostom observes upon the insubordination of those in- 
 ferior members of the Church, who raised the question ; and 
 upon the forbearance of the Apostles, who suffered it to be 
 debated. " Great effrontery this of the Pharisees, that even 
 after faith they set up the law, and will not obey the Apos- 
 tles." And he refers especially to St. Peter, as having 
 allowed the discussion to have its course, and having then 
 stepped in with authority. "Observe, he first permits the 
 question to be moved in the Church, and then speaks." 7 
 So also does Tertullian refer to him, as having decided the 
 question by his sentence. " In that dispute whether the law 
 should be kept, Peter, first of all, inspired by the Spirit, and 
 having spoken of the call of the Gentiles, ' And now/ he says, 
 ' why have you tempted God, by putting a yoke upon the 
 neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were 
 able to bear ? But by the grace of Christ we believe that we 
 shall be saved even as they.' This sentence both loosed those 
 parts of the Law which were given up, and gave obligation 
 to those which were continued." 8 
 
 It has been alleged, that St. Peter's superiority hardly con- 
 sorts with the position of St. James, who speaks last, and in a 
 manner which plainly implies authority. And that St. James 
 was Bishop at Jerusalem 9 is referred to by St. Chrysostom, 
 as the reason why he thus closes the discussion. But there 
 is nothing in this circumstance which implies him to have 
 been superior to St. Peter, who had first laid down " the rule, 
 to which James and all the elders acceded." * St. James, it 
 must be remembered, was not one of the three leading Apos- 
 tles ; it is dubious if he was one of the Twelve. St. Chry- 
 
 ' Epist. Lib. xi. 45. p. 1129. 7 Horn, in Acta. xxxii. 2. 8 De Pudic. xxi. 
 9 Horn, xxxiii. 1. 10 St. Jerom. in Epis. St. August. Ixxv. 7. 
 
126 ST. PETEK'S PRIMACY 
 
 sostom, after observing that Our Lord, by the charge to 
 "feed My sheep," "putteth into St. Peter's hands the chief 
 authority among the brethren," asks the question, " how, 
 then, did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?" His 
 answer is, that Christ "appointed Peter teacher not of the 
 chair, but of the world." 1 The circumstance, then, which 
 gave St. James peculiar weight on this occasion was, that in 
 the Council of Jerusalem a concession was made by the 
 Jewish Christians to their Gentile brethren. The accord- 
 ance, therefore, of the Bishop of Jerusalem was the ratifica- 
 tion of a compact, which was necessary to the public peace. 
 St. Peter had laid down the principle which was to be adopt- 
 ed, by a reference to the peculiar revelation which had been 
 made to himself. St. James's words were a public pledge 
 that the rule should no longer be resisted. 
 
 The position of St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, seems 
 to account for a remarkable variation in the order commonly 
 observed in respect to the names of the Apostles. St. Paul, 
 when informing the Galatians of his visit to Jerusalem, speaks 
 (at least in the received text) of having seen "James, Cephas, 
 and John." Perhaps it is the unusual order here observed, 
 which has led many both of the Fathers, and of the best 
 manuscripts, either to omit, or postpone the first name ; but 
 allow the reading to be correct, and why should not St. Paul 
 mention the Bishop of the City which he visited, before the 
 two chief of the Apostles whom he saw there ? But in the 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul often mentions 
 St. Peter's name, the order observed always points out his 
 priority. " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, 
 and I of Christ." " It was not to prefer' himself before St. 
 Peter that he set his name last, but as preferring Peter 
 greatly before himself. For he speaks in the ascending 
 scale." 12 Such passages occur not less than four 13 times in 
 this Epistle. Observe the notice which is given of another 
 by St. Chrysostom. " Have we not power to lead about a 
 sister, a woman, even as the other Apostles, and as the 
 
 11 In Job. Horn. Ixxxviii. This entirely agrees with the statement of St. 
 Clement, Eus. ii. 1. 
 
 12 St. Chrys. Horn. iii. 4, on I Cor. lt I Cor. i. 12 ; iii. 22 ; ix. 5 ; xv. 5. 
 
IN THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. 127 
 
 brethren of the Lord and Cephas. Observe his wisdom. He 
 has put the chief last. For that is the place for laying down 
 one's strongest topics. It was not so remarkable to show 
 that the rest would do this, as that it was done by the chief 
 combatant, by him who had been intrusted with the Keys of 
 Heaven. But he does not mention Peter alone, but all of 
 them, as though to say, whether you seek the inferior sort or 
 the leaders, you have examples from all. For Our Lord's 
 brethren, when they were freed from their previous unbelief, 
 were among the most eminent, though they did not equal the 
 Apostles. So that he has set them down in the midst ; the 
 highest on either side." 14 
 
 That St. Paul should give this prominence to St. Peter's 
 name is the more material, because the necessity of defending 
 himself against Judaizing teachers led him to insist rather on 
 the validity of his own mission, than on the unity of the 
 Apostolic College. Yet the early writers, though recognizing 
 his more abundant labours, and though impregnated them- 
 selves with the spirit of his theology, understand him to have 
 attributed the same pre-eminence to St. Peter, which his 
 companion, St. Luke, assigns to that Apostle in the Acts. 
 To this conclusion they were not led certainly by any national 
 prejudice in favour of the Apostle of the Circumcision, since 
 the great writers of the early Church were all of Gentile 
 origin. Yet, when St. Paul speaks of going up " to see 
 Peter," they all understand this to have been a mark of re- 
 spect, paid by one whom Our Lord had added to their num- 
 ber by immediate appointment, to the chief of the Apostles. 
 " He goes up to Jerusalem, as he himself relates," says Ter- 
 tullian, "as a matter of duty, and through the obligation 
 of their common faith and preaching." 15 Marius Victorinus, 
 in the fourth century, observes : " After three years, says he, 
 I came to Jerusalem ; then he adds the cause, to see Peter. 
 For if the foundation of the Church was laid on Peter, as is 
 said in the Gospel, Paul, to whom all things had been re- 
 vealed, knew that he was bound to see Peter, as one to 
 whom so great an authority had been given by Christ, not to 
 
 14 1 Cor. Horn. xxi. 2. 1S De Prsescrip. xxiii. 
 
128 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 learn anything from him." 16 So Hilary the Deacon, and St. 
 Jerome, commenting on the same passage : " It was fit that 
 he should desire to see Peter, because he was the first of the 
 Apostles to whom Our Saviour had delegated the care of the 
 Churches, not that he might learn anything of him." 17 And 
 again : He did not go " for the sake of learning, since he had 
 himself the same authority for his teaching, but that he might 
 do honour to the first Apostle." 18 
 
 The same was the judgment of St. Chrysostom and Theo- 
 doret in the East. St. Peter, says the first, " was the chosen 
 one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of 
 the band; on this account, also, St. Paul went up upon a 
 time to inquire of him rather than the others." 19 And again : 
 " Being in no want of Peter, nor of his oral teaching, but 
 being equal with him in rank, for I will say no more here, he 
 yet goes up to him, as to a greater and elder. And the 
 cause of his journey thither, is solely to see Peter." 20 And 
 Theodoret on the same passage : " Not wanting doctrines 
 from men, as having received them from the God of all, he 
 pays suitable honour to the chief." Theodoret again writes 
 to St. Leo : " If Paul, the preacher of the truth, the trumpet 
 of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to carry 
 from him the determination to those at Antioch, who disputed 
 as to living under the Law, how much more do we, poor and 
 humble, run to your Apostolic throne, to receive from you 
 healing for the wounds of the Churches !" 21 
 
 These writers, then, attributed to St. Paul an immediate 
 and independent commission from Our Lord, such as He 
 bestowed upon all the Apostles, but they represent him to 
 have recognized that priority of St. Peter, which was design- 
 ed to secure the unity of the Apostolic body. " For accord- 
 ing to St. Matthew's account," says St. Pacian, "the Lord 
 spoke first to Peter, that is, to one, that He might lay the 
 foundations of unity in a single person." 22 And again St. 
 
 16 Com. in Gal. i. 18, Mai Coll. Nov. Tom. iii. as quoted in Allies's St. Peter's 
 Name and Office, p. 164. 
 
 17 St. Amb. vol ii. App. p. 213. 18 St. Jerom. vol. iv. 1 . p. 236. 
 
 19 In Joh. Horn. Ixxxviii. 20 In Gal. i. 18. 
 
 21 Ep. 113, vol. iii. 984. 
 22 Con. Nov. Ep. 3, Bib. Pat. iv. 311. 
 
IN THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. 129 
 
 Optatus : " There was one chair, in which sat Peter, the head 
 of all the Apostles, that unity might be preserved by all, and 
 that the other Apostles might not claim for themselves each 
 his individual chair." 23 Hilary the Deacon, while assigning 
 to St. Paul a superiority in the particular mission to the 
 Gentiles, contrasts it with the superiority which belonged to 
 St. Peter in the Church at large. Paul " mentions Peter 
 alone, and compares him to himself, because he had received 
 a primacy for the founding of the Church, while he was him- 
 self elected in like manner to have a primacy in founding the 
 Churches of the Gentiles." And again : " As he assigns asso- 
 ciates to Peter, namely, the illustrious men among the Apos- 
 tles; so he joins Barnabas to himself, who had been associated 
 with him by divine appointment : yet he claims the grace of 
 the Primacy, as granted by God to himself alone, as to Peter 
 alone was it granted among the Apostles." 2 
 
 In no point, however, do the ancient writers differ more 
 remarkably from many modern Commentators, than in their 
 mode of understanding St. Paul's rebuke to St. Peter at 
 Antioch. It has often been forgotten, that St. Peter's fault, 
 as Tertullian expresses it, was " an error of conduct and not 
 of teaching ;" 25 and such, therefore, as an inferior, much more 
 one endowed with the same inspiration as himself, might fitly 
 reprove. For St. Paul was not instructing St. Peter respect- 
 ing any point on which he was misinformed, but was merely 
 appealing to the principles which St. Peter had himself 
 taught, but with which his conduct was not perfectly con- 
 sistent. And St. Paul's reference to the incident would 
 rather imply, that he had addressed himself to the person of 
 most weight, as being fully confident of the justice of his re- 
 monstrances. Many writers, however, both ancient and 
 modern, have supposed the incident to militate against St. 
 Peter's Primacy ; and it has served to bring out in the most 
 conspicuous manner their difference of judgment. For while 
 modern writers have deduced from it conclusions almost in- 
 consistent with St. Peter's inspiration, the ancients, as St. 
 
 23 De Schis. Don. ii. 2. 
 
 24 Comm. in Gal. ii. 7-10. St. Amb. ii. App. p. 216. 
 25 De Praescrip. xxiii. 
 K 
 
130 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria, 
 and Tertullian, 26 have attempted to explain it away as a mere 
 collusive scene, agreed upon for the preservation of peace 
 between the two Apostles. To this they were especially led, 
 says St. Jerome, " in order to answer Porphyry, who accused 
 Paul of forwardness, for venturing to blame the chief of the 
 Apostles." 27 The ancient notion of the relation between 
 these two great Apostles is shown equally by the answer and 
 the attack ; and not less so by the more natural explanation 
 of the occurrence which is given by St. Cyprian. " Not 
 even Peter, whom the Lord chose as first, and on whom He 
 built His Church, insolently claimed anything for himself, 
 when Paul afterwards reasoned with him on the subject of 
 circumcision; nor took upon him to say in an arrogant manner, 
 that he had the Primacy, and ought rather to be obeyed by 
 those who were less ripe, and later than himself; but he 
 readily admitted the counsel of truth, and gave easy access to 
 that legitimate consideration which St. Paul adduced." 28 
 
 If we are to understand Scripture, then, as it was under- 
 stood by the early Christians, we must suppose that the rela- 
 tion of St. Peter to the Apostle of the Gentiles, does not lead 
 to any other conclusion than that which is evidenced by his 
 position towards the residue of the original Twelve. We 
 have no Scriptural record, indeed, of their intercourse, like 
 that which the earlier part of the Book of Acts supplies re- 
 specting the conduct of the whole body ; and St. Paul has 
 little, occasion to mention St. Peter in his Epistles, save when 
 he is compelled to vindicate the independence of his own 
 commission. Yet even these allusions substantiate, rather than 
 derogate, from St. Peter's Primacy ; and the references which 
 are made to him, when the Apostle of the Gentiles denies 
 that his commission is derived from men, show who was the 
 individual, from whom men might imagine that it was derived. 
 And considering that St. Paul's writings gave a tone to the 
 theology of the early Christians, and that the Gentile 
 Churches were mainly built up by his labours, had his com- 
 
 26 The passages are referred to in the note to the Oxford Transl. of Tertul- 
 lian de Prsescrip. xxiv. 
 
 27 Inter Ep. S. Aug. Ep. Ixxv. 6. M Epist. had. 3. 
 
IN THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. 131 
 
 mission superseded that of the chief Apostle of the circumci- 
 sion, we should not find those early and wide-spread references 
 to St. Peter's office as the rock of the Church, which abound 
 in all ancient writers. Had there been any rivalry between 
 these two great Apostles, the Gentile Church would hardly 
 have left such expressions as the following, as her commentary 
 on those passages of Scripture, which express St. Peter's 
 office, and illustrate his conduct to his brethren. For we read 
 that he was "the Kock of the Church," 29 "the Eock on 
 which the Church should be built," 30 " underlying the Church's 
 building," 31 "receiving on himself the building of the Church," 32 
 " the firm Rock," 33 " the Rock, which the proud gates of Hell 
 do not overcome," 34 " the most solid Rock," 35 "he whom Our 
 Lord admitted to a participation of His own title, The Rock," 3 
 "the foundation second from Christ," 37 "the Church's great 
 foundation," 38 " the foundation and basis," 39 " founding the 
 Church by his firmness," 40 " the support of the Church," 41 
 " the Apostle in whom is the Church's support," 42 " the sup- 
 port of the faith," 43 "the pillar of the Church," 44 " the Rock 
 and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the basis of the 
 orthodox faith." 45 
 
 29 St. Hilary on Matth. xvi. 7, on Psalm cxxxi. 4, and de Trin. vi. 20. St. 
 Greg. Nazianzen Orat. xxvi. p. 453. [Paris.] St. Amb. 1st. Hymn, referred to 
 by St. Aug. Eetrac. I. 21. Epiph. in Ancor. 9. 
 
 30 Tertull. de Monog. viii, Origen on Ps. i. in Eus. Hist. vi. 25. Cyprian, 
 Ep. Ixxi. ad Quintum, and Ixxv. from Firmilian. 
 
 31 St. Basil cont. Evnom. II. 4. St. Zeno, II. Trac. xiii. 2. 
 
 32 Id. 83 Epipban. Hser. lix. 7. 
 
 14 St. Aug. in Ps. con. par. Donati. Leo, Ser. 98. 35 Tkeodoret, Ep. 77. 
 36 Maximus of Turin, Serm. pro nat. Pet. et Paul. 
 37 S. Greg. Naz. in bom. archieratico inserta. 
 
 38 Origen on Exod. Horn . v. 4. 
 
 39 Gallican Sacramentary, edited by Mabillon, T. i. Mus. Ital. p. 343. Synod 
 of Ephesus, Art. 3. Harduin, vol. i. p. 1478. 
 
 40 Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 154. ' 
 41 St. Ambrose on Virginity, xvi. 105. 
 42 St. Ambrose on Luke, B. iv. n. 70. 
 43 St. Chrysost. bom. on debtor of 10,000 talents, vol. iii. p. 4. 
 
 44 Philip, Legate of tbe Apos. See. Counc. of Epb. Ac. iii. Harduin, i. 
 p. 1478. 
 
 45 Counc. of Chalcedon, Hard. ii. p. 345. The above references are taken 
 from Passaglia de Praerogativis B. Petri. ii. 4, 63. They are quoted also by 
 Allies, St. Peter's Name and Office, p. 15. Both these works have been made 
 use of in this and the previous chapter. 
 
132 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF ROME ST. PETER'S SUCCESSOR. 
 
 IT has been shown in the preceding chapter, that St. Peter's 
 conduct, as recorded in Scripture, was such as we might 
 expect from the Primate of the Church. No particular in 
 his acts or treatment negatives such an idea ; and that he 
 was affirmed to possess this power was the universal under- 
 standing of those first ages, from which we have received the 
 Scriptures. But had he any successors in the Primacy ; and 
 if so, did his successors exercise the power which the Apostle 
 had possessed ? These two questions must be answered in 
 order. 
 
 Had St. Peter any successors ? Now, in making this in- 
 quiry we must remember that the authority which the Apostles 
 left to their successors, was declared by their acts, and not by 
 their assertions. As the first generations of men were content 
 to bring up children, by whom the earth should be inherited, 
 without leaving any record of the bequest; so the Apostles 
 appear to have thought it enough to provide persons to ad- 
 minister the powers which they possessed, and thus to have 
 handed down the government of the Church by actual trans- 
 ference. The authority which St. Paul committed to Timo- 
 thy and Titus is only incidentally noticed ; and no clear inti- 
 mation occurs whether it was designed to be permanent or 
 temporary. St. Ignatius shows that the Sacrament of Our 
 Lord's Body could not be consecrated without authority from 
 the Bishop, and thus indicates the circumstance which has 
 led to the whole system of the Church ; but how acceptable 
 
THE BISHOP OF ROME ST. PETER'S SUCCESSOR. 133 
 
 would be farther details in what manner the first series of 
 Bishops succeeded to the functions of the Apostles. Respect- 
 ing the filling up even of the chief Sees, and the very names 
 of those who occupied them, our first informant is a person 
 who looked at the Church with the eye of an antiquarian 
 rather than with that of a Christian, and who took interest in 
 searching into those principles as a historian, to which pre- 
 ceding generations had been content to yield practical obe- 
 dience. But it is only the most distinguished Bishops, who 
 occupied the Patriarchal Sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, 
 and Jerusalem, whose names are recorded even by Eusebius ; 
 and he appears to have been satisfied with tracing them up in 
 general to the times of the Apostles, without verifying that 
 most important link, by which Episcopal was bound to Apos- 
 tolical authority. 
 
 This absence of any exact information in other cases gives 
 greater importance to that one instance in which the evidence 
 is complete. For there is one Apostle whose successors have 
 been recorded, and one Church, respecting which it has been 
 thought important to preserve the line of the Episcopate, and 
 that not merely as a matter of antiquarian observation, but by 
 those who desired to produce an authority to which they 
 could appeal in questions of doctrine. Now, this Church is 
 the Church of Rome, and this Apostle was St. Peter. To 
 find a witness to their pretensions we need not go down cen- 
 turies after the time of the Apostles ; we have it in the testi- 
 mony of St. Irena3us, the most important writer, perhaps, in 
 the second century. In a passage, part whereof has been 
 already cited, he refers to the successors of the Apostles, as a 
 living witness to the Gospel which they had taught. His 
 own language and origin were likely to turn his thoughts to- 
 wards the Eastern Church, for he wrote in Greek, and had 
 sat at the feet of Polycarp, St. John's disciple. A letter, 1 
 moreover, from the Church at Lyons, over which he presided, 
 to the Churches of Phrygia and Asia, shows that the asso- 
 ciations of his hearers also were with the East, though they 
 lived in Gaul. To what Church, then, does he refer, when 
 he has occasion to appeal to Apostolic authority ? " Since it 
 
 J Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 1. 
 
134 THE BISHOP OF ROME 
 
 would be a long task," he says, " in such a volume as this to 
 enumerate the successions of all the Churches, therefore, by 
 stating the tradition of that Church, which is the greatest, 
 most ancient, and best known of all the Church I mean, 
 which was founded and constituted at Rome by the two most 
 glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul and by declaring the 
 faith, which it announces to mankind, and which comes 
 through the successions of Bishops even to our days, we 
 confound all those, who in whatever way, whether from self- 
 conceit, vain-glory, or blindness and ill-judgment, separate 
 themselves from the Body. For to this Church, by reason 
 of its superior principality, must every Church resort, that is, 
 the faithful everywhere ; seeing that in it, ever, by those who 
 are everywhere, the Apostolical tradition has been preserved. 
 The Blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the 
 Church, put the administration of its Episcopate in the hands 
 of Linus. Of this Linus St. Paul makes mention in his 
 Epistles to Timothy. To Linus succeeds Anacletus. After 
 him, in the third place from the Apostles, the Episcopate is 
 allotted to Clement, who also had seen the Blessed Apostles. 
 To this Clement succeeds Evaristus, and to Evaristus Alex- 
 ander, and then sixth after the Apostles is Xystus appointed, 
 and after him Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred. 
 Then came Pius, after him Anicetus, who was succeeded by 
 Soter, and now the Episcopate is held by Eleutherus, the 
 twelfth in succession from the Apostles. In this order, and 
 through this succession, has the tradition of the Apostles, 
 which was preserved in the Church, and the teaching of the 
 truth, come down to us." 2 
 
 It may be objected, perhaps, that as S^ Paul is referred to 
 in this passage as well as St. Peter f the Bishop of Rome can 
 claim no peculiar succession from the latter. St. Peter had 
 received from Our Lord the general commission of an Apos- 
 tle ; independently of that peculiar function which resulted 
 from his being associated with Our Lord Himself, the true 
 Rock of the Church. It was this last circumstance which 
 made him the centre of unity to the whole body, so that his 
 co-operation was necessary to the whole body, while the co- 
 3 Adv. Hser. iii. 3, 2. 
 
ST. PETER'S SUCCESSOR. 135 
 
 operation of no other individual was necessary to him. Since 
 St. Paul, then, concurred with St. Peter in handing down 
 authority to the Roman Church, it may be said that the com- 
 mission bestowed upon it cannot have been that which was 
 peculiar to St. Peter, but only that which these two Apostles 
 shared together. 
 
 Such is the objection. It proceeds upon the supposition, 
 that St. Peter's power consisted of two portions, one of which 
 expired with himself, while he handed on the other. Either, 
 then, we ought to find some ancient statement that his func- 
 tions were understood to be thus divided ; or such an arrange- 
 ment, though not expressed in words, must have been 
 implied in the manner in which his office was dealt with. But 
 neither of these suppositions is maintainable. Our Lord's 
 promise of His continual presence, the conduct of the Apos- 
 tles themselves, and the belief of their first disciples, had led 
 the ancient Christians to the conclusion, that the commission 
 bestowed upon the Twelve was given for the permanent 
 guidance and administration of the Church. But nothing 
 indicates that the commission of the other Eleven was sup- 
 posed to be more durable than his, whom St. Matthew terms 
 the First Apostle. No ancient Church-writer attempts to 
 discriminate between his powers, and to show that the one 
 part of them was merely personal, the other transferable. 
 Such a mode of speaking occurs indeed in Tertullian, 3 but it 
 is in his attacks upon the Church, after he had joined the 
 Montanists, and is directed against Apostolic, not Primatial 
 authority. No doubt it has been found convenient in later 
 times to discriminate the several ideas, which were involved 
 in St. Peter's office, and to point out what was peculiar to 
 himself, what common to his brethren. The last was that 
 which belongs to all Bishops, the power of performing spiri- 
 tual acts, which is conferred by consecration. The first was 
 that which arose out of the relation which he bore to his 
 brethren, and which has given occasion to that gradation of 
 rank, which regulates the exercise of spiritual functions. 
 That which is common to all Bishops has since been called 
 
 the power of Order ; and Mission has been the name given to 
 3 De Pudicitia. xxi. 
 
136 THE BISHOP OF EOME 
 
 that authority, which arranges when, how, and where the 
 power of Order shall be used. In the ancient Church this 
 authority was ordinarily exercised by the Metropolitans and 
 Patriarchs ; and the larger part of it was finally concentrated 
 in the chief Patriarch, who represented St. Peter. But 
 whatever power of this kind the Primacy may have possessed, 
 it was not so discriminated from the general functions of the 
 First Apostle, as to give any historical ground for the asser- 
 tion that his successor inherited the one and not the other. 
 
 Nor is any such supposition implied by the manner in 
 which his office was transmitted. It was natural that St. 
 Irenaeus should refer to the fact that St. Paul co-operated in 
 the founding of the Roman Church, because he was not only 
 appealing to its authority, but referring to its testimony. 
 And considering that St. Paul was the only Apostle, who in 
 after times was likely to be contrasted with St. Peter, there 
 may have been providential reasons for their union in this 
 action. But St. Peter's commission was certainly understood 
 to have been handed down undivided to the Bishops of Rome ; 
 for though St. Paul is universally said to have been con- 
 cerned in the founding of this Church, yet it was always 
 called the See of St. Peter. So it is styled by St. Cyprian, 
 and universally by later writers. 
 
 " Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralis honoris 
 Facta caput mundo, quicquid non possidet armis 
 Religione tenet." 4 
 
 When describing the election of Cornelius, St. Cyprian says 
 that it happened when u the place of Fabianus, that is, the 
 place of Peter ) was vacant." 5 And Tertullian, at the end of 
 the second century, though affirming, as St. Irenasus does, 
 that the Church of Rome had been raised by the labours, 
 and ennobled by the martyrdom of these two Apostles, 6 
 yet refers the appointment of its Bishop to St. Peter alone. 
 He speaks of St. Clement, who was certainly a contemporary 
 of the Apostles (it does not appear clearly whether Ter- 
 tullian imagined him to be the first Bishop after the Apostks,) 
 as having received his Episcopate from St. Peter. 7 Ter- 
 
 4 S. Prosper de Ingratis. cap. ii. Bib. Patr. viii. 106. 
 5 Ep. Iv. 7. Antoniano. De Praescrip. xxxvi. 7 Id. xxxii. 
 
137 
 
 tullian is borne out by Eusebius, so far as concerns the 
 identification of the Roman Episcopate with the succession 
 of St. Peter, though he also records the martyrdom 8 of 
 both Apostles at Rome. For he speaks of Linus as the 
 "first Bishop after Peter." 9 The same position is assigned to 
 St. Peter in the curious documents which were current under 
 the name of Clement, and which show the general belief 
 as early probably as the end of the second century. So, too, 
 Lactantius, in later times, when mentioning the martyrdom 
 of the two Apostles at Rome, speaks of St. Peter particu- 
 larly, as having " raised a temple there to God." 10 
 
 Since the Church of Rome, then, was spoken of in ancient 
 times as the See of St. Peter, though St. Paul also was one 
 of its founders; the commission transmitted by the other 
 Apostle must surely have been characteristic and peculiar. 
 For why should this Church have been so especially associated 
 with the name of St. Peter, unless there was something speci- 
 fic in the commission which he transmitted ? Its connexion 
 with him is not sufficiently accounted for by the opinion, which 
 is maintained with considerable plausibility by some recent 11 
 German critics, that St. Peter had been the first Apostle 
 who visited Rome; this being the "other place" to which 
 he went, after his escape from the hands of Herod. Such a 
 supposition accords well enough with the early statements 
 respecting his ministry at Rome in the time of Claudius ; 12 
 but the appointment of its Episcopate took place evidently 
 during that last visit, which was followed by his martyrdom. 
 Priority of time was not all which was intended ; as we may 
 infer from the notice which Dionysius of Corinth gives of the 
 visit paid by these two Apostles to that city on their way to 
 Rome. Corinth had been originally converted by St. Paul; 
 but Dionysius 13 puts St. Peter first, as one of the two who 
 had "planted" the Church at Corinth, and thereby associated 
 it with the Church of Rome. 
 
 The evidence which has been already adduced is sufficient 
 
 8 Hist. Eccl. ii. 25. 9 Id. iii. 4. lo De Mortibus Pers. ii. 
 
 11 Vid. Windischman's Vindiciaa Petrinse. Ratisbon, 1836. Thiersch's 
 Kirche im Apost. Zeitalter, Erlangen, 1852. p. 97. 
 
 12 Eus. ii. 14. w Ens. ii. 25. 
 
138 THE BISHOP OF ROME 
 
 to show how entirely groundless are the doubts which have 
 been thrown out, whether St. Peter ever visited Rome. It 
 is difficult to understand how such a question can have been 
 seriously raised, since there is scarcely an ancient writer who 
 does not either assert, or allude to his residence in that city. 
 " That St. Peter was at Rome, and for some time had his 
 seat there, we affirm without hesitation," says Cave, " with 
 the whole body of the ancients." 14 But another expedient 
 has been devised for neutralizing any peculiar claim, which 
 the Bishops of Rome might derive from St. Peter's com- 
 mission the assertion, namely, that all Bishops are equally 
 his successors. The notion mentioned above was, that his 
 successors at Rome inherited nothing but his ordinary com- 
 mission as an Apostle ; this would imply that his office of 
 Primate was bequeathed to the whole Episcopate. And this 
 has been supposed to be the meaning of St. Cyprian's state- 
 ment, that the principle of unity was expressed in the com- 
 mission to St. Peter ; each Bishop viewed by himself being 
 a full representation and successor of St. Peter. 15 
 
 Such an interpretation, however, both fails of doing jus- 
 tice to St. Cyprian's argument, and is inconsistent with his 
 own express words. His argument is, that Our Lord laid 
 the foundation of His Church in one, " in order to manifest 
 unity." He must be referring, then, to some method by 
 which the several Apostles, the foundations of the Church, 
 might themselves be exempted from division. With what 
 purpose otherwise does he introduce the mention of the other 
 Apostles, which would be superfluous, if he were alluding 
 only to the authority of each Bishop over his spiritual sub- 
 jects ? " Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter 
 was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and 
 power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the 
 Church may be set before us as one." The words have an 
 
 14 Historia Lit. vol. i. p. 7. Lardner comes to the same conclusion ; and 
 sums up the evidence by saying, " It is not for our honour, nor our interest, 
 either as Christians, or Protestants, to deny the truth of events, ascertained by 
 early and well-attested tradition." We may now add the testimony of Hip- 
 polytus, in the recently discovered Philosophumena, vi. 20, p. 176. 
 15 Note to Oxf. Trans, of St. Cyprian's Treatises, v. 4. 
 
ST. PETER'S SUCCESSOR. 139 
 
 obvious meaning, if they refer to the maintenance of unity 
 among themselves ; but how does the fact, that a commence- 
 ment is made from unity, affect that relation, which is owed 
 by each Christian to his own spiritual Father ? And so the 
 thing was certainly understood by other writers, who carried 
 on St. Cyprian's argument. The reason why the founda- 
 tion of the Church was laid in one, says St. Optatus, was, 
 " that the other Apostles might not assert each his own in- 
 dividual chair, but that he might be reckoned a schismatic, 
 who against this one chair set up another/' 16 And so St. 
 Jerome : tc Therefore, one is chosen among the Twelve, that 
 by the appointment of a head, occasions of division might be 
 avoided." 17 
 
 Such an interpretation, then, of St. Cyprian's words neither 
 does justice to their own force, nor accords with the language 
 of other writers. But, further, it is contrary to the fact to 
 say, that St. Cyprian speaks of all Bishops as occupying 
 equally " the chair of St. Peter." On the contrary, he applies 
 the term especially to the See of Rome, both when he calls 
 the " place of Fabianus," " the place of Peter ;" 18 and still 
 more distinctly when he complains that certain parties who 
 had gone from Carthage to Rome, " venture to sail to the 
 See of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence Sacerdotal 
 unity has arisen." 19 And considering that the Church of 
 Rome is so closely connected with the Apostle who founded 
 it, such a mode of speaking, as has been attributed to St. 
 Cyprian, would tell in its favour, rather than against it. For 
 to speak of all Bishops as successors of St. Peter, would im- 
 ply that the rest of the Twelve had merely a life-office, and 
 would thus concentrate the whole provision for the future 
 prospects of the Church in the succession of its Primate. 
 
 Certainly there is one peculiarity in regard to St. Peter's 
 succession, which suggests another relation between the chief 
 Apostle and his Master. Though we know in general that 
 all mankind have descended from Adam, yet Our Lord was 
 the only individual of His generation, whose earthly parentage 
 can be traced to our common ancestor. In Him began a 
 
 16 De Seism. Don. ii. 2. " Adv. Jov. i. p. 168. 
 
 18 Ep. Iv. 7. 19 Ep. lix. 19, Cornelio. 
 
140 THE BISHOP OF ROME 
 
 new family, the creation of a second seed, and He appointed 
 Twelve princes of His spiritual progeny, after the number of 
 the twelve sons of Jacob. Their succession continues to the 
 present day ; but there is one only of the Twelve, and that 
 the one whom Our Lord associated to His own office by the 
 name which He bestowed upon him, the line of whose pro- 
 geny has been recorded. Even if we could complete the 
 succession of those Patriarchal Sees, in which we have the 
 assistance of Eusebius, yet two of them, Alexandria and 
 Antioch, owed their existence either to St. Peter's disciple, 
 St. Mark, or to his own temporary residence, 20 while the 
 succession at Jerusalem came to an end with the failure of 
 the Jewish Church, and even this had not been the succes- 
 sion of St. James, but had been instituted after his death by 
 some of the other Apostles. No Bishop, therefore, in the 
 present day can derive his spiritual ancestry from St. Andrew 
 or St. John, or can be sure that any one, who has received 
 succession from any of the Eleven Apostles, has laid hands 
 upon him. But there are Bishops in every quarter of the 
 globe who can trace the succession of their office to the chief 
 Apostle, and prove that their gifts are derived from the im- 
 position of his hands. Thus is the chair of St. Peter the 
 only one which can be shown to have its representatives 
 even at the present day ; and as Our Lord was the only 
 known representative of the first Adam, so St. Peter's pro- 
 geny alone can trace their spiritual descent from the Second. 
 In this respect, then, it may perhaps be said, that every 
 Bishop represents St. Peter, because no Bishop at present 
 existing in the world can trace his line of parentage to any 
 other Apostle. But this circumstance by no means excludes 
 the claim of that which was peculiarly called the See of St. 
 Peter. When a Donatist assailed St. Augustin under pre- 
 
 20 This is affirmed of Antioch by St. Chrysostom, when resident there : " This 
 is one of the privileges of our city, that it received at the beginning for its 
 teacher the first of the Apostles." But he says, " We did not keep him to the 
 end, but yielded him to imperial Rome."* He has elsewhere said, that Christ, 
 after his denial, had " restored him to his former honour, and put into his 
 hands the presidency of the Universal Church." f 
 
 * Vol. iii. 70. In Inscrip. Act. ii. 6. t Vol. ii. 309. De Pan. Horn. v. 2 
 
ST. PETER'S SUCCESSOR. 141 
 
 fence of a peculiar revelation, he replied by reference to the 
 general promises to the Church, as ascertained by a perpetual 
 action through the line of her ministry. And how does he 
 consider that this ought to be traced ? The Donatist Bishop 
 had stated the succession, according to which he claimed to 
 minister. St. Augustin replies : " If the order of the Bishops, 
 who succeed one another, is to be considered, with how much 
 greater certainty and benefit do we reckon from Peter him- 
 self, to whom, as representing the whole Church, Our Lord 
 said, ' On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of 
 Hell shall not prevail against it.' For to Peter succeeded 
 Linus" 21 and then he gives a list of the Bishops of Rome, 
 till he brings them down to Anastatius, with whom he was 
 contemporary. And so, when giving an account of his faith 
 to a Manichasan, he says : " To say nothing of that wisdom, 
 which you do not believe to reside in the Catholic Church, 
 there are many other things which most justly hold me in 
 her bosom. I am held to it by the consent of tribes and 
 nations ; I am held by an authority, which began in miracles, 
 has been nursed by hope, increased by charity, confirmed by 
 age ; I am held by that succession of the Priesthood, which 
 extends from the seat of Peter the Apostle, to whom Our 
 Lord committed His sheep to be fed after His resurrection, 
 even to the present Pontiff." 22 
 
 21 Epis. liii. 2. n Cont. Epis. Manichsei. 5. 
 
142 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF ROME POSSESSED A PKIMACY IN ANTE- 
 NICENE TIMES. 
 
 IN the last chapter it has been shown that St. Peter left suc- 
 cessors, and that who those successors are, cannot be disputed. 
 For the line of his descent has its witness at Canterbury as 
 well as at Westminster ; it is the one only line, through 
 which any Bishop can prove his unbroken succession from 
 the Holy Apostles. But have St. Peter's successors always 
 exercised the powers which were committed to himself? Has 
 the Bishop of Rome always acted as Primate I 
 
 Here lies the great difficulty probably, which has been felt 
 respecting the Roman pretensions. No doubt a certain supe- 
 riority belonged to St. Peter, and his name was associated in 
 early times with the Church of Rome. Scripture is express 
 in declaring the first; and the second lies on the face of 
 ecclesiastical history. But his successors do not appear to 
 have taken that part during some centuries, which we should 
 naturally j expect from the Church's leaders. Every one 
 knows who wasJEmperor of Rome after Augustus ; but though 
 all writers agree that St. Peter consecrated a Bishop there 
 before his martyrdom, it is disputed whether Linus 1 or 
 Clemens was the name of his immediate successor. How 
 could this have been the case, it is asked, if the Bishop of 
 Rome had acted as the head of the Christian community? 
 The very fact that the Church was an aggressive body, which 
 
 1 St. Jerome seems to have supposed it to be Linus " tametsi plerique Latin- 
 orum secundum post Petrum Apostolum putent fuisse Clementem." Cat. Scrip. 
 Ecdes. vol. iv. p. 2. p. 107. [Martianay.] 
 
ROMAN PRIMACY IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 143 
 
 was carrying on a successful warfare against the powers of 
 this world, must have given greater prominence to its chief. 
 Speak of the conquests of the Goths or the Huns, and we are 
 reminded at once of Alaric or Attila ; but no early Bishops 
 of Rome made their names famous by any achievements. 
 None of them wrote anything but a few letters, till we come 
 to the great name of St. Leo, three centuries and a half after 
 the death of the Apostles : and which of his predecessors pro- 
 duced that effect upon his age, for which Gregory VII. or 
 Innocent III. are remembered ? 
 
 This is a common objection to the statement, that the 
 Bishop of Rome inherited the Primacy of St. Peter. But 
 does not such an argument imply a forgetfulness of the truth, 
 that it was by supernatural, and not natural means that the 
 Church was extended ? Had the preachers of the Gospel 
 designed to build up a system according to ordinary laws, and 
 by human efforts, it would have been essential to their success 
 to maintain that concentrated action, which implies the per- 
 petual interference of a chief. Who that chief was, must 
 have been as obvious as that the Vandals were headed by 
 Genseric, or the Romans by Belisarius. But it has been 
 shown already 2 that the Church was designed to interpene- 
 trate society, without destroying its existing relations, or 
 superseding the authority of its temporal rulers. The 
 Church's influence extended itself, like some law of nature, 
 by a secret, silent, invisible attraction : while the very absence 
 of distinguished men showed the more clearly that her pro- 
 gress was attributable to a divine efficacy. During the 
 second century, the Christians had no leaders of great emi- 
 nence ; they had but few writers of merit, and not a single 
 crowned head in their ranks. And yet they were a mighty 
 people, who spread throughout the earth. Pliny's language 
 would make us doubt whether the Church had any internal 
 regulation or system of government at all ; and yet Christian 
 testimony shows how fixed and definite was its inward organi- 
 zation. For it had its princes, who ruled in the place of 
 the Apostles ; but because their authority was not expressed 
 
 * Vid. Cap. iv. 
 
144 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 in any legislative form, and did not interfere with the 
 arrangements of society, there was nothing which, to a 
 stranger, indicated their influence. It lay exclusively in the 
 power of granting or withholding those sacramental gifts, of 
 which the rest of the world thought nothing ; and what was 
 there, therefore, to make it felt beyond the Church's limits ? 
 And yet the power, which this authority conferred upon 
 them, was real and important ; and in after times exercised 
 a weighty influence over the affairs of nations. 
 
 If we hear so little, then, of other Bishops during the first 
 growth of the Church, why should it surprise us, that the 
 Bishop of Rome was scarcely more prominent than his neigh- 
 bours ? The Church was plainly an organic body, growing 
 up by some secret principle of inward vitality, and not in- 
 debted, like the kingdoms of this world, to the talents or 
 enterprise of individual leaders. The stone, which had been 
 " cut out without hands," " became a great mountain." Its 
 increase, like its origin, was the result of some supernatural 
 law. Now, what reason have we to assume, that during all 
 this period the successor of St. Peter was not discharging the 
 same office, which had been performed during his life-time by 
 the chief of the Apostles? St. Peter's Primacy, according to 
 the statements of the ancient Fathers, was designed to main- 
 tain the unity of the Apostolic body. We hear nothing of it, 
 therefore, except when the Apostles acted together ; so that 
 circumstances indicated which of them was foremost. Such a 
 power, then, might exist without discovering itself, till events 
 arose to call it into action. The Church was, as yet, like a 
 human body in its infant state ; it had received an organiza- 
 tion, in which powers lay dormant, which at a later period 
 were to awaken into life. As it would be unreasonable, then, 
 to doubt that a child possesses the capacity of reason, because 
 it does not, as yet, give utterance to its thoughts ; so the 
 Church may have had a centre of unity, though, as yet, there 
 was nothing to call out its services and manifest its effect. 
 The slightest observation shows with how little of scientific 
 analysis and definition the doctrines of faith were as yet ex- 
 pressed; there was the simplicity and purity of a child-like 
 belief, but not that ripeness of knowledge which was derived 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 145 
 
 from the labours of the great Fathers of the fourth century, 
 and which has since given fuller shape to the Creed. And yet 
 there was the most lively conviction of the unity of the whole 
 body ; all its members were held together by an internal 
 cohesion, it had the same faith and the same communion, 
 which was maintained by an uninterrupted intercourse among 
 its most distant parts. Hence the tenacity, with which it 
 retained its doctrine and discipline. " The Church, though 
 scattered throughout the whole world, yet guards diligently 
 this teaching, and this faith, as if it inhabited a single mansion. 
 And this is its belief, as if it had one soul, and the same 
 heart ; and this it preaches, teaches, and delivers down ac- 
 cordantly, as though it had a single mouth." 3 
 
 These considerations lead to the following conclusions ; 
 which must be borne in mind when we consider what his- 
 torical evidence can be adduced for a Primacy before the time 
 of St. Cyprian. 
 
 1st. The antecedent probability is in favour of the Primacy, 
 and not against it. This point does not appear to be commonly 
 recognized : it seems usually supposed, that the early Bishops 
 of Rome may be assumed not to have possessed any power, 
 which they cannot be plainly proved to have exercised. But 
 since it has been shown that a Primacy was certainly pro- 
 mised to St. Peter, and since it is clear that the Bishop of 
 Rome was styled St. Peter's successor, there is reason for 
 expecting that the office which he inherited would imply a 
 precedence over his brethren. Such a mode of arguing has 
 no weight, of course, with Presbyterians, who deny that Our 
 Lord had given a permanent co'mmission to any of His Apos- 
 tles ; but it ought to tell upon Churchmen, who allow that 
 the Apostles govern the Church in the persons of their suc- 
 cessors. For if the whole Episcopate has inherited the Apos- 
 tolic office, why not the successor of St. Peter? And if 
 Peter be present in the Bishop of Rome, is he not still the 
 Primate ? Instead of assuming, therefore, that the Bishop of 
 Rome was not Primate, unless it can be proved that he was 
 so, we ought to assume that he was Primate, unless it can be 
 proved that he was not. The promise to St. Peter, and the 
 
 8 St. Irenseus, I. x. 2. 
 L 
 
146 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 testimony of the Church, justify us in assuming such a thing, 
 unless the contrary can be demonstrated. 
 
 2ndly. The Primacy was only one of those institutions 
 which were appointed by Our Lord, and there is no reason, 
 therefore, why its operation should be looked for, to the ex- 
 clusion of the rest. Our Lord chose Twelve Apostles, who 
 were to extend His Kingdom throughout the world, and the 
 whole complex system of the Church was the result of their 
 words and actions. No doubt their relations towards one 
 another were modified by the existence of that Primacy, which 
 maintained their internal union. But they had each of them 
 their relations also towards their several disciples ; and hence 
 arose the obligations of the Bishop, the Presbyter, and the 
 layman, towards one another. As time went on, the system 
 of the Church became more and more dependent on its centre 
 the Church's security against those worldly powers which 
 threatened to absorb her, was found to depend on the oppor- 
 tunity of ready recurrence to the central authority. So soon 
 as Christianity had become the religion of Europe, and the 
 line of the Apostles had passed into those various tribes 
 which made up the new commonwealth of nations, there was 
 the greatest danger lest the unity of the Church should be 
 lost in the diversity of races, and lest her rulers should be so 
 identified with their temporal associates, as to merge the prin- 
 ciples of grace in the principles of nature. But this was not 
 the case at an early period. And since the Church was not 
 a worldly system, she did not owe her extension to the saga- 
 city of any single ruler ; but her parts grew up gradually, 
 like the arrangements of the British constitution. We need 
 not be surprised, then, if powers displayed themselves in the 
 early Church, which were more or less inconsistent with the 
 full exercise of the Primacy. Such contrary principles must, 
 of necessity, have existed side by side ; and time and expe- 
 rience were required, before they could resolve themselves 
 into perfect harmony. But it does not follow, because the 
 Primacy was at times opposed, that those who opposed, de- 
 nied its existence. Hampden's refusal to pay ship-money 
 was not a denial that England was a monarchy. He appealed 
 only to certain other principles in our constitution, which were 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 147 
 
 as much a part of the whole, as the crown of its sovereign. 
 This must necessarily be the case when the parts of a com- 
 plex system have grown up together. A ruler who has estab- 
 lished his empire by conquest, may make every thing bend to 
 his will, and say, like Louis XIV. Vetat c'est moi : but it is 
 otherwise with a power which has arisen gradually from a 
 system of interdependent relations. Such a power must be 
 limited by those other powers with which it is co-existent ; it 
 cannot supersede the relations which are due to them, except 
 by common consent ; or through the occurrence of such 
 emergencies, as may justify the central authority in sacrificing 
 ordinary rules to the common security. 
 
 3rdly. The Primacy could not be expected to show itself 
 in the Church's opposition to its external assailants, but only 
 in those internal disputes, which regarded the relation of its 
 parts towards one another. It has been asked sometimes, 
 why the authority of the Primate was not employed to put 
 down those various errors which were introduced by Gnostic 
 teachers. But these errors were almost equally opposed by 
 all the leaders of that great confederacy which was called the 
 Church. There was nothing, therefore, to bring out those 
 particular principles which enabled the Church to act to- 
 gether as one man. And even the Arian heresy, though its 
 growth within the Church brought it more especially into 
 opposition to the successor of the first Apostle, yet was not 
 directly an assault upon the Church's unity, and, therefore, 
 did not afford more occasion for the interference of the chief 
 Bishop, than for that of his subordinates. The occasions on 
 which we should expect a direct reference to the Primacy, 
 were those matters of internal arrangement, which affected 
 the uniformity of the Church's practice, and were likely, 
 therefore, to set one Diocese, or one Province, against 
 another. This would have been the effect, no doubt, of every 
 heresy, if it had got possession of any portion of the Church ; 
 but heresies were withstood by every sincere believer, not only 
 because they tended in the end to divide the Church, but 
 because from the first they were a perversion of the Gospel. 
 
 We must look, then, for the action of the Primacy, not in 
 those questions which affected the very existence of Christi- 
 
148 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 anity, and in which the whole body of the Church moved to- 
 gether, but rather in such matters of detail, as had been left 
 open by the Apostles, in which, therefore, a contrariety of 
 practice might lead to division among Christians. Could a 
 dispute have arisen among the Apostles, it would not have con- 
 cerned the essentials of religion, respecting which they were 
 plainly agreed, but must have turned on those minor ques- 
 tions, on which good men might come to different results. 
 And that which is true of the Apostles, is true in degree 
 respecting their earliest successors. The only points on which 
 they were likely to disagree, were such as did not directly 
 concern the main features of the Gospel, and such, moreover, 
 as had been left unfixed by their inspired predecessors. Such 
 were the relations of the Christian to the elder Covenant, and 
 the rules of discipline within the Church. The main points, 
 therefore, of internal dispute, which arose before the Nicene 
 age, were, first, whether the rules of the Jewish Passover 
 ought to fix the time of the Easter Feast ; secondly, whether 
 the Baptism of heretics was valid ; thirdly, whether those who 
 fell into deadly sin could be re-admitted to membership in 
 Christ. Now, in respect to all these points, one line of 
 Bishops, and one only, appears to have interfered in different 
 parts of Christendom ; the course which they proposed was 
 more or less objected to, and yet in process of time was 
 almost entirely adopted ; great opposition was made, as well 
 to the wisdom of their suggestions, as to their harshness in 
 requiring them to be accepted yet no one denied their right 
 to interfere at all. And these Bishops were the successors of 
 Peter, and the See which they occupied was that of Rome. 
 
 1st. The difference respecting Easter had arisen as early 
 as in the time of Poly carp, who came to Rome to discuss the 
 question with Anicetus, soon after the middle of the second 
 century. It revived again in the time of Victor, Bishop 
 of Rome, towards the end of the same century. The dispute 
 was not without its importance, for it was part of that general 
 question respecting the position and independence of the 
 Christian covenant, which had given occasion to much of the 
 teaching of St. Paul. The Apostles had thought it enough 
 to exempt Gentile Christians from keeping the Jewish Law ; 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 149 
 
 but the Church's requirements were gradually increased, till 
 the observance of the Law even by Jewish Christians was 
 prohibited. Such was the case in the time of St. Augustin, 
 when any conformity to the Jewish Law was forbidden under 
 pain of excommunication. In the Church's progress towards 
 this state of things, the abandonment of the Jewish rule re- 
 specting Easter was not without significance ; and it was also a 
 necessary step towards bringing about unity of action among 
 Christians. On these accounts it was subsequently made a 
 positive rule by the Council of Nice, 4 and the Bishops who 
 assembled in Palestine during the time of Victor, appear like- 
 wise to have looked at it as of moment. They imply their 
 wish to observe the same rule with their neighbours, and 
 desire that their letters on the subject may be generally 
 known, that " we may not be chargeable in respect of those 
 who readily deceive their own souls." 5 A similar feeling ex- 
 pressed itself in the 7th Apostolic Canon, which must be 
 referred to some Synod of the same age, and which ordered 
 the deposition of any one of the clergy who celebrated Easter 
 with the Jews. 
 
 But though this was the judgment not of the West only, 
 but of Syria and Egypt, a different opinion was prevalent in 
 Asia Minor. Its Bishops were assembled by their Metropoli- 
 tan, Polycrates of Ephesus, at the desire of the Bishop of 
 Rome ; and they maintained that they were justified in their 
 singularity, because they followed the custom of St. John. 
 Such a mode of arguing would have prevented the Church 
 from forbidding the observance of any part of the Jewish 
 Law, for it was all observed by St. James. In later times, 
 therefore, the excuse was not admitted ; and from the time of 
 the Council of Nice all who employed it were excluded from 
 communion. The Quartodecimans were dealt with as heretics 
 by the Second General Council (Canon VII.,) and were specifi- 
 
 4 Sozomen, i. 21. The Council of Nice stated in a letter to the Church at 
 Alexandria, that those who had hitherto kept Easter with the Jews had agreed 
 to keep it henceforth "with the Romans, and with us," &c. Socrates, i. 9. 
 From this time, therefore, the Quartodeciman usage was treated as a heresy,' 
 as it is declared to he by the 1st. Canon of Antioch, and implied to be by the 
 7th. Canon of the Council of Constantinople. 
 5 Euseb. v. 25. 
 
150 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 cally excommunicated by the Council of Antioch (Canon I.) 
 Pope Victor was disposed to treat the case as the Church 
 afterwards treated it ; and he either menaced, or pronounced 
 excommunication against the Churches of Asia. Other 
 Bishops, however, remonstrated against so harsh a proceed- 
 ing. And the breach appears to have been either prevented 
 or healed by St. Irena3us, who, though a disciple of Poly- 
 carp, and nearly connected with the Eastern Church, had 
 himself adopted the Western usage. He presided as Metro- 
 politan over the Council which was held in Gaul, and expos- 
 tulated with Victor for " cutting off whole Churches for keep- 
 ing to their ancient tradition." 6 He recommended, and with 
 success, that such difference of practice should be allowed, as 
 had existed in the time of his master, Poly carp. So that the 
 Church came to no agreement on the subject till the Nicerie 
 Council. 
 
 Now, there are two conclusions, which may be drawn from 
 this history. First, we see that the Church did not as yet 
 exercise all the authority, which she certainly possessed, for 
 enforcing uniformity. For Polycrates imagined that he 
 should be justified, if he opposed the judgment of all the rest 
 of Christendom. He and his brother Bishops, being sure 
 that they had an Apostle with them, supposed themselves 
 safe, though they stood alone. Since such had been the 
 practice of St. John, who had recorded Our Lord's earnest 
 exhortations to unity, they must have considered that the 
 custom did not interfere with that oneness of faith, which 
 their own teacher had inculcated. But that this was a point 
 which the collective body had a right to decide, and that it 
 had authority to enforce its decision on those who disputed 
 it, we see by the subsequent conduct of the Church, when 
 she settled this question at Nice, and excluded those who 
 stood out against her decree. Secondly, we see what was 
 that power, which aimed at bringing about uniformity in the 
 Church, and where it was deposited. No doubt the circum- 
 stance shows that there were other powers in the Church 
 besides the Primacy; it shows the office of Bishop and 
 Metropolitan to have possessed certain inherent rights, which 
 
 6 Eus. v. 24. 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 151 
 
 were vindicated by those who possessed them. But it shows 
 the action of the Primacy also. For how came Polycrates 
 to call his council together at Victor's desire, but because 
 the latter was taking such steps, as might lead to unity of 
 action? This was recognized afterwards by the Council of 
 Nice, when it expressed its satisfaction that all Churches had 
 agreed to keep Easter henceforth "with the Romans and 
 with us." 7 And it is observable that St. Irenaeus, and those 
 who concurred with him, did not blame Victor for interfering, 
 but merely for the harshness with which he interfered. Can 
 there be any doubt, then, that the Church which exerted 
 itself from the first to bring about oneness of action, and 
 interfered for that purpose in different parts of the world, was 
 exercising the very office, which had been bestowed upon 
 that Apostle, who was made the medium of unity to his 
 brethren ? And whence should it possess that right of in- 
 terference, which was not denied even by those to whom the 
 interference itself seemed too rigorous, save because its Bishop 
 was the successor of St. Peter 1 
 
 2ndly. Somewhat the same inference may be drawn from 
 the celebrated dispute respecting the re-baptism of those 
 who had been baptized by separatists. This practice appears 
 to have been introduced in the West by a Synod of Bishops 
 held under Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, about the year 
 220. 8 The custom of the Eastern Church seems from the 
 first to have differed somewhat from that of the West, as is 
 implied by the 45th Canon of the Apostles : the Eastern 9 
 Church did not deny that Baptism by those who believed in 
 the Blessed Trinity was valid, though the party who main- 
 tained it was in separation, but the Baptism of heretics was 
 either doubted or denied to be valid. Their reason was, that 
 heretics did not really believe in those blessed Persons, in 
 whose name Baptism is ministered. The Eastern custom, 
 however, was neither uniform nor perfectly consistent, and it 
 differed altogether from that which was introduced in the 
 
 7 Socrates, i. 9. 
 
 8 Vid. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Callistus, p. 190. Gyp. Ep. Ixxi. 4. ad 
 Quin. 
 
 8 Vid. note 9, on the Oxford Translation of Tertullian de Baptism, xv. and 
 Dollinger, Hippolytus und Callistus, Cap. 3, p. 191. 
 
152 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 African Church under Agrippinus. This last proceeded upon 
 the principle, that since the gifts of the Holy Ghost were only 
 bestowed in the Church, no Christian act which was per- 
 formed out of the Church could be valid. The conclusion 
 subsequently sanctioned by the Council of Aries supposed 
 Baptism to be valid, when performed in the name of the 
 Blessed Trinity, but that its benefits did not come out, till 
 the baptized person became a member of the Church. But 
 the opposite notion, having been countenanced by Tertullian, 10 
 was zealously defended by St. Cyprian and his friend Firmi- 
 lian, and was afterwards adopted by the Donatists. 
 
 Here again, then, as in respect of the Easter festival, we 
 have a diversity of practice, which interfered for a time with 
 the oneness of the Church's action. In the West, complete 
 agreement was subsequently brought about, when the Dona- 
 tists finally expired ; and the Council in Trullo [Canon 95] 
 approximated the custom of the East to the Western rule. 
 But in this case also a single See had previously interfered in 
 different parts of the world, and its right to call others to ac- 
 count was not denied by those who objected to the occasion 
 and manner, in which that right was exercised. Till lately, 
 indeed, it might have been asked, why we have no allusion to 
 the Bishop of Rome, when Agrippinus, and the Bishops of 
 Africa, introduced their new practice. Not, indeed, that the 
 Church's action was at that time so far centralized, that a 
 single Province might not have taken some important steps 
 independently, though with a consciousness that it was bound 
 at the first opportunity, to gain the concurrence of the whole 
 Christian name. But the recent volume of Hippolytus shows 
 that Callistus, at that time Bishop of Rome, was censured 
 by other parties in that city, because in his time second Bap- 
 tism was first ventured upon. 11 Since the custom is not said 
 to have been introduced by Callistus himself, but " in his 
 time," 12 and since the subsequent statements of St. Stephen 
 
 10 De Baptis. xv. 
 
 11 Philosophumena, ix. 12. p. 291. and Dollinger, p. 189. 
 
 12 Among his charges against Callistus, Hippolytus affirms, that in his time 
 persons were ordained, who had been married more than once. Of the effect 
 of this relaxation also there is a trace in Tertullian : it referred probably to the 
 case of persons, who had married^ before, and again after their baptism. Ter- 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 153 
 
 prove the practice never to have existed at Rome, the words 
 refer probably to the act of Agrippinus. But it was not till 
 the Novatian heresy divided the Church, that the full effect 
 of such a decision became manifest. St. Stephen, therefore, 
 who became Bishop of Rome, A. D. 253, called upon St. 
 Cyprian, and also upon certain Bishops of Asia Minor, to 
 adopt the Roman usage, and like, Victor, either threatened 
 or pronounced excommunication. In this case Dionysius of 
 Alexandria came in as a mediator, as St. Irenasus had done 
 before. " I wrote to him," Dionysius says to St. Stephen's 
 successor, Sixtus II. " making intercession for all these 
 men." 18 
 
 Now, it is remarkable that neither Dionysius, Cyprian, nor 
 Firmilian, assert that St. Stephen had no right to interfere ; 
 though by Firmilian 14 especially he is spoken of with great 
 harshness. Their complaint is, that he had interfered im- 
 properly, and on a wrong occasion. From St. Augustin's 
 recital of the history, it would seem that no breach of com- 
 munion actually took place ; and this was a virtual con- 
 cession 13 on the part of those who differed from Stephen. 
 For since they excluded those who had been baptized among 
 separatists from their communion, their position was vitiated, 
 so long as they continued in communion with any part of the 
 Church, which threw open that door which was closed among 
 themselves. But the Bishop of Rome certainly speaks as one 
 who had an especial right to make his voice heard in all parts 
 of the Church : and he seeks to bring about that unity of 
 action which was more or less secured by subsequent Councils. 
 
 3rdly. In the case of re-baptism, St. Cyprian did not 
 deny that the Bishop of Rome had a right of interfering, 
 though he objected to the manner in which it was exercised. 
 But in the question of Discipline, in which they were accord- 
 
 tullian, in one of his last works (De Monogamia, 12) speaks of such cases as 
 existing ; whereas in an earlier work he implies them not to have existed. (De 
 Exhort. Castit. 7.) vid. Dottinger, p. 143. 
 
 13 Euseb. vii. v. 
 
 14 Dollinger suggests that Firmilian's obvious hostility to Home may have 
 been owing in part to his warm friendship for Origen, who had been condemned 
 by a Roman Council. Hippol. und Call. p. 260. 
 
 15 Vid. Supra. C. iv. p. 87. 
 
154 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 ant, the Bishop of Rome's right of interference is distinctly 
 recognized by the same Father. Here, too, Hippolytus 
 throws light on the relations between Rome and the African 
 Church. Hippolytus's own system was that which was sub- 
 sequently called Novatianism : and he found great fault with 
 that relaxation of discipline, which took place under Zephy- 
 rinus and Callistus, whereby readmission to communion was 
 allowed (on repentance) to those who had fallen into deadly 
 sin after Baptism. This he attributed to ignorance and covet- 
 ousness, and he maintained that Callistus especially " threw 
 the communion open indiscriminately." 16 What the disci- 
 pline of the Roman Church was, however, we know from the 
 letter which was written in its name by Novatian 17 himself 
 before his schism : it enforced a rigid rule of penitence, but 
 did not finally refuse communion to any offender. This had 
 not been the case in the preceding century, if we are to 
 believe Tertullian ; and he complains, as Hippolytus does, of 
 the relaxation of discipline. " I hear," he says, " that an 
 edict has been propounded, and that a peremptory one : the 
 Pontifex Maximus it seems, that is, the Bishop of Bishops, 
 gives out, I remit the crimes of adultery and fornication to 
 the penitent." 18 The Bishop of Rome is plainly intended, as 
 appears from the reference which is subsequently made to 
 St. Peter ; 19 Tertullian, who had at that time become a Mon- 
 tanist, asserts that the Apostle had received no other than a 
 personal commission, and denies that the Church had any 
 authority to re-admit men to communion after deadly sin. 
 Now, the Bishop of Rome at that period was Zephyrinus ; and 
 hence the censure which Hippolytus passes upon him, as 
 having entered upon the same course, which was followed 
 afterwards by Callistus. For the edict of Zephyrinus related 
 only to the admission of penitents, who had been guilty of in- 
 continence : murder and idolatry still continued, according to 
 
 16 Philosophumena, ix. 12. p. 291. 
 
 17 He says "lapsorum curam mediocriter temperandam esse credimus." Cy- 
 priani Epis. xxx. 9. Zephyrinus and Callistus are successfully vindicated 
 by Dollinger, Hippolytus und Callistus, Cap. 3. p. 125. 
 
 18 De Pudic. i. 
 
 19 Id. 21. "There can scarcely be any doubt, that the Roman Bishop alluded 
 to is Zephyrinus." Bunserfs Hippolytus, vol. i. p. 256. Second Edition. 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 155 
 
 Tertullian, 20 to exclude men from all hope of communion. 
 The charge attributed to Callistus must have included these 
 sins also ; and thus the Church's system must have been 
 brought to that state in which it was found by St. Cyprian 
 and Cornelius. 
 
 As the edict of Zephyrinus shows that the authority of the 
 Bishop of Rome was admitted in Africa at the beginning of 
 the third century, so we see the same thing still more clearly 
 in that series of disputes which resulted from the growth of 
 Novatianism. It appears even in the tone of those letters 
 which were written by the Roman Presbytery during that 
 vacancy of the See which preceded the election of Cornelius. 
 For they speak of themselves as exercising a trust which 
 embraced other countries. They write to the Church of Car- 
 thage, which they imagined to be deserted, "because it is in- 
 cumbent on us, who seem to be put in the chief place, to guard 
 the flock in the absence of the shepherd :" and as a reason for 
 so doing they refer to the commission given to St. Peter, 
 " Feed My sheep." 21 Again : To Cyprian himself they write 
 in a tone of more than equality : " No wonder, brother Cy- 
 prian, that with your modesty you should wish us to be not 
 so much judges, as associates in your designs ;" 22 and they 
 assert a right of interfering in other Churches, which was dis- 
 tinct from the general powers of the Episcopal office, since at 
 this time they were without a Bishop. " As to Privatus, you 
 have acted according to your wont in wishing to acquaint us 
 with a question of anxiety. For we all ought to watch for 
 the body of the whole Church, whose members are spread 
 through every various Province." 23 And St. Cyprian was 
 evidently most anxious for their co-operation : " I thought," 
 he writes, "that I ought to stand by your opinion, that our 
 action, which ought in all points to be at one and accordant, 
 might not disagree in anything ;" and he postpones his deci- 
 sion respecting the lapsed, "that when God has given us 
 peace, many of us Bishops might meet together to settle 
 
 20 Idolatram quidem et homicidam semel damnas, mseclmm vero de medio 
 excipis ? vid. De Pudic. 5. and also, 22. 
 
 21 Cypr. Ep. viii. I. ^Epis. xxx. 1. 
 
 23 Epis. xxxvi. 4. 
 
156 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 everything ; our design having been communicated with you 
 also." 24 
 
 The Council which Cyprian contemplated at length took 
 place. u According to previous intention, after the perse- 
 cution was allayed, when an opportunity of meeting was 
 afforded, we met together, a large number of Bishops." 25 But 
 because the question was one which not only affected the 
 African Province, but the whole Church, it was thought ne- 
 cessary to have the sanction also of a Council at Rome. " If 
 the number of Bishops in Africa shall seem insufficient, we 
 have written in this matter to Rome also, to our colleague 
 Cornelius, who himself has held a Council with a very large 
 number of his brother Bishops, and agreed to the same sen- 
 tence with ourselves." 26 
 
 It may be said, that this shows no peculiar right in the 
 Roman Church, since, no doubt, St. Cyprian would have been 
 glad of co-operation from any quarter. But it is strictly to 
 the purpose to show, that whereas in every other case affairs 
 were settled in the Province where they arose, there was one 
 Church, and one line of Bishops, which interfered, or was con- 
 sulted, respecting every matter of internal disagreement, which 
 arose during the first three centuries. And as the Novatian 
 troubles exhibited this in Africa, so still more in Gaul. That 
 Province was not, strictly speaking, a portion of the Roman 
 Patriarchate, for its Metropolitans were consecrated without 
 foreign interference, and did not form part of the ordinary 
 Councils which were summoned at Rome. This fact is 
 assigned by De Marca" as the test, whether any Diocese was, 
 in the strictest sense, within a Patriarchate ; because those 
 Bishops, whom any Patriarch had consecrated, were bound to 
 obey his summons to his Councils. Gaul, then, was not in 
 this sense within the Patriarchate of Rome. The Bishop of 
 Rome, therefore, had no more reason for interfering in the 
 affairs of Gaul, than any of his brethren, unless it was derived 
 from some peculiar relation which he bore to the whole 
 Church. But the Novatian troubles led in Gaul to one of 
 those emergencies which baffled ordinary rules, and, therefore, 
 
 24 Ep. xx. 3, and xxvii. 4. 2S Ep. Iv. 5, ad Antonian. 
 
 26 Id. 27 De Concord. I. vii. 3. 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 157 
 
 compelled the Church's rulers to fall back upon the elemen- 
 tary principles of her existence. One of its Metropolitans, 
 Marcian, Bishop of Aries, joined the schismatical party, com- 
 municated with those who were in division, and adopted the 
 principles which had been condemned both by a Council in 
 Africa, and by the larger Council at Kome. Here, then, was 
 just such another case as that of Poly crates of Ephesus ; a 
 Metropolitan led the opposition, and his brother Metropoli- 
 tans in Gaul had no authority to interfere with him. In the 
 case of Polycrates, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote to 
 Victor, and entreated that he would not take any harsh step 
 against those, who were only adhering to their hereditary 
 usages ; in the present instance, Faustinus, the successor of 
 IrenaBus, wrote with a contrary purpose to Stephen, who sat 
 in the seat of Victor. We know the circumstances from St. 
 Cyprian, who, having himself heard from Faustinus, wrote to 
 St. Stephen to urge his immediate interference. Here was a 
 case, which, unless some central authority existed in the 
 Church, was certainly without remedy. No doubt a Council 
 might have been called, as was afterwards done against Paul 
 of Samosata ; but probably there were difficulties in the way, 
 as no such thing is suggested. And Cyprian's letter implies 
 that the thing called for immediate despatch. Now, if either 
 St. Cyprian himself, or Faustinus, the Metropolitan of Lyons, 
 had possessed the requisite authority, why did they not inter- 
 fere themselves ? It has been said, that St. Cyprian was far 
 off, and proposed, therefore, that the remedy should be ad- 
 ministered by some one who was near at hand. Why, then, 
 did not Faustinus interfere, who was Metropolitan of the 
 adjoining Province ? Instead of this, the various Bishops of 
 his Province write to the Bishop of Rome to communicate 
 what had passed. What was the duty of a Bishop of Rome 
 in such a case, we learn from St. Cyprian. " You ought," he 
 writes to Pope Stephen, " to send the fullest letters to our 
 brother Bishops, who are placed in Gaul, to tell them not any 
 longer to suffer Marcian to insult our college." 28 And again : 
 " You should send letters to the Province, and to the people 
 at Aries, by which Marcian may be deprived, and another be 
 " Epis. Ixviii. 2, ad Steph. 
 
] 58 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 substituted in his place." Finally, as St. Cyprian seems to 
 have doubted whether Stephen was disposed to take decided 
 measures, he puts him in mind of the duty of carrying out 
 the principles laid down by his predecessors, Cornelius and 
 Lucius, " whose memory you ought to honour and to main- 
 tain by your dignity and your authority" And he adds : " Tell 
 us distinctly who shall have been substituted in place of 
 Marcian at Aries, that we may know to whom to direct 
 our brethren, and to whom to write." 2 
 
 Here, surely, we have a distinct instance, that when those 
 peculiar and extraordinary powers were to be exerted, which 
 were necessary in cases of emergency, men had recourse to 
 the successor of St. Peter. And the mention of this case 
 leads to another way of considering those powers, which were 
 exercised in early times by the Bishops of Rome. We have 
 seen that they had especial reference to the internal divisions 
 of the Church, and that in every case in which a dispute 
 arose respecting its interior arrangements, the representative 
 of St. Peter, and he alone, thought it necessary to interfere. 
 This was the exact function which we should expect to be 
 discharged by one to whom the office of preserving the unity 
 of the whole had been specially committed. The same cir- 
 cumstance would direct his especial attention to those leading 
 Sees, which were each the centre of its own locality, and on 
 which, therefore, the organization of the whole collective body 
 was dependent. And it is precisely in respect to them that 
 the interference of the Bishop of Rome was commonly ex- 
 erted. In the case last mentioned, it was because Marcian 
 was Metropolitan of Aries, that his case called for the inter- 
 position of St. Peter's successor. The first instance of any 
 such interference was St. Clement's letter to Corinth, the 
 Metropolitan See of Achaia, with a view of healing its dissen- 
 sions. Victor addressed himself to Polycrates of Ephesus, 
 the Metropolitan of the Province of Asia. But there were 
 two chief Sees in the Eastern world Alexandria, which had 
 been founded by St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, and 
 Antioch, where he had himself presided before he transferred 
 his seat to Rome. And in the case of both these Sees we 
 
 29 Id. 6. 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 159 
 
 have early indications of the peculiar right of interference 
 which lay with the Pope. The Presbyters of St. Dionysius, 
 Bishop of Alexandria, complained of his doctrine to St. 
 Dionysius 30 of Rome ; the latter expostulated with him, and 
 he explained. The Emperor Aurelian left to the Bishops of 
 Italy and of Rome 81 the decision, whether or not Paul of 
 Samosata should be dispossessed of the See-house at Antioch. 
 
 We do injustice to these instances, unless we remember 
 their cumulative force, and consider that all of them happened 
 respecting a single See. It might be asked, what other See 
 there was respecting which it would be possible to make 
 similar statements. And other circumstances might be added, 
 as showing how completely this See formed the middle point 
 of communication to the Church Catholic. The Montanists 32 
 from Phrygia came to Rome to gain the countenance of its 
 Bishop ; Praxeas 33 from Africa attempted the like, and for a 
 while was successful. Meanwhile, the Churches of Gaul felt 
 especial interest in the Montanist movement in Asia Minor, 
 and, therefore, " send an embassy to Eleutherus, the then Bi- 
 shop of Rome, about the peace of the Churches." 34 About 
 the same time, Soter, Bishop of Rome, sends alms, according 
 to the custom of his Church, to the Churches throughout the 
 empire, and in the words of Eusebius, "affectionately ex- 
 horted those who came to Rome, as a father his children." 35 
 One of the charges made by Hippolytus 36 against Callistus is, 
 that the laxity which had been originally introduced by him, 
 enabled Bishops who had been guilty of deadly sin to escape 
 deposition; and about thirty years afterwards, Basilides, who 
 had been deposed from his bishopric in Spain, goes to Rome 37 
 to procure his restoration from St. Stephen. 
 
 Another circumstance, which requires to be considered, is 
 the peculiar character of the early Roman Bishops. In various 
 parts of the Church we find Bishops of learning and ability, 
 who founded that religious literature which has been be- 
 queathed to us from ancient times. Such were Clement 
 
 30 St. Athan. de Sen. Dion. 13, vol. i. p. 252. 
 
 31 Euseb. vii. 30. 
 
 82 Tertull. adv. Prax. i. 33 Id. 34 Eus. v. 3. 
 
 35 Euseb. iv. 23. 36 Philosophumena, ix. 12. p. 290. 
 
 37 Cyprian. Ep. Ixvii. 5. 
 
160 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 and Cyprian in Africa, and Irenasus in Gaul. But no dis- 
 tinguished writer sat in the seat of St. Peter before Pope Leo, 
 A. D. 440. Out of 136 eminent persons who are enumerated 
 by St. Jerome, but four were successors of St. Peter, i. e. 
 Clement, Victor, Cornelius, and Damasus, and their letters 
 are all which any of them are recorded to have written. The 
 consequence is, that the government of their important See is 
 almost the only thing which St. Jerome has to record ; in the 
 case of other Bishops he mentions their See, and their 
 writings, but he relates how long Victor and Cornelius " ruled" 
 their " Church." Nothing is on record which would imply 
 that any early Bishop of Rome possessed such reach of 
 thought, or powers of combination, as might have laid the 
 basis of a spiritual empire. 
 
 It may be said, however, that without any direct con- 
 trivance on the part of her Bishops, the authority of the 
 Roman See may have grown up gradually, because their city 
 was the seat of empire, and the centre of intercourse. And 
 this probably will be accepted by many persons, as a sufficient 
 explanation of those various marks of Roman intervention 
 which have been adduced. For it is scarcely necessary to 
 oppose such wild theories, 38 as that the introduction of the 
 Primacy was agreed upon between Anicetus and Polycarp, or 
 that it was devised by the emissaries of Clement, with a view 
 of consolidating the new religion. But it is a more plausible 
 notion, that the temporal greatness of the metropolis gradu- 
 ally gave an ascendancy to its spiritual ruler ; and that the 
 Bishops of Rome are not the successors of Peter, but the heirs 
 of the Caesars. Such an idea naturally finds acceptance with 
 those who suppose that the Church is a mere human institu- 
 tion, and that it owes its organization to worldly policy. 
 And this seems to be the real point on which the question 
 turns. If men suppose that the complicated arrangements of 
 the Hierarchy, which rose up during the first three centuries 
 after Christ, were a mere scheme of human contrivance ; if 
 they attribute them to the ambition of priests, and the igno- 
 rance of the people, or even to the sagacious combinations of 
 
 18 Vid. Mohler's Einheit, 68, note. 
 
IN AXTE-NICENE TIMES. 161 
 
 worldly men, no doubt they will assign the same origin to that 
 central power in which they culminated. 
 
 But if this explanation be adopted, how are we to account 
 for that commission, which Our Lord bestowed upon His 
 Apostles, and which He concentrated in that chief Apostle, 
 whom He allowed to share His own title of the Rock of the 
 Church ? Such a theory respecting the Church is fatal to 
 its whole system, as well as to the Primacy ; and represents 
 every one of its arrangements to be an encroachment on the 
 liberty of mankind. How, again, can we account for those 
 predictions of Isaiah and of Daniel, which assert the oneness 
 of the ecclesiastical structure, and associate the Fifth Empire 
 with the four by which it had been preceded ? And when 
 we look at the Theological system of the Church, and see the 
 gradual growth of its Creed during the same period in which 
 its Hierarchy acquired shape and harmony, how can we 
 admit those doctrines which it attested, if we discard the 
 authorities which it professed to obey ? For was it not those 
 very Bishops, whose position it is proposed to assign to 
 worldly contrivance, who fixed that Creed which we our- 
 selves accept ? If the Church was guided in its dogmatic 
 statements by God's Spirit, must not the same Spirit have 
 presided over its organization and growth? 
 
 This belief is confirmed by comparing the eccentricity of 
 individual minds with the godly wisdom which was displayed 
 by the mass of Christians. It was not through the private 
 deductions of individual reasoners, but through the instinct 
 of the collective body, and the vigilance of its rulers, that 
 God's Spirit guided the Church. Of the great writers who 
 rose up before the Nicene age, the largor number were faulty 
 in some particular or other, and the most distinguished fell 
 under censure for direct heresy. At that time there was no 
 school of philosophy within the Church, and these writers 
 appear to have borrowed from those schools of heathenism, 
 which as yet were unleavened by her influence. This was 
 especially the case with Origen, 39 who was condemned not 
 only by his own Bishop, but by a Roman Council. Tertul- 
 
 39 Ruffini Invect. lib. ii. S. Jerora. vol. iv. 2. p. 430. (Martianay.) 
 M 
 
162 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 lian, the greatest name among the Latins, was but twelve 
 years a Catholic, and it is a Roman 40 decree of which he 
 likewise makes complaint. Hippolytus, 41 the only early writer 
 who flourished at Rome, was censured, and probably ex- 
 cluded, by its Bishop, for the heresy which was afterwards 
 known as Arianism. To what but that guiding power, 
 by which God's Spirit directed the Church, can we at- 
 tribute its safe passage through all those dangers, from 
 which so many individuals suffered shipwreck ? And if so, 
 it must have been the same presiding care, which fashioned 
 the united body into shape, and gave perpetuity to the suc- 
 cession of the Apostles. 
 
 Now, if it was a divine power, and not any worldly 
 wisdom, which directed the Christian community in its doc- 
 trinal determinations, it must have been the same principle 
 which moulded its Hierarchy, and which fixed the position 
 of its chief. And that the arrangements thus made were 
 sagacious, is no proof that they were not (Jerived from a 
 superhuman source. It has been shown that Scripture 
 declares the Primacy of St. Peter, and that the Bishop 
 of Rome was affirmed to be his successor, long before the 
 acquisition of that temporal power, which was consequent 
 on the conversion of the Empire. Here are grounds for 
 superiority, which are not superseded, because the worldly 
 position of Rome may afterwards have contributed to the 
 aggrandizement of its Bishop. This circumstance gave in- 
 creased importance to the Primacy, but does not account for 
 its existence. Such a supposition would be as though the 
 personal recommendations of King Saul were alleged to 
 invalidate the Scriptural record of his selection. When 
 Saul was brought from his hiding-place, "he was higher than 
 any of the people from his shoulders and upwards." Here, 
 says the Rationalist, was the real cause of his appointment. 
 Stature and courage are the conditions which give pre- 
 eminence in a barbarous age ; as for his search after the 
 asses, and Samuel's intimation that he was to be waited for 
 at the feast, these circumstances were invented afterwards 
 
 40 De Pud. i. 41 Dollinger, p. 229. 
 
IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 163 
 
 to excuse the meanness of his origin. Tradition associates 
 such fables with the commencement of any great power, 
 " ut miscendo humana divinis, primordia urbium augustiora 
 faciat." 
 
 The answer to all such objections is, that it was a divine 
 power which built the Church, as well as gave the Scrip- 
 tures. The same unfailing wisdom which had chosen the 
 fittest leader for the armies of Israel, selected the most ap- 
 propriate seat for the chief Apostle. It may be true that 
 nowhere else could his successors exercise their office with 
 so much effect on the general fortunes of the Christian body. 
 No place, then, was so suitable for that Bishop, by whom 
 the united action of the Church was to be especially secured. 
 But this circumstance presents no difficulty to those who 
 suppose that God governs the world, and appoints the des- 
 tiny of nations. Why should it not be referred to a sacred 
 instinct or a divine intimation, rather than to policy or acci- 
 dent ? How came a poor fisherman to plant his standard 
 in the capital of the world, so that its greatness ministered 
 to the extent of his empire 1 Christian Rome might no 
 doubt be expected to influence the earth, but who could 
 hope to make Rome Christian ? The energy of Saul made 
 him the most effective of Apostles, but does it not enhance 
 the miracle which converted the persecutor ? If we believe, 
 then, that the Church was a divine system, devised by the 
 wisdom and sustained by the power of God, which owed its 
 organization to the guidance of the Spirit, and its protection 
 to the presence of Christ, we shall see Plis hand in those 
 arrangements by which it arose to greatness. We shall re- 
 member His prediction, that the Church should take the 
 place of those worldly institutions by which it was preceded. 
 We shall understand that the very office of its founders was 
 to build up Jerusalem on the ruins of Babylon. It was 
 where the four empires had ruled before, that Daniel saw the 
 fifth arise. " The kingdom and dominion, and the greatness 
 of the kingdom under the whole Heaven, shall be given to 
 the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is 
 an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and 
 obey Him." 
 
164 ROMAN PRIMACY 
 
 It is natural, then, that those who suppose, like Hobbes, 
 that the Christian scheme was one of worldly policy, should 
 imagine that the authority of the Bishops of Rome was dedu- 
 ced merely from the influence of their city. Such, however, 
 was not the belief of Christians in early limes ; in the worldly 
 state of Rome they saw only the most formidable antagonist 
 of the Gospel, while they recognized in its Bishop the suc- 
 cessor of the chief Apostle. Nor will it be the opinion of 
 those who consider the organization of the Church to be 
 divine, as well as its doctrines ; and believe that Christ was 
 incarnate once in the flesh, that He might be incarnate per- 
 petually in history. They will accept St. Cyprian's state- 
 ment, that the See of Rome is " the principal Church," " the 
 root and mother of the Church Catholic," 42 because it is " the 
 seat of Peter, whence the unity of the Priesthood had its 
 origin." 43 St. Cyprian's statements have been shown to be 
 borne out by Scripture and antiquity by Scripture, which 
 declares the Primacy of St. Peter by antiquity, which wit- 
 nesses that he, who was the Rock of the Church, fixed his seat 
 upon the rock of the Capitol. So that there was a focus, to- 
 wards which the Metropolitan and Patriarchal systems con- 
 verged, which gave unity and permanence to their action. 
 Metropolitans and Patriarchs were not of human origin, for 
 they were part of that organization of the Church, of which 
 the Divine Spirit was the cause. Their existence was the act 
 of that same power which spoke in the Scriptures ; and they 
 received their form and arrangement, before Scripture was 
 collected into its present shape. But their origin is not so 
 distinctly recorded as that of the Primacy, which ushered in 
 the commission of the Apostles, and gave unity from the first 
 to the office of the Twelve. So that whatever is believed 
 respecting the commission of the other Apostles, must needs 
 be held respecting that of St. Peter ; and the succession of all 
 other Bishops is, in fact, to be ascertained by the succession 
 of their chief. " You cannot deny," writes St. Optatus to 
 the Donatists, " that you know that on Peter first was con- 
 ferred the Episcopal chair in Rome, in which sat the Head of 
 all the Apostles, Peter that by this chair the unity of all 
 
 42 Epis. xlviii. 2. * 8 Epis. lix. 19. 
 
IN AXTE-NICENE TIMES. 165 
 
 might be maintained, and that the other Apostles might- not 
 assert for himself each his individual chair ; but that he might 
 be a schismatic and a sinner, who against this peculiar chair 
 set up another. In this single chair, therefore, which is the 
 first of tokens, sat first Peter, to whom Linus succeeded, to 
 Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus " then 
 follows the list " to Damasus succeeded Siricius, who is our 
 colleague at this day, with whom the whole world, being 
 joined to us by the intercourse of circulatory letters, unites 
 with us in the fellowship of one communion." 4 
 44 Adv. Donat. ii. 2, 3. 
 
166 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME THE CHURCHES 
 INTERPRETATION OF ST. PETER'S PRIMACY. 
 
 IT has been shown that the early Church exhibited the action 
 of three different powers, each of which had its appointed 
 sphere, and peculiar authority. First, came the Episcopate, the 
 means by which the life of the Church was propagated : the 
 order of Bishops succeeded in their several places to the order 
 of Apostles. They had the care, individually, of the par- 
 ticular flock, which each of them was the medium of uniting 
 to the Church Catholic ; while, as a body, they had the 
 custody of that common faith, of which the Holy Ghost, who 
 vouchsafed to make the collective Church His temple, was the 
 interpreter. The second power was the Hierarchy, without 
 which the Episcopate could not act, because without it the 
 Bishops would have interfered with one another. Its exist- 
 ence, therefore, was implied in the statement, that the Episco- 
 pate was one, and like the Episcopate, of which it was a con- 
 dition, it may be traced to the Holy Apostles. Thirdly, came 
 the Primacy, which gave unity to the whole body, and which 
 was earlier in its institution, and more expressly recognized in 
 Holy Scripture, than either of the others. Not, of course, 
 that any of them were deduced from the written word ; for 
 they were in existence before the books of Scripture were 
 collected into a volume, and in them lay the governing power 
 of the Church, when she consolidated the sacred Canon. But 
 all of them are alluded to in Holy Scripture ; though the two 
 first are not spoken of in that distinct and full manner in 
 which Our Lord spoke of the Primacy. 
 
ST. PETER'S PRIMACY INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 167 
 
 In the early Church, then, these three powers stood along- 
 side of one another. They present themselves to us as three 
 several principles on which obedience is demanded. Each in 
 its way is arbitrary and irresponsible ; so that we are ready 
 to say, at first sight, that they must needs interfere with one 
 another. Such is always the case with different powers, when 
 looked at in the abstract. Take the claims of father, master, 
 and king ; has not each office its peculiar rights, and must 
 not the result be the existence of conflicting obligations ? In 
 some cases the authority of a father is absolute and without 
 appeal ; there are others in which a master, or a king, has a 
 right to decide ; yet the royal authority may surely be 
 acknowledged without derogating from the fourth Command- 
 ment. The only mode of adjusting such discordant claims is 
 the introduction of laws which assignto each power its sphere 
 and limits, and define the relations which they bear to one 
 another. Thus they cease to be mere principles, on which 
 obedience is demanded, and pass into the shape of institu- 
 tions. 
 
 This may explain why the same events are commonly 
 referred to by those who maintain the Pope's authority in 
 ante-Nicene times, and by those who deny it. Polycrates of 
 Ephesus comes in on the one side, because he called together 
 his Council at the desire of Victor ; he is quoted on the other, 
 because he acted contrary to Victor's desire. St. Cyprian is 
 a main authority on both sides. For he thinks it necessary 
 to consult Cornelius, and requests St. Stephen to depose the 
 Metropolitan of Aries ; but he opposes St. Stephen when he 
 thinks that the Papal power is exerted in an arbitrary manner ; 
 and writes to his brethren in Africa, that none of us is a 
 Bishop of Bishops. The one party, then, is satisfied if it can 
 show that the Bishop of Rome exercised authority in all parts 
 of the Church before the Nicene Council ; the other considers 
 its point gained, if it can show that other authorities existed 
 besides the Pope. But though the existence of such other 
 authorities might be used as an argument against the Supre- 
 macy of the Bishop of Rome, it is plainly no argument 
 against his Primacy. It is exactly what we should expect 
 from the action of such various powers as have been shown to 
 
168 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 have co-existed in the early Church, before their rights had 
 yet been defined by law, and confirmed by usage. 
 
 But admitting that the successor of St. Peter possessed a 
 Primacy, how does this involve the Supremacy of the Pope ? 
 The Pope's Supremacy consists of three principal particulars, 
 which either include, or involve, the most important rights 
 which have been claimed by his supporters. 1st. The right 
 of finally deciding ecclesiastical causes. 2ndly. The right of 
 presiding over Councils. 3rdly. The right of interfering in 
 ecclesiastical appointments. Are these rights inherent in the 
 Primacy? For if this could be shown, the Supremacy would 
 appear to be only another name for the Primacy ; and the 
 proof which has been given of the early existence of the one, 
 would demonstrate the antiquity of the other. 
 
 It is surely no argument against the identity of a power, 
 that it acts under different circumstances, and receives different 
 appellations. Why does the moon revolve round the earth ? 
 It is drawn by the principle of attraction. Why does an 
 apple fall to the ground ? By reason of its weight. The two 
 processes are different in appearance, and they are described 
 by different names, but one and the same power is present in 
 each. The moon's course depends on two forces, one which 
 draws her towards the earth, the other which would carry 
 her straight forward ; on the falling apple the one of these 
 forces acts without opposition. Now, if it could be shown 
 that the Primacy was like the earth's power in the former 
 case, the Supremacy like its power in the latter ; that the first 
 was the authority of the successor of St. Peter, when modified 
 by certain other principles, the second when acting without 
 them, it would follow that the two powers, notwithstanding 
 their different names, are really identical. But for this pur- 
 pose it will be necessary to show, not only that the functions, 
 which constitute the Supremacy, result from that principle 
 which has been called the Primacy, when acting unchecked 
 and alone ; but likewise, that the other principles by which it 
 was formerly modified, have been properly withdrawn, and 
 ought not to modify it any longer. Such a change must be 
 shown to have resulted from that process, by which the prin- 
 ciples of Church-authority were fixed and defined, with a view 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 169 
 
 of passing into the shape of institutions. And if this can be 
 shown, it will follow that the Supremacy is the same thing as 
 the Primacy, when acting in a new sphere, and under dif- 
 ferent circumstances. 
 
 Before considering the historical evidence for such an as- 
 sertion, there are certain principles, which must be laid down, 
 as guiding us in the inquiry. 
 
 1st. The Church has been shown to be a living body, en- 
 dowed by its Divine Founder with full powers of settling such 
 practical questions as might require to be decided. This 
 resulted from the fact, that it is the Body of Christ, and is 
 inhabited by His Spirit. Such is shown to have been the 
 universal belief of Christians during the first ages, and to 
 be borne out by the express words of Holy Writ. It follows, 
 then, that for the settlement of religious questions we must 
 look within, and not without her. All matters of doctrine 
 must be decided by some of those powers which are inherent 
 in her constitution, and not by any extrinsic or foreign inter- 
 ference. She is like a human being, who may fall into 
 slavery, but cannot forego that personal responsibility which 
 attaches to his nature. 
 
 Now, it has been shown what were the organs of Church- 
 authority during the ante-Nicene age. The Episcopate, the 
 Hierarchy, and the Primacy divided the field between them : 
 there was no other power ; the priesthood and the laity were 
 no doubt consulted, and their opinion was more or less im- 
 portant ; but it acted through its influence upon the Church's 
 rulers ; the conduct of affairs lay with them. So that what- 
 ever can be spoken of as properly a Church-question, must 
 have been capable of determination by one or all of these ; no 
 one else can come in to dispute it with them ; they may have 
 been unjust to one another, but they have a right to pre-occu- 
 pancy against the rest of the world. It is as though three 
 brothers had inherited an estate in common, so that each at 
 first has a right in the whole ; when it is divided by law, one 
 may be alleged to have an unequal portion, but each has an 
 indisputable claim, as against the rest of the world. 
 
 This principle will be found to be important when we come 
 to those particular claims, which make up the Papal Supre- 
 
170 
 
 macy. For example, the right of giving final decision in 
 questions of doctrine. If it were disputed whether this be- 
 longed to the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Bishop of 
 Rome, one might claim it as appertaining to the Hierarchy, 
 the other to the Primacy ; but it is otherwise, if this power is 
 asserted, either for temporal princes, or for individual Chris- 
 tians. In many Protestant countries, this power devolved at 
 the Reformation on the civil ruler, by whom it is possessed at 
 the present day in England. The advocates for private judg- 
 ment allege that this authority is inherent in every individual. 
 But according to the Primitive rule, it must belong either to 
 the Episcopate, the Hierarchy, or the Primacy. It is part of 
 the Church's heritage. No other claimant can have a right 
 to possess it. So long, therefore, as the dispute is between 
 such other claimants and the Bishop of Rome, it is clear 
 enough which is demanding his own, and which is appropri- 
 ating that to which he cannot possibly have pretensions. 
 
 2ndly. The internal constitution of the Church, and the, 
 relation of her organs towards one another, are questions, 
 respecting which she is herself a competent judge. For 
 since she is guided by the Divine Spirit, how can her deter- 
 mination be erroneous ? It has been shown that the Episco- 
 pate at large was understood from the first to inherit that 
 promise of direction, which had been given to the College of 
 Apostles. Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and the Primate, are 
 all Bishops, possessing their several places in the Episcopal 
 body. That which has been decided, then, by the whole 
 Episcopate, must express the judgment of the collective body 
 of the Church, and is to be taken as a Divine direction, by 
 those who believe her to be guided by the Spirit. This is 
 the necessary result of the principles laid down in the 2nd, 
 3rd, and 4th Chapters. 
 
 3rdly. This is still more obviously the case if the rule, 
 which the Church Universal accepts, is of the nature of a 
 doctrinal statement, and professes to be founded upon the 
 words or actions of her Divine Founder. It may be said 
 that the Church, like any other body, may intrust powers to 
 certain officers, and withdraw them at her pleasure. But it 
 is otherwise if she declares certain powers to have been 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 171 
 
 involved in the original commission given by Our Lord. 
 We thus pass from her function as a body intrusted with 
 power, to her office as an interpreter of doctrine. 
 
 4thly. The rise of the Papal power cannot be fairly esti- 
 mated, if men commence the inquiry with a prepossession 
 against it. There are those who allege property to be a 
 robbery, and law to be an usurpation. Let such a person 
 write a history of the British constitution, and every step in 
 its progress must seem to him to be a further invasion of the 
 rights of mankind. For each successive step encroached still 
 further on the domain of anarchy, and prescribed more 
 definite limits to the possessions and actions of men. Con- 
 trast the work of such a writer with the history of the con- 
 stitution, as it is delineated by Hallam, and every event 
 which was a subject of regret to the one, would be a ground 
 of exultation to the other. The reason is, that they would 
 propose to themselves different standards of excellence : our 
 philosophical historian thinks that the happiness of a country 
 depends upon law, order, harmony, obedience the other 
 writer would suppose that it was better for men to live in a 
 state of nature, unfettered by the restraints of order and 
 law. 
 
 The same thing takes place in regard to Church-authority. 
 If men suppose that it is a good thing for the Christian body 
 to be united into a single community ; that it is desirable it 
 should be joined together in a mystic unity, as are the 
 Blessed Persons in the Divine Trinity ; that such a state is 
 the perfection of the Body of Christ, and that which Our 
 Lord came upon earth to found ; they must of necessity con- 
 sider, that every step which led towards such a result was 
 desirable. Instead of looking out anxiously for objections to 
 each step, they would readily accept any grounds in its 
 justification. Instead of observing that all the advances of 
 Church-authority may be accounted for by the workings of 
 human ambition, they would trace the guidance of that 
 Divine Spirit, which could make the fierceness of men turn 
 to His praise. Of course the mere fact that power is 
 acquired, does not prove that it is acquired lawfully ; and 
 it is requisite to produce evidence that the withdrawal of 
 
172 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 those other powers, the removal whereof left so large a por- 
 tion of Church-authority to the Primacy, was sanctioned by 
 the collective body of the Church. But the judgment which 
 men pass on each individual action, depends in truth on their 
 estimate of the ultimate issue towards which the system 
 tends. Each stage in the road is taken kindly, or the con- 
 trary, according as men relish the resting-place towards which 
 it conducts. When St. Leo asserts his claim as the successor 
 of St. Peter, one party feels that he is stating a truth, on 
 which the united action of the whole body depended, and to 
 which the progress of affairs made it essential to give greater 
 prominence than his predecessors had done : the other com- 
 plains that the ambition of an individual imposed restraints 
 on liberty, which had not before existed. It is the same 
 respecting every action of the earlier Bishops of Rome. 
 But if it was the purpose of Our Lord, that His Church 
 should be an united body ; if such union led, as it certainly 
 did, to the maintenance of the orthodox faith, as we at pre- 
 sent receive it ; if it enabled the Church to surmount the 
 dangers of the middle age, and to leaven modern Christendom 
 with civilization and truth, it is strange that those who are 
 advocates for order and peace in things natural, should prefer 
 anarchy and disorganization in things divine. 
 
 5thly. In considering the growth of the post-Nicene 
 Church, we must bear in mind what was the especial danger 
 by which she was threatened. Her previous risk had been 
 from the opposition of Governments ; now it was from their 
 patronage. They had in vain attempted to destroy, they 
 now tried to absorb her. No doubt this was the greater 
 danger of the two, and it was a danger from which she has 
 never entirely escaped. But in the novel circumstances in 
 which she found herself, when her ancient foe promised to 
 befriend her, the evil by which she was threatened was not 
 at first discerned. So that the concessions which were made 
 in the first instance to the Emperors, afford an opening for 
 those who allege that religion, like every other public con- 
 cern, ought to be regulated by Government. Gradually, 
 however, it was perceived how fatal was such an arrange- 
 ment to that truth of doctrine, which the Church had been 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 173 
 
 specially constituted to maintain ; how entirely destitute it 
 was of scriptural sanction ; how contrary to the precedents of 
 the ante-Nicene age ; until at length the whole powers of 
 the Church were exerted in opposition to it. 
 
 In this contest the main vindicator of the Church's liberty 
 was the same power, which has always been the main de- 
 fender of Church-authority against the lawlessness of private 
 judgment. To strengthen the Primacy was obviously con- 
 trary to the interest of the Emperor, for it afforded the 
 Church a centre of union independent of himself, and at a 
 distance from his capital. The progress of Erastianism, on 
 the other hand, may be measured by the ascent of Constan- 
 tinople to ecclesiastical power. For its sole claim to authority 
 was, that it was the residence of the successor of Constantine ; 
 whereas the claim of Rome was, that her Bishops were the 
 successors of St. Peter. The one, therefore, grew to great- 
 ness on civil, the other on spiritual principles ; the one based 
 her pretensions on the pleasure of the Emperor, the other on 
 the appointment of Christ. 
 
 Taking these different principles, then, as our guide, let us 
 go on to consider how far the three several functions, which 
 were said to make up the Supremacy of the Pope, were really 
 inherent in the Primacy ; and whether those other powers of 
 the Episcopate and the Hierarchy, which co-existed with it 
 during the ante-Nicene age, were withdrawn by competent 
 authority. 
 
 I. The first and most important feature in the Papal Su- 
 premacy is, that the Bishop of Rome is the final judge in all 
 questions of doctrine. For as this gives him an opportunity 
 of interfering in all causes, so does it devolve upon him the 
 chief responsibility in that which is doubtless the Church's 
 most essential trust. Is this office implied in the Primacy ? 
 We have seen that all Bishops were charged with the main- 
 tenance of truth throughout the whole Church ; the Primate, 
 then, being a Bishop, must be so also. He must have a right 
 of interfering in all cases, unless restricted by some express 
 law. What we have to show is, that laws were made to 
 restrict others, with a view of bringing out his power ; that 
 such laws were made by competent authority ; and that the 
 
174 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 pre-eminence thus ascribed to him, was ascribed to him in 
 consequence of that succession to St. Peter, which was the 
 principle of his Primacy. 
 
 In the ante-Nicene Church, the practice of appeals had 
 not assumed the definite form of future ages. The necessity 
 of avoiding too great publicity in time of persecution the 
 difficulty of holding general meetings finally, the more ready 
 submission of Christians, rendered such a thing either impos- 
 sible or needless. But the Edict of Milan was no sooner 
 past, than the necessity of some provision for an appellate 
 jurisdiction was perceived. The Donatists, after having been 
 heard by Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, A.D. 313, and again 
 by the Council of Aries, A.D. 314, obtained a personal hear- 
 ing, A.D. 316, from Constantine. He heard them unwill- 
 ingly, and avowed that he had no proper jurisdiction ; but 
 as he only confirmed that which had been decided by the 
 Church, no particular evil resulted from the proceeding. 
 But the Arian troubles which followed the Council of Nice, 
 led to further difficulties. The Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, 
 attempted to provide a remedy, by ordering that a Bishop 
 who was condemned by the unanimous decision of the other 
 Bishops of his Province, should not be allowed any further 
 appeal. {Canon 15.) But this was an uncertain remedy, 
 because the decision was seldom likely to be unanimous. 
 And if it was not unanimous, the accused Bishop might 
 appeal to a larger Synod, which was to be collected by ad- 
 mitting Bishops from an adjoining Province. {Canon 12, 14.) 
 This was provided, with an especial view of avoiding a recur- 
 rence to the civil power. (Canon 12.) It seems probable, 
 however, as De Matfca 1 contends, that the order for such re- 
 hearing was designed to be given by the Emperor. To order a 
 rehearing in civil cases, was an especial function of the Impe- 
 rial power; and in the case of St. Cyril 2 of Jerusalem (the 
 first Bishop, according to Socrates, who appealed to a more 
 general Synod, on his deposition by Acacius,) the interference 
 of the Emperor Constantius is especially noticed. 
 
 The remedy thus provided was insufficient, because it was 
 either wholly vague and uncertain (there being nothing to 
 
 1 De Marca de Concordia Sac. et Imp. vii. 2. 6. 2 Socrates, ii. 40. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 175 
 
 determine what Bishops should be brought in, except the 
 will of the Metropolitan ;) or else it left this important ques- 
 tion to the temporal power. Meanwhile, disputes were 
 arising on all sides. Five years after the Synod at Antioch, 
 Euphratas, Bishop of Cologne, was deposed by a large assem- 
 bly of Bishops from the different Provinces of Gaul, for 
 denying Our Lord's Deity. He had previously been deposed 
 by five Bishops (as appears from the statement of Valerian, 
 Bishop of Auxerre,) 3 and had appealed apparently to a more 
 numerous Synod; but his appeal must have been grounded 
 on custom, and on the general right of interference possessed 
 by the whole body of Bishops, not on any Canon which had 
 been adopted in the West. Neither does it appear on what 
 principle the Bishops who subsequently judged him were col- 
 lected. Here, then, was such an opening for cabal and dis- 
 pute, as would have rendered order and government impossi- 
 ble : and at this very time the most distinguished Prelate in 
 the East, St. Athanasius, and with him Marcellus of Ancyra, 
 were in exile, having been deposed under circumstances of 
 great unfairness by the Synods of Tyre and Antioch. 
 
 All this was known to the Bishops who met at Sardica, 
 the year after the Council of Cologne had deposed Euphra- 
 tas, A.D. 347. The Council was designed to be general, but 
 the Oriental Bishops refused to join their brethren. Still it 
 was necessary to provide some remedy for the existing state 
 of things. The fifth Canon of Nice, which provided that 
 meetings of the Bishops of every Province should be held 
 twice a year, and that by their decision everything should be 
 settled, was found to be insufficient. It might have been 
 enough before Arianism had convulsed the Church, and before 
 its alliance with the civil power had introduced a new element 
 into its deliberations ; but what was to be done when Bish- 
 ops and even Patriarchs were deposed and exiled, and when 
 the Emperors took upon them to order a fresh trial at such 
 places and under such circumstances, as their court-favourites 
 suggested? The Council, in the first instance, remonstrated 4 
 
 3 Harduin, i. 633. 
 
 4 Ne quis judicum, qui rempublicam solum curare debent, ant clericos judi- 
 cet, aut ulla ratione in posterum sub praetextu ecclesiarum, quippiam contra 
 fratres moliatur. Harduin, i. 659. 
 
176 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 with the Emperor on the interference of civil judges in eccle- 
 siastical affairs (a thing which had been done in a measure, 
 when the mode of ordering a re-hearing, as had been cus- 
 tomary 5 in civil matters, was applied to matters ecclesias- 
 tical.) It then proceeded to lay down a new principle of ap- 
 peal. But it would not have ventured to originate a system, 
 which was wholly unprecedented, nor could it create a power 
 which should have the right to settle questions of doctrine. 
 The constitution of the Church is derived from the appoint- 
 ment of Christ, and her interpretive office gives her the right 
 to modify and apply her inherent resources, but not to create 
 new ones. Her office is like the course of nature, which 
 elicits and develops the principles which God has given, but 
 by which nothing is originated. 
 
 So it was, then, here. Hosius, who had presided twenty- 
 two years before at Nice, suggests the addition which it is 
 necessary to make to the arrangements then adopted. "If a 
 Bishop is judged in any cause, and thinks that he has reason 
 for demanding a new trial, let us honour the memory of St. 
 Peter the Apostle let those who have examined the cause, 
 write to Julius, the Bishop of Rome, and if he thinks that 
 the trial ought to be repeated, let it be repeated, and let him 
 assign judges." 6 In this resolution of the Council of Sar- 
 dica, as De Marca 7 observes, the appellate jurisdiction of 
 the Pope, which exercised so important an influence in the 
 Church, received its first canonical expression. But, then, it is 
 the first mode of settling this difficulty, which was ever sug- 
 gested in the Church. The Council of Antioch had, indeed, 
 spoken of appeals to a more general Synod, but it had given 
 no rule when the appeal should be allowed, or on what 
 principle the higher court should be constructed. Even if its 
 Canon would have sufficed for the trial of ordinary Bishops, 
 it was inapplicable to the case of Metropolitans and Patri- 
 archs. The Canon of Sardica, then, is the first practical 
 settlement of the question of appeals, which is to be found ; 
 it is the arrangement to which the Church had recourse, so 
 soon as the Civil Power interfered in the settlement of doc- 
 trine. And it is grounded professedly on a reference to the 
 
 5 De Marca, vii. 2. 6. 6 Harduin, i. 639. 7 De Marca, vii. 3. 6. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 177 
 
 authority, which was inherited by the successor of St. Peter. 
 The secular principle, which might have been introduced, is 
 seen in the Emperor's interference to order a new trial. 
 Against this the Council recurs to the Primacy. 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten, that if the Pope's right of inter- 
 ference was now, for the first time, embodied in a law, yet it 
 had often before been exhibited as a usage. For what else 
 had been the reference to St. Stephen against Marcian of 
 Aries, or to St. Dionysius against his namesake at Alexan- 
 dria? And that such was the ancient constitution of the 
 Church, was brought out by that interference of Pope Julius 
 in behalf of St. Athanasius, to which this Canon was designed 
 to give a canonical form. St. Julius " remonstrated by letter 
 with the Eusebian party, for proceeding on their own autho- 
 rity as they pleased ; and then, as he says, ' desiring to obtain 
 our concurrence in their decisions, though we never con- 
 demned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul not so 
 have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another 
 
 form of procedure, a novel practice For what we have 
 
 received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to 
 you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that 
 these things are manifest unto all men, had not these proceed- 
 ings so disturbed us.' 8 St. Athanasius, by preserving this 
 protest, has given it his sanction. Moreover, it is alluded to 
 by Socrates ; and his account of it has the more force, be- 
 cause he happens to be incorrect in the entails, and, therefore, 
 did not borrow it from St. Athanasius : ' Julius wrote back/ 
 he says, ' that they acted against the Canons, because they 
 had not called him to a Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon 
 commanding that the Churches ought not to make Canons 
 beside the will of the Bishop of Rome.' 9 And Sozomen : 
 'It was a sacerdotal law, to declare invalid whatever was 
 transacted beside the will of the Bishop of the Romans.' " 10 
 
 Such was the manner in which the appeUate jurisdiction 
 of the Bishop of Rome received a legal shape. Its origin was 
 ancient usage, and the honour due to " the memory of St. 
 Peter the Apostle ;" its occasion was the necessity of meeting 
 
 8 Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. Tr. p. 56. 9 Hist. ii. 17. 
 
 19 Hist. iii. 10. Newman on Development, p. 173. 
 N 
 
178 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 a new case, for which the simpler construction of the ante- 
 Nicene Church had made no provision. The rule was put 
 forward as general, and the evils, which it had been designed 
 to remedy, occurred in the East ; but as it was only agreed 
 upon by a Western Synod, it did not acquire general force till 
 it was gradually sanctioned by usage. But because these Sar- 
 dican Canons, by which the Pope's appellate jurisdiction was 
 defined and explained, were introduced by Hosius, who had 
 presided at Nice, or, perhaps, because they were considered an 
 explanation of the fifth Nicene Canon, they were annexed 11 to 
 the Canons of Nice, and were referred to, both at Rome and 
 elsewhere, as if they had been agreed upon at that Council. 
 Meanwhile, the jurisdiction, which had thus assumed a prac- 
 tical shape, and was capable of being used for the mainte- 
 nance of order, grew by exercise. Thirty-one years after the 
 Council of Sardica, an Italian Synod solicited the Emperor 
 Gratian to add temporal sanctions to an institution which had 
 been designed to prevent the necessity of calling in a worldly 
 arbiter. But the demand is professedly made, " that the 
 Bishop of Rome may determine about the other priests of the 
 Churches," and a that a priest may not be subjected to the 
 decision of a profane judge." 12 Gratian attends to the re- 
 quest : and his officers in Gaul and Italy are ordered to give 
 effect to the decisions of Pope Damasus ; who is declared to 
 have an authority in all appeals, and in all causes which con- 
 cern Metropolitans. 13 
 
 Nor was this power less real, or less legitimate, because 
 it did not at once include all cases, but was gradually widened, 
 as the exigencies of the Church required. For it was by the 
 Church's own acts, and in proportion as it was found to be 
 for her interest, that the appellate jurisdiction was extended. 
 In St. Augustin's time an appeal was allowed from Africa in 
 the case of Bishops, and in regard to general questions of 
 doctrine : other points were decided by the African Councils 
 at home. Hence was Pope Zosimus opposed by the African 
 
 11 Beveridge supposes that the Canons of several Councils were collected in 
 a volume, which was called " the Canons of Nice," because it began with them. 
 The 1.4th Canon of Gangra is thus spoken of by Gregory of Tours, ix. 33. 
 Beveridge's Pand. Can. notes, p. 56. 
 
 12 Harduin, i. 840. " Id. i. 843. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 179 
 
 Bishops when he attempted to interfere in the case of Apia- 
 rius, the Priest of Sicca. But St. Augustin, who took part in 
 this opposition, admits the right of Bishops 14 to appeal to the 
 Apostolical Sees out of Africa, of which Rome was the first ; 
 and speaks with warm approval of the decision which had 
 been pronounced by Pope Innocent against, the Pelagians. 
 " Diligently and congruously do ye consult the arcana of the 
 Apostolical dignity," St. Innocent had replied to the Council 
 of Mileirs (A.D. 417,) "the dignity of him, on whom, besides 
 those things which are without, falls the case of all the 
 Churches ; following the form of the ancient rule, which you 
 know, as well as I, has been preserved always by the whole 
 world." 13 Here the Pope appeals, as it were, to the Rule of 
 Vincentius ; while St. Augustin bears witness that he did 
 not outstep his prerogative ; for referring to this and another 
 letter he says, " He (the Pope) answered us as to all these 
 matters, as it was religious, and becoming in the Bishop of 
 the Apostolic See." 1 And in another place St. Augustin 
 uses words respecting this subject which have passed into a 
 proverb : " Already the decisions of two Councils on this 
 subject (Pelagianism) have been sent to the Apostolical 
 See ; and replies have been returned from it. The cause is 
 ended, would that presently the error might end also." 17 
 
 The power which was thus recognized by St. Augustin 
 was wholly of a spiritual character, for it had grown entirely 
 out of the authority of the Primacy, as interpreted by the 
 usage of the Church. That such was its nature is shown 
 by the testimony borne to it during the same century 
 by the civil power. When a dispute, which touched the 
 question of appeal, took place between St. Leo and St. 
 Hilary, A.D. 445, the following edict was issued by the Em- 
 peror Valentinian : " Since, therefore, the merit of St. Peter, 
 who is the chief of the Episcopal coronet, and the dignity of 
 the Roman city, moreover, the authority of a sacred Synod, 
 have confirmed the Primacy of the Apostolic See, that pre- 
 sumption may not endeavour to attempt anything unlawful 
 contrary to the authority of that See ; for then at length the 
 
 14 Epist. xliii. 7. 15 Inter Epist. St. Aug. clxxxii. 2. 
 
 18 Epist. clxxxvi. 2. " Sermo. cxxxi. 10. 
 
180 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 peace of the Churches will everywhere be preserved, if the 
 whole (universitas) acknowledge its ruler these rules having 
 been kept inviolably hitherto, &c. we decree, by this per- 
 petual command, that no Gallican Bishops, nor those of the 
 other provinces, may attempt to do anything contrary to 
 ancient custom, without the authority of the venerable man, 
 the Pope of the Eternal City ; but let them all deem that 
 a law, whatsoever the authority of the Apostolic See hath 
 sanctioned or may sanction." 18 
 
 Thus was a complete provision made for appeals, so that 
 the Church actually decided all questions of doctrine, without 
 referring them to the civil power. For this purpose it was 
 necessary to have not only the power of making laws, which 
 might, perhaps, be done in Councils, but an executive, by 
 which those laws should be administered. For questions of 
 doctrine come to issue in the case of individuals. Arianism 
 was judged when it was disputed whether Arius or St. Atha- 
 nasius should be excluded ; just as the parties who hold office 
 in her ranks, or share her communion, show what doctrines 
 are allowed by the Church of England. But this appellate 
 jurisdiction did not come into practical use in the East so 
 readily as in the West, because in the former it had to inter- 
 penetrate the Patriarchal, as well as the Metropolitan system. 
 By the time of Gregory the Great, however, it was fully 
 admitted, both in East and West ; he received appeals from 
 the whole Church ; and thus the universality of the principle, 
 and the authority of St. Peter's successor was admitted by 
 that collective body, which has been shown to be an adequate 
 judge on such subjects, because guided by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 St. Gregory the Great is often quoted by the opponents of 
 the Papal power, because he objected to the title of " Uni- 
 versal Bishop," when assumed by the Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, John the Faster. The title has since been borne, 
 harmlessly enough, by the successors both of one and of the 
 other ; neither does it of necessity involve that result which 
 Gregory apprehended the absorption, namely, of the Epis- 
 copate in the Hierarchy. No doubt he was especially on his 
 guard against the encroachments of a See, which was the 
 18 Baronius Ann. 445, No. 9. Quoted Allies's See of St. Peter, 92. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 181 
 
 natural organ of the civil power, in its dealings with the 
 Church. But nothing can be clearer than that the practice 
 of appealing to the successor of St. Peter, which had existed 
 as a principle in the ante-Nicene Church, and had been 
 embodied in the Canons of Sardica, was at that time admitted 
 by the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as through the 
 whole East. "Do you not know," St. Gregory writes to 
 Marinian, Bishop of Kavenna, " that the cause of John the 
 Presbyter against our brother and fellow-Bishop, John of 
 Constantinople, has been carried, according to the Canons, 
 to the Apostolical See, and settled by our decision ? If, 
 therefore, a cause has been brought under our consideration 
 from that city, where the Prince resides, how much more 
 ought the business between you to receive here its final de- 
 termination ?" 19 Again, when writing to the Bishop of 
 Salona, who had deposed the Archdeacon Honoratus, in 
 opposition to his sentence, he says, " If any one of the four 
 Patriarchs had acted thus, such contumacy could not pass 
 without the gravest scandal." 20 And, again, to the Bishop 
 of Syracuse he writes respecting a third party : " As to his 
 saying he is subject to the Apostolical See ; if any fault is 
 found in Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject to 
 it. But when no fault requires, we are all equal on the 
 principle of humility." 21 Moreover, this superiority he refers 
 altogether to the Primacy which had d/^olved upon him as 
 successor of St. Peter ; when writing to the Empress Constan- 
 tina, he calls his cause "the cause of the Blessed Peter, 
 the Prince of the Apostles ;" and entreats her, that as her 
 parents " have sought the favour of St. Peter the Apostle, so 
 she would seek and preserve it." 22 It is " for the honour of 
 Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles," 23 that the title 
 of Universal Bishop had been offered to his predecessors at 
 the Council of Chalcedon ; he speaks of St. Peter as " by 
 God's appointment, holding the Primacy of the holy Church ;" 24 
 and, again : " It is evident to all who know the Gospel, that 
 the care of the whole Church was committed by the Lord's 
 
 19 Epist. Lib. vi. 24. Vid. also Lib. vi. 15, 16, 17. 
 20 Id. ii. 52. " Id. ix. 59. 22 Id. v. 21. 23 Id. v. 20. 
 
 24 Id. i. 25. 
 
182 ST. PETEK'S PRIMACY 
 
 voice to the holy Apostle Peter, chief of all the Apostles. 
 For to him is said, c Peter, lovest thou Me 1 Feed My sheep.' 
 To him it is said, i Behold, Satan hath desired to sift you as 
 wheat,' &c. To him is said, < Thou art Peter, and on this 
 rock I will build My Church,' &c. Lo, he has received the 
 keys of the kingdom of Heaven, the power of binding and 
 loosing is given to him, the care of the whole Church and 
 the Primacy is committed to him, and yet he is not called 
 Universal Apostle." 25 
 
 It is clear, then, that the appellate jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop of Rome received form and shape, in order to provide 
 the Church with an executive of sufficient vigour of its own, 
 when this important trust was threatened by the worldly 
 power. But it was not the Church's creation ; a power 
 which was inherent in the Successor of the chief Apostle, 
 and which had been bestowed by Our Lord Himself, was 
 brought out by the subordination of those other powers, 
 which in the infancy of the Church had existed along with 
 it. The function discharged by the Church was the inter- 
 pretative one of determining the proportion of these co- 
 existent authorities ; and for this function it was fitted by 
 the guidance of the Holy Ghost, whereby the Mystical Body 
 of Christ is inhabited. So that as regards this first and 
 chief exercise of his power, the Supremacy of the Pope is 
 only the Primacy of St. Peter's successor, in an enlarged 
 sphere, and under a different name. 
 
 II. The second main particular in the Papal Supre- 
 macy is, the right of presiding in Councils. How comes 
 this to belong to the Bishops of Rome ? The Emperors 
 summoned the earliest General Councils; though they did 
 not attempt, and certainly had no claim, to preside over 
 them. The civil authorities, indeed, were present, but it 
 was only, as was explained at the Council of Chalcedon, for 
 the purpose of maintaining order, and of adding a civil 
 sanction to that which was done. " We have thought good 
 to be present in the Synod," says the Emperor Marcian, 
 (t taking the estimable Constantine as our example, for the 
 
 25 Id. v. 20. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 183 
 
 purpose of giving sanction to what is done ; not with a view 
 of exercising authority." 26 This is all which Constantine 
 really did, even according to his flatterer, Eusebius. And 
 considering that he was at the time a heathen, it would be 
 strange if he had done more. If the Emperors, therefore, 
 called Councils together, it was not because they had a right 
 to decide in matters of faith, but because the Bishops who 
 attended were their subjects, and could not assemble without 
 their consent. Their consent, therefore, was of necessity to 
 be had, just as a scientific assembly in the present day may be 
 said to meet with the sanction of the police. Again: when a 
 Bishop visits, the clergy are called together by his Registrar; 
 but the Yisitation is held by himself. 
 
 But besides this, the Emperors were no doubt participant 
 in all such assemblies, because they were the natural repre- 
 sentatives of the laity. In those days, when individual action 
 was almost unthought of, this circumstance gave them great 
 prominence. If all the lay members of any Church were to 
 demand a decision on any question of doctrine, would not 
 the clergy be compelled to consider it, and, if necessary, to 
 consult respecting a reply ? That which might now be done 
 by the combined representation of the laity of any com- 
 munity, was then effected by the demand of the Emperor. 
 But nothing w^as more fully admitted in the primitive age, 
 than that the interpretation of doctrine was a divine gift, 
 which had been committed to the collective Church, and was 
 to find its expression through her authorized teachers. This, 
 then, was a question, which no layman, and, therefore, not the 
 representative of all the laity, had any claim to decide. So 
 writes the aged Confessor Hosius to Constantius, when that 
 Emperor presumed to interfere in questions of faith : " Leave 
 off, I entreat you, and remember that you are a mortal man. 
 Fear the day of judgment, keep yourself for it pure. Inter- 
 fere not in ecclesiastical matters, nor give us orders respect- 
 ing them ; but respecting them do you rather learn from us. 
 God has put the kingdom into your hands; to ours has He 
 intrusted the affairs of the Church." 27 
 
 26 Actio Sexta, Harduin, ii. 465. 
 27 St. Ath. Hist. Arian. ad. Monac. xliv. p. 371. 
 
184 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 The Emperors, then, called Bishops together because they 
 were their subjects ; they were interested in their decisions, 
 because they were Christians themselves. But if it be asked 
 who presided in the ancient Councils, who was at their 
 head, we must look to the Church herself to some of those 
 three powers, in which we have seen that all ecclesiastical 
 authority resided. Since Councils 28 were merely an expedient 
 for giving utterance to the Church's voice, their constitution 
 could not attain perfection at once ; the authority of their 
 president, and the principle of his appointment, would at first 
 be dubious. As time went on, a more fixed system would 
 be introduced; and the presiding authority would be more 
 plainly recognized. Now, all this is found to have occurred 
 in the case of the earliest General Councils. At Nice there 
 was, properly speaking, no President, though the influence 
 of Hosius was predominant, and his name was the first sub- 
 scribed to its proceedings. The Council of Constantinople 
 was merely an Eastern Synod ; and was subsequently re- 
 ceived as the Second General Council, when its Creed was 
 accepted by the Western Church. It was presided over, 
 therefore, by the Bishops of the city where it was held, and 
 the first name subscribed is that of Nectarius of Constan- 
 tinople. But at the Third General Council at Ephesus, the 
 president was the second Patriarch, St. Cyril, who acted pro- 
 fessedly as the representative of the Primate, St. Celestine. 
 At the Fourth General Council, the deputies of Pope Leo 
 presided. 
 
 Hosius is often spoken of, as though he had presided at 
 Nice ; and Gelasius 29 of Cyzicum, writing in the fifth century, 
 says that he did so by delegation from the Bishop of Rome. 
 Probably this is only the explanation, which was given in a 
 later age, of circumstances which subsequent custom had 
 rendered perplexing. But the earlier writers, who speak of 
 Hosius as having taken the lead at Nice, by no means affirm 
 him to have been chosen President ; they merely assign to 
 him a pre-eminence, which was due to his influence, eloquence, 
 and character. St. Athanasius speaks of the Arian opponents 
 
 28 Vid. Cap. iv. p. 75. 29 Harduin, i. p. 375. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 185 
 
 of Hosius as saying, " He is wont to lead Synods, and his 
 writings are everywhere attended to. He also put forth the 
 Nicene faith, and everywhere declared the Arians to be 
 heretics." 30 And so says Theodoret : " What Synod did he 
 not lead ; and did he not persuade all by his right speaking 1" 
 And again : " He had been distinguished in the great Synod 
 of Nice, and had been the first of those who came together 
 at Sardica." 31 These circumstances by no means imply either 
 that he had been chosen to be President by the Bishops, or 
 appointed by the Emperor. In the first case, we should have 
 some mention of the election by the historians of the Council ; 
 and Eusebius, whose main object was to exalt Constantine, 
 would not have omitted the second. Considering, indeed, 
 that the great majority of the Bishops present at Nice were 
 Oriental, it can hardly be doubted that they would have 
 given priority to some of the higher Sees in Asia ; and 
 Eustatius of Antioch is spoken of in fact by several writers, 
 as the "first of the holy Fathers assembled at Nice." 32 So 
 that it would appear, that no President, properly speaking, 
 was chosen at this Council ; but its chiefs, as Tillemont says, 
 were " Hosius for his personal merits, and others for the 
 merits of their persons and their Sees." 
 
 At the first General Council, then, no arrangement was 
 made for appointing a President : the Bishop of Rome was 
 absent in consequence of his age ; the second Patriarch (of 
 Constantinople) was a party interested ; and mere personal 
 considerations gave precedency to those who were qualified to 
 take it. The case was novel, because great Councils had not 
 previously been assembled. Even then, however, the Bishop 
 of Rome was distinguished from all other Prelates, for he 
 alone was represented by his Presbyters ; and their names 
 were subscribed next after that of Hosius, by whom the 
 Creed of the Council was recited. This is analogous to that 
 which happened when St. Cyprian corresponded with the 
 Roman Presbytery, during the vacancy which preceded the 
 appointment of Cornelius the See of Rome, as being the 
 
 30 Hist. Arian. ad Monac. xlii. p. 369. 3l Eccles. Hist. ii. 15. 
 
 32 Tillemont, vol. vi. p. 638. 
 
186 
 
 seat of the Primate, had a privilege of her own, indepen- 
 dently of anything which belonged to the Episcopal office in 
 general. And when the later General Councils were held, 
 and the Church had felt the need of such arrangements as 
 might enable her to settle her affairs on her own principles, 
 the Presidency was conceded without opposition to the Bishop 
 of Rome. 
 
 Take, first, the Council of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was 
 condemned, A.D. 431. No doubt the Bishops were called 
 together by the authority of the Emperors ; but not only did 
 St. Cyril act as President by especial delegation from Pope 
 Celestine, 33 but the Council refers to his direction as its 
 ground of proceeding. At the commencement of the Second 
 Action, a Arcadius, Bishop and Legate of the Roman Church, 
 said, ' Let your Blessedness order to be read to you the letters 
 of the holy Pope Celestine, Bishop of the Apostolic See, to 
 be named with all reverence ; by which your Blessedness may 
 discern what care he has for all the Churches.' " 34 The letter 
 concludes : " We have directed, according to our solicitude, 
 our holy brethren and fellow-priests, men of one mind with 
 us, and well-approved, the Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, 
 and Philip our Presbyter, that they may be present at those 
 things which are done, and carry out that which we have 
 previously appointed. To which we have no doubt your 
 Holiness will yield assent, since what is done appears to be 
 decreed for the security of the whole Church." 35 The mea- 
 sure thus referred to was the condemnation of Nestorius, 
 which had already been pronounced by Celestine, " who had 
 anticipated us," the Council writes to the Emperors, " in 
 passing sentence on him." 36 After referring them to the 
 " authority of the Apostolic See," as having decided against 
 Nestorius, the Fathers say, " Compelled by the Sacred 
 Canons, and the letter of our most holy Father and fellow- 
 minister, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, we have 
 
 33 Vicem nostrum Cyrillo deligavimus, &c. Harduin, i. 1318, 1307, 1466. 
 The commission to St. Cyril himself is given, Hard. i. 1323, and is referred to 
 by the Egyptian Bishops, 1355, 1475. 
 
 34 Act. Secunda, Hard. i. 1466. 
 35 Id. 1471. 36 Id. 1443, Act, Prima. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 187 
 
 with tears come of necessity to this mournful sentence against 
 him." 37 
 
 The speeches, moreover, of the Pope's Legates abound 
 with the most express assertions of his authority, which the 
 Council accepted without objection, or referred to with 
 positive approbation. "Philip, Presbyter and Legate of the 
 Apostolical See, said, ' It is doubtful to no one, rather is it 
 known to all ages, that the sacred and most blessed Peter, 
 the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith, and 
 foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the 
 kingdom of Heaven from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour 
 and Redeemer of the human race, and that the power of loos- 
 ing and binding sins was given to him ; who up to this time 
 and for ever lives and exercises judgment in his successors. 
 Therefore, our sacred and blessed Pope, the Bishop Celestine, 
 his successor in due order, and holding his place, has sent us 
 to this sacred Synod as his representatives.'" 38 And then, 
 after stating that they "follow the form of Celestine, the 
 most holy Pope of the Apostolical See, who has thought good 
 to send us to execute this office," the Legates proceed to pass 
 sentence. " Projectus, Bishop and Legate of the Roman 
 Church, said . . . . < I, by the authority delegated to me by 
 the Apostolic See, appearing with my brethren, to execute 
 this sentence, determine that the above-named Nestorius, 
 the enemy of the truth, the corrupter of *-he faith, as being 
 guilty of the things of which he is accused, shall be removed 
 from his Episcopal honour.' " Whereupon St. Cyril moves, 
 that since the Legates " have executed the things which 
 have been prescribed to them by Celestine," they ought to 
 set their hands to the sentence; and the whole Council 
 replies : " Since Arcadius and Projectus, the reverend and 
 pious Bishops and Legates, and Philip, Presbyter and Legate 
 of the Apostolic See, have spoken what is suitable, they ought 
 to confirm the acts by their signature." 39 
 
 All this becomes still more manifest, when we move on 
 about twenty years to the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. 
 Here the Pope's Legates presided solely, and the Council 
 
 37 Id. 1422. 3 " Id. 1478. 39 Id. 1481. 
 
188 
 
 was more obviously acknowledged to have been summoned 
 at his instance. This appears, not only from Pope Leo's 
 statement to the Council, that it was " assembled by order 
 of the Christian Princes, and with consent of the Apostolic 
 See ;" 40 but also from the letter of Valentinian to Theodosius, 
 two years before the Council, when he assigns as the reason 
 for holding it, " that the blessed Bishop of the Roman City, 
 to whom antiquity has given the Primacy of the priesthood 
 over all, may have room and opportunity for judging respect- 
 ing the faith, and respecting the Priests." 4 
 
 And when we come to the Council itself, the four following 
 things appear distinctly : 1st. The Council yields submission 
 to the Pope in regard to orders, which he had previously 
 given to his Legates. 2ndly. The Council applies to the 
 Pope to confirm its decisions, and that which is not confirmed 
 by him falls to the ground. 3rdly. It rests the deference 
 paid to the Pope on his claim to represent St. Peter. 4thly. 
 It attributes to the Pope a peculiar personal dignity, so that 
 those who assault him are supposed, in an especial manner, 
 to assault the Church. These points come out clearly in 
 different parts of the history of this Council. 
 
 1st. At its first meeting, Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, who had presided at Ephesus two years before, took 
 his place, without hesitation, as a Bishop. But " Pascha- 
 sinus, the reverend Bishop and Vicar of the Apostolic See, 
 said, 'We have the order of the blessed and apostolical 
 Bishop of the city of Rome, the head of all the Churches, in 
 which he has thought meet to order that Dioscorus should 
 not sit in the Synod, but if he attempts to do so should be 
 ejected. To this order we must keep.' " The reason is given 
 by the other Legate : " Lucentius, the reverend Bishop who 
 represented the Apostolical See, said, i He must give an 
 account of his own judgment ; for he presumed to judge 
 when he had no right, and ventured to hold a Synod without 
 the authority of the Apostolical See, which has never been 
 
 40 Harduin, ii. 688. 
 
 41 Harduin, ii. 35. Some have imagined, that this letter, because written 
 from Rome, was suggested by Leo. Should this be true, it was still the letter 
 of Valentinian. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 189 
 
 done, nor ought to be done.' " 4a Such was the language of 
 the two Bishops who represented the See of Rome, in the 
 largest Council which has ever been held, wherein, however, 
 among 520 Bishops, but two Western were present, besides 
 themselves. And Dioscorus, though possessing the third 
 Patriarchal See, was obliged to submit without opposition, 
 and to abandon his place among the Bishops. 
 
 Later on, judgment is given against Dioscorus, and it is 
 still the Pope's Legates who pronounce the sentence, to which 
 all the Bishops present subsequently declare their assent. 
 " Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, pronounced : ' Leo, 
 most holy Archbishop of the great and elder Rome, by us, 
 and by this present holy Synod, together with the most 
 blessed and glorious Apostle Peter, who is the rock and 
 ground of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the 
 orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the rank of Bishop, and 
 severed him from all priestly dignity.' " 43 This sentence, it 
 must be remembered, is founded upon the celebrated letter, 
 which Leo had previously addressed to Flavianus, the Pa- 
 triarch of Constantinople, so that in recognizing it as Leo's 
 decision, the Council sanctioned his claim to pass sentence 
 upon the chiefs of the Eastern Church. The same thing is 
 shown by the assent given to another act of Leo, in that he 
 had " restored Theodoret to his Bishopric." 44 The Council, no 
 doubt, added its further sanction ; but it left to the Bishop 
 of Rome that power of acting in the interim, on which the 
 ordinary government of the Church depends. Dioscorus is 
 sentenced on the very ground that, with the aid of the Council 
 over which he presided, he had ventured to pass judgment on 
 the Pope ; but Leo is supported in deciding, previously to 
 the meeting of the Council, that Theodoret should be re- 
 stored, and Dioscorus ejected from its ranks. 
 
 2ndly. The Council applied to the Pope to sanction its 
 proceedings, and that which was not sanctioned by him was 
 allowed to drop. The letter which it addressed to Leo, after 
 referring to the large number of Bishops who were present, 
 
 42 Harduin, ii. 67. This indicates what was the belief at that time respect, 
 ing the Council of Nice. 
 
 43 Harduin, ii. 346. * 4 Id. 74. 
 
190 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 adds : " Over whom, however, you presided, as the head does 
 over the members, through those who occupied your place." 
 And the Council then asks him, "to receive and confirm 
 what it had done." 45 "We ask you to honour our decision 
 with your sentence ; and as we have yielded consonancy in 
 things honourable to the head, so let the head fill up that 
 which is fitting for its children." 46 The request referred to 
 the 28th Canon of the Council, which the Pope's Legates had 
 refused to sanction, and which not only assigned to Constan- 
 tinople Patriarchal power a thing which it already possessed 
 but appeared to imply that this power was given to it on 
 the same principle, though in inferior degree, with that pos- 
 sessed by Rome. " To the throne of the elder Rome," says 
 this Canon, " because that city ruled, our fathers fitly gave 
 precedency : and moved by the same consideration, the 150 
 Bishops gave the like precedency to the sacred throne of new 
 Rome, fitly judging that the city, which has been honoured 
 by the empire and the senate, should enjoy equal precedency 
 with the elder queen Rome, and be magnified like her in 
 ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her." 47 
 
 In recommending the acceptance of this Canon, the Council 
 said that it would be gratifying to the Emperors, 48 to whose 
 presence, of course, the Church of Constantinople owed its 
 whole consequence. Nor did Leo object to allow Constanti- 
 nople the place of a Patriarchal See, which it had practically 
 possessed through the usage of the Church, and through the 
 decree of the 150 Bishops who formed the Second General 
 Council. The Legate Lucentius, 49 therefore, while objecting 
 to the Canon, pointed out that it was not needed by the 
 Church of Constantinople ; and its Patriarch continued to be 
 recognized, as he had been, by the Roman Church. But the 
 Canon was wholly rejected by Leo, who, in his answer to the 
 Council, confines his assent to its doctrinal determinations. 50 
 He refers to the decrees of Nice, as incompatible with this 
 new enactment : and no doubt it was entirely opposed to the 
 celebrated Sixth Canon, which, according to the version of it 
 
 45 Id. 657, 658. 46 Id. 659. 47 Id. 6H. 
 
 48 Id. 659. 49 De Marca de Concordia Sac. iii. 3, 5. 
 
 50 Harduin, ii. 688. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 191 
 
 preserved in the Church of Rome, began, " the Church of 
 Rome always had the Primacy." 51 And whether these words 
 had been part of the original Canon or not, it proceeds on the 
 supposition that the position of the Roman Church was one 
 of ancient standing, and did not depend on mere positive 
 enactment. 
 
 The twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, then, was enacted 
 on the understanding that its validity would depend upon 
 Leo's approbation, which it failed to obtain. So we are 
 assured by the Patriarch of Constantinople himself. He wrote 
 to Leo to excuse himself, on the ground that " the whole 
 force and confirmation of what was done was reserved for 
 your Blessedness." 52 Leo replies : " I am thankful, dear 
 brother, that you profess to be displeased at that, which ought 
 never to have pleased you. Your profession, and the attes- 
 tation of the Emperor, suffice to restore you to my esteem." 53 
 So that we have here an example of that which the Roman 
 Synod under Damasus affirms respecting the Council of 
 Ariminum ; that its decisions fell to the ground mainly because 
 it had not the concurrence of " the Roman Bishop, whose 
 sentence ought, before that of all others, to be sought for." 54 
 At the same time it must be observed, that when the Council 
 of Chalcedon speaks of giving to Constantinople the like pre- 
 cedency as to Rome, and of the privileges of Rome as con- 
 ferred " by our fathers," it was merely speaking of those acci- 
 dents of dignity which attended upon the Filmacy, and not of 
 the Primacy itself. For this lay in the succession of St. 
 Peter, which this Council repeatedly recognized in the most 
 distinct manner. This is the next point in the decisions of 
 the Council which we have to observe. 
 
 3rdly. The Council of Chalcedon grounded the Pope's 
 authority upon the fact, that he was the representative of the 
 chief Apostle. That St. Peter had fixed his seat at Rome 
 had no doubt contributed to the temporal aggrandizement of 
 his successor ; but the spiritual power which the Pope pos- 
 sessed was drawn from his Apostolic inheritance. And this 
 
 51 Id. 638. 82 Anatolius Leoni : inter Leon. Epist. cv. 4. 
 
 53 Leon. Ep. cvi. 3. M Harduin, i. 773. 
 
192 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 the Council repeatedly admitted. In its Synodal letter to 
 Leo himself, it declares him to be " appointed the interpreter 
 to all of the voice of the blessed Peter :" 55 and to the Empe- 
 rors it declares that Christ " shows forth the truth in wonder- 
 ful Leo, because He uses him as its asserter, as He did the 
 wise Peter." 56 After the reading of Leo's letter, "Peter," 
 exclaim all the Bishops, "has spoken by Leo." 57 The Me- 
 tropolitan of Gangra, in Asia Minor, says, " I agree to that 
 which has been decided upon by the Apostolic See, and by the 
 holy Fathers :" 58 and when Peter, Bishop of Corinth, who had 
 sat with the opponents of Leo, rose up and passed over to 
 the opposite side, " the Orientals, and the reverend Bishops 
 who were with them, exclaimed, Peter thinks with Peter." 59 
 Nothing can be clearer, then, than that this Council supposed 
 Leo to owe his authority to the inheritance of the Apostles, 
 and not to any mere accident of worldly greatness. 
 
 4thly. There is one thing further to be observed respect- 
 ing the Council of Chalcedon, namely, the personal reverence 
 which it testified towards the successor of St. Peter; as 
 though it was now felt that the unity and independence of 
 the Church was identified with the existence of a Primacy. 
 This is the more remarkable, because it was an assembly of 
 Eastern Bishops by which the feeling was expressed. But 
 when summing up the crimes of Dioscorus, it is his attack 
 upon the Bishop of Eome, as being fatal to the order and 
 oneness of the Church, which forms the climax of their 
 charge. And that, not only in their letter to Leo himself, 
 but also to the Emperors. To the former they say, " And 
 besides all these things, he even extended his madness so as 
 to assault him to whom the care of the vineyard has been 
 committed by Our Saviour, that is to say, Your Holiness ; 
 and he meditated an excommunication against you, who 
 have been zealous to unite the body of the Church." 60 To 
 the Emperors they write, that " in addition to ah 1 his other 
 crimes, he has uttered his voice (latravit) against the Apos- 
 
 55 Harduin, ii. 655. " Id. 381. 
 
 57 Harduin, ii. 306. 58 Id. p. 350. 59 Id. 130. 
 
 60 Id. 656. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 193 
 
 tolical See itself, and has attempted to issue letters of excom- 
 munication against the most holy and blessed Pope Leo." G1 
 
 It seems needless to go further in Church History, in 
 proof that the Bishop of Rome was supposed to possess 
 the power of presiding in Councils ; for what can be more 
 conclusive than that which has been adduced from the Coun- 
 cil of Chalcedon 1 Though the Bishops were summoned by 
 the Emperors, yet it was with the Pope's sanction, and at 
 his instance. His authority and sacredness was recognized 
 in the fullest manner ; and that because he was the successor 
 of the chief Apostle. And these admissions were made 
 by the most numerous of all ancient Councils, composed 
 almost entirely of Oriental Bishops, and to which, moreover, 
 we are accustomed at the present day to refer, as having 
 finally settled the Catholic Faith. Our standard doctrine on 
 the subject of the Blessed Trinity, and on the Incarnation of 
 Christ, was fixed by this Council. And yet one more Coun- 
 cil shall be cited, as having been a sort of sequel and 
 appendage to the Council of Chalcedon, namely, the Sixth 
 General Council, which met to complete the work of its pre- 
 cursor, by censuring the heresy of the Monothelites, which 
 had grown out of that of Eutyches. It was held at Con- 
 stantinople, A.D. 680, and a letter of Pope Agatho to the 
 Emperor, which was read in the Council, and the Council's 
 letter to the Pope, are deserving of notice. 
 
 To the Emperor, Agatho writes : " With a wounded 
 heart and with tears of mind, I entreat as a suppliant, that 
 you would extend the hand of help to the Apostolical doc- 
 trine, which the co-operator of your pious labours, the 
 blessed Peter the Apostle, delivered ; not that it should be 
 hidden under a bushel, but that it should be preached, 
 trumpet-tongued, throughout the whole world. For his true 
 confession was revealed to him by his Heavenly Father. 
 Therefore, was Peter pronounced Blessed by the Lord of all, 
 and received the charge of the spiritual sheep of the Church, 
 from the Redeemer Himself, by a triple commendation ; 
 and, through the aid of His support, this his Apostolical 
 
 61 Id. 379. 
 o 
 
194 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 Church, has never diverged from the way of truth into any 
 error whatsoever ; the authority whereof, as being that of the 
 prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church of 
 Christ has accepted, and the Universal Synods its doc- 
 trine." 62 
 
 The Council refers to the Pope's letter in the following 
 answer, which it addresses to himself: " The greatest diseases 
 need the greater remedies, as you know, O most Blessed : 
 and, therefore, Christ, our true God, the Virtue, who is truly 
 the Creator and Governor of all things, has given us a wise 
 physician, your divinely-honoured Holiness, who drivest away 
 firmly the pest of heresy with the antidotes of orthodoxy, 
 and givest health and vigour to the members of the Church. 
 We willingly leave, therefore, what is to be done to you, as 
 occupying the first See of the Universal Church, and stand- 
 ing on the firm rock of the faith ; having read the letter of 
 a true confession, from your Fatherly Blessedness to our pious 
 king, which we recognize as divinely dictated from the 
 supreme head of the Apostles." 63 
 
 Such was the relation of the ancient Universal Councils 
 to the successor of St. Peter. In later times it has been 
 disputed whether that guidance, which the Holy Ghost be- 
 stows upon the Church, finds its final expression in the 
 decisions of the Bishop of Rome, or in those of a General 
 Council. The difference is not so wide, as has sometimes 
 been imagined ; for those who claim this power for the Pope, 
 do not claim it for him as an individual, but when exer- 
 cising that function of Primate, which implies the correlative 
 action of the whole spiritual body ; and those, again, who 
 attribute this power to Bishops in Council, do not suppose 
 that it belongs to Bishops separately, but only as making up 
 that spiritual Body of Christ, which implies the co-operation 
 of the chief Bishop, and centre of unity. In one point, how- 
 ever, all parties who admit the existence of an universal 
 Church, coincide that those things which are agreed upon 
 by its whole body, in conjunction with its chief Bishop, must 
 proceed from the guidance of that directing Spirit, which 
 
 62 Harduin, iii. 1079. [The Latin is followed.] 
 63 Harduin, iii. 1437. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 195 
 
 was promised to guide it into all truth. And such, then, must 
 be the admission of the authority of St. Peter's successor, 
 which was made by the General Councils of the ancient 
 Church. For those, Councils were accepted as a legitimate 
 expression of its mind by the Catholic body throughout the 
 world ; and its faith has ever since been determined by their 
 decisions. Those who accept their conclusions, therefore, in 
 respect to the Church's faith, cannot consistently reject them 
 in respect to the Church's constitution. 
 
 This circumstance, then, shows the Papal Supremacy to 
 stand on a good ground ; but the passages adduced, show that 
 it stands after all on the same ground with the Primacy. 
 Its influence is not referred to any commission given to it 
 by the Church, nor to the importance of the city in which it 
 had its residence, but to that inheritance from the chief 
 Apostle, whereby Peter still speaks by the voice of his suc- 
 sessor. The Council of Chalcedon rests its deference to Leo 
 on the same ground which was stated by St. Peter Chryso- 
 logus, just before it assembled. " Blessed Peter, who lives 
 and presides in his own See, supplies truth of faith to those 
 who seek it." 64 If the Primacy assumed a more important 
 place than it had done, it was merely because the changing 
 circumstances of the times made it necessary to insist upon 
 this part especially of Our Lord's institutions. The Supre- 
 macy, then, is not any new power, but the rn^de in which an 
 original right was exercised ; a right to which the collective 
 Church assigned its just proportion and importance. " We 
 thank this sacred and venerable Synod," said " Philip, Legate 
 of the Apostolical See," at the Council of Ephesus, " because 
 when the letters of our holy and blessed Pope were read to 
 you, you joined yourselves by your holy acclamations, as 
 holy members to the holy head. For your Blessedness is 
 not ignorant, that the blessed Apostle Peter is the head of 
 the whole faith, yea, and of the Apostles." 6 
 
 III. The third main particular in the Papal Supremacy 
 
 was said to be the right of interference in all ecclesiastical 
 
 appointments. This, no doubt, was the last of the three to 
 
 receive legal form and expression, though it was virtually 
 
 64 Ep. ad Eutch. Bib. Patr. vii. 979. 5 Harduin, i, 1471. 
 
196 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 implied in the two former. For to be the final guardian of 
 the faith, was to have an implied participation in all those 
 appointments, of which the maintenance of the faith was a 
 condition. It was gradually, however, that the centrali- 
 2ing action of the Church led its chief Bishop to inter- 
 fere in such cases. His interference, when it came, arose 
 out of two circumstances a fact, and a principle. The fact 
 was, that Rome was the great Missionary centre of the ancient 
 world, to which, therefore, the most distant nations owed 
 their Christianity. Hence it was natural that those whose 
 mission was derived from Rome, should recur to Rome for 
 its perpetuation. 
 
 To this must be added the principle, so deeply felt in 
 ancient times, that all Church acts were the acts of a single 
 power, inasmuch as they emanated from a single source, and 
 depended on the organization of a single body. For " all 
 these worketh that one and the self- same Spirit, dividing to 
 every man severally as He will." The unity, therefore, of 
 the Church, was felt to imply a power of collective action, 
 like the unity of a nation. In the latter all political acts, 
 though intrusted of necessity to individual hands, are yet the 
 acts of the whole body. The ambassadors who represent its 
 interest in foreign parts, speak on behalf of the whole nation. 
 Yet their commission is not bestowed upon them by all who 
 possess authority in the nation ; to delegate them is a function 
 of the sovereign power, wherever it may reside ; because the 
 sovereign must of necessity act on the nation's behalf in its 
 dealings with foreign potentates. So that though the nation 
 consists of individuals, and though it acts and speaks by their 
 agency ; yet no public act can be performed save by the 
 national will, as expressed by its legitimate authorities. 
 
 Now, as a nation acts through individuals, so does a 
 Church : the one depends on natural, the other on ecclesi- 
 astical agents. Ordination is the process by which persons 
 gain capacity for serving the Church, as the possession of life 
 and reason makes them capable agents for a nation. But in 
 either case there needs an authority to give effect to their 
 agency; this authority must be derived from the power 
 which bears rule either in Church or State, and its perpetual 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 197 
 
 continuance is necessary to their action. Orders, therefore, 
 like birth, bestow a capability, without which there can be 
 no public agents ; but where men are agents of a body, their 
 action needs the perpetual sanction of that body. Hence a 
 distinction has been drawn between the power of Order, and 
 the power of Mission ; powers which must always have been 
 distinct in their nature, though they have not always been 
 discriminated in their operation. Orders, like birth, are 
 bestowed through individuals, but Mission implies the per- 
 petual action of the community, through which it is conferred. 
 If the Church Catholic, therefore, be a single Body, as 
 though, in the words of St. Irena3us, it " inhabited a single 
 house," its Mission, however widely spread, must be an indivi- 
 dual power, from which all its numerous ministers, through- 
 out the world, receive their common authority. Though 
 acting in different countries, under different governments, 
 they are still agents of one and the self-same power, which 
 gives competency to their various agency. 
 
 Such was certainly the conviction of the Ancient Church ; 
 which supposed that all individual ministers derived their 
 authority to act from that collective body, which was in- 
 habited by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, as we have seen, 
 every Bishop was a sort of representative of all his brethren. 
 And if each Bishop is represented by all the rest, that Bishop 
 surely can never be left out of sight, to whom all others are 
 inferior. If Mission be a power which emanates from all the 
 Sees of the Church Catholic, must it not emanate from that 
 See especially, which is allowed to be chief? So that if none 
 can exercise sacerdotal power save with the co-operation of 
 the whole Episcopate, it is plain that such Mission cannot be 
 possessed, save by those who derive it, in the first instance, 
 from the successor of St. Peter. 
 
 Such appears to be the natural result of admitting the 
 Church to be a single body, and of supposing that the 
 Primacy, as well as the Episcopate, had come down from the 
 Apostles. And such was the action of this power in the 
 earliest times, in which the Chief Bishop was thought the 
 fittest person to be called in, when it was necessary that 
 some one should act as the representative of his brethren. 
 
198 ST. PETER'S PKIMACY 
 
 This was stated by an Italian Council to the clergy of the 
 East, in relation to the sentence which Pope Felix had passed 
 on Acacius. " When the Priests of the Lord are assembled 
 within Italy for ecclesiastical matters, especially of faith, the 
 custom is, that the successor of the Prelates of the Apostolic 
 See, in the person of all the Bishops of the whole of Italy, 
 according to the care over all the Churches, which belongs to 
 him, should regulate all things, for he is the head of all." 6 ' 
 In consequence, the Legates of Celestine were spoken of at 
 the Council of Ephesus, as though they were the represent- 
 atives of the whole West. 67 When St. Stephen, again, was 
 called upon to remove Marcian, the Metropolitan of Aries, 
 every Bishop in the adjoining Province of Lyons was vir- 
 tually co-operating in the step, though it was the successor 
 of St. Peter alone by whom the act was to be performed. 
 The relation which is thus indicated between the Pope and 
 his brother Bishops, was kept up by those letters which they 
 addressed to one another upon their accession to office. And 
 as time went on, and the Church extended through a wider 
 region, the feeling which was expressed towards the central 
 See became more deferential. For while each was brought 
 into relation to its more immediate neighbours, there was one 
 See alone, towards which all had a relation. So that if the 
 Church's unity was to be kept up ; if it was to escape from 
 being absorbed in those various nationalities, which were now 
 rising up in Europe, it was manifest that it was only by 
 forming round this centre that the end could be effected. 
 Hence the tone of the other members of the Hierarchy to- 
 wards the Successor of St. Peter, became such as was ex- 
 pressed by Epiphanius of Constantinople, when that Church 
 returned to the Catholic communion, from which its abandon- 
 ment of the decrees of Chalcedon had separated it for thirty- 
 eight years. Pope Hormisdas had written to him, to send 
 " deputies to the Apostolic See," " in compliance with ancient 
 custom." 68 Epiphanius replies, A.D. 520, "I have thought 
 it necessary to put this statement at the head of my letters, 
 that I may show what disposition I have towards your Apos- 
 
 " Harduin, ii. 856. 67 Harduin, i. 1479. 68 Baronius Anno 520. ix. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 199 
 
 tolic See. It is my earnest prayer that I may be united to 
 you, and that I may embrace and cherish as most precious, 
 those divine doctrines, which by the blessed Disciples and 
 Apostles of God have been delivered down especially to your 
 sacred See of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles." And 
 then, after declaring his assent to the decrees of the four 
 General Councils, and to the statements of Leo, (the desertion 
 of which had led Felix III. to excommunicate his predecessor 
 Acacius,) he goes on : " These things I declare to the 
 Churches under me, using every exertion that I may have 
 them united by the bond of charity to your Blessedness, since 
 they ought all to be united and inviolable." 69 
 
 The feeling thus expressed by the first Bishop in the East, 
 that union with the Successor of St. Peter was the appointed 
 means of maintaining the whole Catholic body in unity with 
 itself, was greatly strengthened in Western Christendom by 
 the Missionary exertions of the Roman Church. It had been 
 observed, as early as by Innocent I. that one circumstance, 
 which had led to its pre-eminence, was, that " throughout all 
 Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, and the islands which 
 lie between them, no one had founded Churches except those 
 whom the venerable Apostle Peter, or his successors, have 
 ordained priests." 70 The same principle is avowed by St. 
 Gregory the Great, who expresses his satisfaction that Domi- 
 nicus, Bishop of Carthage, had a referred to the Apostolic 
 See," a whence the order of the priesthood in Africa derived 
 its commencement." 71 But it was not till long afterwards, 
 that the system of referring to the See of St. Peter received 
 that settled form which gave stability to the Mediaeval 
 Church ; and the great agent through which this work was 
 effected was not a Roman Bishop, but our countryman, St. 
 Boniface, the Apostle of Germany. 
 
 He found the Churches of Gaul, with which it was necessary 
 that he should co-operate, in a state of entire disorganization. 
 " He tells us himself, that it was eighty years since there had 
 been an Archbishop in Gaul; the Bishoprics were seized 
 
 69 Baronius Ann. 520. xxxi. xxxiii. 
 70 Harduin, i. 996. Innocentius Decentio. " Epis. Lib. viii. 33. 
 
200 ST. PETEK'S PKIMACY 
 
 upon by laymen, or by clerks, who were laymen in every 
 thing but their dress ; canonical discipline was totally de- " 
 stroyed. The Church and State in Gaul had sunk into ruin 
 with the fall of the family of Clovis." 72 To remedy this 
 state of confusion St. Boniface brought in the authority of the 
 Primate, as the main-spring for setting in motion the whole 
 machine. a We have determined," he writes, " that every 
 year, in the season of Lent, each Presbyter should give an 
 account of his ministry to his Bishop that each Bishop 
 should go round his Diocese every year, confirm and teach 
 the people that the Metropolitans, as their duty is, should 
 examine, according to the Canon, into the conduct and dili- 
 gence of their Suffragans." " And each Bishop, if he finds 
 anything in his Diocese which he cannot amend, is to state it 
 in Synod before the Archbishop, and the other members, that 
 it may be corrected, just as the Roman Church bound me by 
 an oath at my ordination, that if I saw priests or people to 
 depart from the law of God, and could not correct them, I 
 should always indicate it faithfully to the Apostolic See, and 
 to the Vicar of St. Peter, that it might be amended. For in 
 this way, I suppose, all Bishops ought to make known to the 
 Metropolitan, and he to the Roman Pontiff, whatever evils 
 they find it impossible to correct among their people, that so 
 they may be free from the blood of souls." 73 
 
 Such was the method by which Europe was saved from 
 relapsing into Heathenism in the eighth century, when the 
 great wave of northern irruption threatened to sweep away 
 the religion of the Cross, with the civilization of the empire. 
 The union of the Teutonic nations with the See of St. Peter 
 was the means by which Boniface laboured for their conver- 
 sion, just as the piety and zeal which is displayed at this day 
 in the Antipodes, strives to bring the Melanesian tribes into 
 union with the See of Canterbury. But the exertions of St. 
 Boniface were aimed at the permanent union of his converts 
 into one body ; for whereas the authority of the See of Can- 
 terbury over its subject Dioceses depends on no higher prin- 
 ciple than the mandate of a Prince, or the decree of a Par- 
 
 72 Thomassin de Beneficiis, ii. 2. 44, 11. 
 "Epist, cv. Bib. Pat. xiii. 114. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 201 
 
 liament, that See, which Boniface brought into immediate 
 relation to ah 1 the West, had its authority from Our Lord's 
 commission to His chief Apostle. " We have decreed," he 
 says, " in our Synodal assembly, and have confessed our de- 
 termination, to maintain to the end of our lives the Catholic 
 faith, and unity, and obedience to the Roman Church ; that 
 we will be subject to St. Peter and his Vicar ; that we will 
 hold a Synod every year ; that Metropolitans shall seek their 
 palls from that See ; that in all points we desire to follow 
 the precepts of Peter, as the Canons direct, that we may be 
 counted among the sheep which have been committed to him. 
 To this confession we have all agreed, and subscribed, and 
 have addressed it to the body of St. Peter, the Prince of the 
 Apostles." 74 
 
 It was through the example and influence of this first of 
 English missionaries, and through the glory of his martyrdom, 
 that the system prevailed for which he offered up his life. 
 Thus was cemented that great scheme of Mediaeval Chris- 
 tianity, in which the Church practically appeared as one, be- 
 cause its authority was admitted to emanate from that See, 
 which was the acknowledged centre of Christendom. The 
 principle, indeed, was the same, before the different parts 
 were bound together by so powerful an adhesion. For since 
 the Church was always a single body, and mise : on an indi- 
 vidual power, it must needs have its focus in that See, which 
 was the centre of the rest. But this was more felt, now that 
 the wider sphere of her transactions, and the new emergencies 
 of the age, called for additional safeguards. " The Church," 
 writes St. Boniface, " which, like a great ship, sails through 
 the sea of this world, and is assailed by various waves of 
 temptation, ought not to be abandoned, but to be guided." 75 
 It must not be supposed, therefore, that because from the 
 time of St. Boniface the Popes interfered in a more systematic 
 manner in regard to the appointment of the chief Bishops of 
 Christendom, therefore, they were exceeding their rights, or 
 deviating from ancient principles. For the Church Catholic 
 had called them in through his voice to its assistance ; and 
 that right of intervention, which they had always possessed in 
 74 Epist. cv. Bib. Pat, xiii. p. 113. " Id. p. 114. 
 
202 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 emergencies, became a regular part of the system. It is an 
 acknowledged principle of the English constitution, that the 
 public relations towards foreign powers are to be fixed by the 
 Sovereign ; and accordingly it has been held fitting, that those 
 who receive titles and decorations from foreign Rulers, should 
 not use them without the consent of their native Prince. But 
 it is only during the present year that it has been proposed to 
 introduce an act, by which British subjects might be pro- 
 hibited from entering into political relations with foreign 
 powers. This would be to explain by statute, that which had 
 always been admitted in principle. And so was it in regard 
 to the action of the Mediaeval Church. Since her power was 
 felt to be a single principle, which lived and acted in every 
 portion of her wide-spread frame, so that the Mission of all 
 her ministers was bestowed upon them through the self-same 
 agency, it must needs have been believed, also, that she had 
 a centre of life, from which all her lines of operation emanated. 
 This centre was discovered, not created, by the exigencies 
 of the times. Our greater knowledge of the moon's orbit has 
 revealed the fact, of which men were formerly ignorant, that 
 the force which draws her is the attraction of the earth. 
 That the Mission of the clergy depends especially on the con- 
 currence of the chief See, and, therefore, that the Successor 
 of St. Peter ought to be satisfied that fit men are appointed 
 to ecclesiastical offices, is in like manner one of those condi- 
 tions of the Primacy, which circumstances revealed but did 
 not create. 
 
 We have now gone through the three great heads, under 
 which the Papal Supremacy may be considered the final 
 decision respecting doctrine presidency over Councils in- 
 terference in spiritual appointments and it has been seen 
 that each of them was really involved in the power which 
 was left to his successors by the chief Apostle. For all these 
 powers are built upon that right of interfering in emergen- 
 cies, which is inherent in the Primacy. They acquired, no 
 doubt, an increased freedom of operation, because other 
 powers were withdrawn, in co-operation with which they 
 had acted. But the withdrawal of those other powers was 
 the necessary result of tlie Church's altered circumstances, 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY", 203 
 
 and was sanctioned by her own approbation. In the simpler 
 state of a community, the public defence may be left to the 
 spontaneous zeal of the people ; a more complicated system 
 requires the machinery of a standing army, -and the various 
 departments of a national administration. In like manner 
 the Church, which is always warring against the principles of 
 the world, needed a more complex arrangement, when she 
 spread herself right and left through the nations of Christen- 
 dom. And such a system grew up out of that habit of con- 
 sulting the chief Bishop on all great occasions, by which unity 
 had always been kept up. St. Jerome, who acted as secretary 
 to Damasus, Bishop of Rome, tells us that his business was 
 " to reply to communications, in which the Pope's advice was 
 sought by Synods both in the East and West." 76 Among 
 the Sy nodical applications of this sort, one was from the 
 Archbishop of Arragon, who asked for direction in respect to 
 various practical questions. As it did not arrive till after the 
 death of Damasus, it was replied to by his successor Siricius, 
 who concludes, " I have replied sufficiently to the points on 
 which you have referred to the Roman Church, as to the head 
 of your body." 77 So when Nestorius was accused of heresy, 
 St. Cyril acquaints Pope Celestine, because " the ancient 
 custom of the Church requires that such matters should be 
 communicated to your Holiness." " I have not ventured 
 openly to separate myself from his communion," St. Cyril 
 adds, " before I imparted this to your Holiness. Vouchsafe, 
 therefore, to declare what you think on the matter, and 
 whether we ought to communicate with him, or openly to 
 forbid communion with one who thinks and teaches thus. 
 Your mind on this subject should be made clear by letters, 
 both to the holy Bishops of Macedonia and to all in the 
 East." 78 
 
 These references to the Bishop of Rome, as the Successor 
 of St. Peter, became more constant and more orderly when 
 the Primacy had assumed that full form of the Supremacy, 
 which it afterwards acquired. Yet since the authority was 
 the same, the principle after all was identical. For it was 
 
 78 Epist. 91. ad Agernch. vol. iv. pt. 2, 744. 77 Harduin, i, 851. 
 
 78 AdCajles. Ep. 9, Cyr. Op. vol. v. 2. 36, 39. 
 
204 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 the very office which had been assigned to the chief Apostle, 
 when Our Lord associated him to Himself the Church's 
 true foundation and put the keys into his hands as leader 
 of his brethren. Thus was he rendered necessary to all, and 
 became the principle of unity to the body. But he exercised 
 a Primacy, not a Supremacy, because the Church, in its in- 
 fant state, needed to be fostered, rather than governed. 
 
 The unknown author of the spurious decretals, coming soon 
 after the time of St. Boniface, seems to have supposed that 
 the polity, which by that time had grown up, must have ex- 
 isted under the self-same form from the time of the Apostles. 
 His forgeries, therefore, were constructed on the supposition, 
 that the machinery which he saw around him had been 
 elaborated by St. Peter himself. Unhappily his statements 
 were admitted in an uncritical age ; and the large use which 
 was made of them contributed greatly to the reaction r) which 
 followed. When the forgery was discovered, the Primacy 
 also was supposed to rest upon those fictions which had ante- 
 dated the Supremacy. Whereas, it is historically inaccurate 
 to suppose that even the Supremacy was based upon these 
 forgeries, since they themselves grew out of the Supremacy. 
 Its real authority is no more invalidated by such fictions, than 
 the Gospels by their spurious counterfeits. They merely in- 
 dicate the erroneousness of the impression, that an institu- 
 tion, which is seen in its prime, can never have existed in a 
 state of infancy. 80 
 
 The same ignorance of the real nature of the Supremacy, 
 
 79 It has been supposed, and probably with reason, that the great schism of 
 the preceding century had impaired men's respect for the Papal office, in the 
 time of Henry VIII. Yet it had no necessary connexion with the ques- 
 tions which were then debated, nor does it appear to have been much referred 
 to. That St. Peter's successor occupied a certain office was a question of 
 doctrine : but it was a question of fact who was successor of St. Peter. When 
 Nicodemus sought Our Lord, he was satisfied as a matter of principle, that a 
 person who was possessed of such powers must be a Divine Guide : was this 
 confidence diminished by the circumstance that he had to trust his own senses 
 in seeking the Teacher, and that coming during the darkness of night, he 
 was liable to mistake the Master for one of His Disciples ? 
 
 80 Dr. Cole says to Jewell, " The Church of Christ hath his childhood, his 
 manhood, and his hoare hairs ; and as that that is meet for a man in one age is 
 unmeet in another, so were many things meet, requisite, and necessary in the 
 Primitive Church, which in our days were like to do more harm than good." 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 205 
 
 is shown by those who object that it was not conferred upon 
 the Bishop of Rome by any distinct decree of the ancient 
 Church. For what does this circumstance prove, except that 
 it arose out of that Primacy of the chief Apostle, which the 
 Church recognized, but did not create ? Statements enough 
 have been adduced, which show that the early Councils 
 supposed the Bishop of Rome to possess the inheritance of 
 St. Peter, and that they dealt with him as the chief Bishop : 
 but no Council thought of bestowing a power, which was in- 
 herent in the Successor of the first Apostle. This was stated 
 by the Roman Council under Gelasius, which laid down the 
 general outlines of Church-authority, as they were understood 
 in the period which immediately followed the Council of 
 Chalcedon. After enumerating the Canon of Scripture, it 
 proceeds : " Next to all these Scriptures of the Prophets, 
 Evangelists, and Apostles, on which the Catholic Church, by 
 the grace of God, is founded, this, too, we think should be 
 remarked, that though all the Catholic Churches throughout 
 the world be but one bridal-chamber of Christ, yet the Holy 
 Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has been preferred to 
 the rest by no decrees of a Council, but has obtained the 
 Primacy by the voice in the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour 
 Himself, saying, ' Thou art Peter,' &c. 
 
 " To whom was given also the society of the most blessed 
 Apostle Paul, the vessel of election, who on one and the same 
 day suffering a glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome, 
 under Caesar Nero, was crowned : and they alike consecrated 
 to Christ the Lord the above-named holy Roman Church, and 
 as such set it above all the cities in the whole world, by 
 their precious and venerable triumph. 
 
 "First, therefore, is the Roman Church, the See of Peter 
 the Apostle, 'not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing.' 
 
 " But, second, is the See consecrated at Alexandria, in the 
 name of blessed Peter, by Mark, his disciple and Evangelist, 
 who was sent by Peter the Apostle into Egypt, taught the 
 word of truth, and consummated a glorious martyrdom. 
 
 " And, third, is the See held in honour at Antioch, in the 
 name of the same most blessed Apostle Peter, because that 
 
206 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY 
 
 he dwelt there before he came to Rome, and there first the 
 name of the new people of the Christians arose." 81 
 
 The Papal Supremacy, then, is founded upon the Primacy 
 of St. Peter; it is the same power under a different name, 
 and in altered circumstances. And, consequently, the divine 
 institution of the one, is a sufficient authority for the other. 
 As the Episcopate could not have acted without a Hierarchy, 
 nor the Hierarchy held together without a Primacy, so the 
 Primacy could not have continued to exist, unless its power 
 had dilated with the sphere of its operations. These asser- 
 tions are confirmed by two considerations : 1st. that from 
 the time of the Nicene Council, at all events, the Popes 
 certainly claimed a Supremacy, to which no one else ever 
 pretended, but which was gradually conceded to them by the 
 rest of the Church ; 2ndly. that unless such a Supremacy 
 had existed somewhere, the Church could not have effected 
 that which was understood to be its especial function. 
 
 It is not necessary in this place to put down in order the 
 passages which show that the Popes who follow St. Sylvester 
 claimed a Supremacy ; and that the claim which they made 
 was admitted by other Bishops. Some of the passages have 
 been already quoted in this Chapter ; and they are collected 
 in an orderly and striking manner in Dr. Newman's Essay on 
 Development, cap. iii. s. 4, p. 173. He begins with Julius, 
 who followed St. Sylvester, A. D. 337. Julius's own preten- 
 sions are put forward in his letter to the Bishops of the East : 
 they are sanctioned by St. Athanasius, Socrates, and Sozo- 
 men. Then comes Damasus, A. D. 366, the next Pope but 
 one, whose assertions are borne out by the statements of his 
 contemporaries, St. Jerome, St. Basil, and the Deacon 
 Hilary. " * I speak,' says St. Jerome to Damasus, ( with 
 the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross. 
 I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in 
 communion with thy Blessedness, that is, with the See of 
 Peter. I know that on that Rock the Church is built. 
 
 81 Harduin, ii. 938. In this, and some other places, I have availed myself 
 of the translations given by Mr. Allies (See of St. Peter,) after comparing 
 them with the original. The same use has been made at times of Dr. New- 
 man's Essay on Development. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 207 
 
 Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside this House is profane ; 
 if a man be not in the ark of Noe, he shall perish, when the 
 flood comes in its power.' 82 St. Basil entreats St. Damasus 
 to send persons to arbitrate between the Churches of Asia 
 Minor, or at least to make a report on the authors of their 
 troubles, and the party with whom the Pope should hold 
 communion. 6 We are in nowise asking anything new,' he 
 proceeds, i but what was customary with blessed and religious 
 men of former times, and especially with yourself. For we 
 know, by tradition of our fathers, of whom we have inquired, 
 and from the information of writings still preserved among 
 us, that Dionysius, that most blessed Bishop, while he was 
 eminent among you for orthodoxy and other virtues, sent 
 letters of visitation to our Church of Ca3sarea, and of con- 
 solation to our fathers, with ransomers of our brethren from 
 captivity.' 83 In like manner Ambrosiaster, 84 a Pelagian in 
 his doctrine, which is not to the purpose, speaks of the 
 6 Church being God's house, whose ruler at this time is 
 Damasus.'" 85 
 
 Damasus was succeeded by Siricius, A. D. 384, and he by 
 St. Innocent : both of them asserted their right to rule, and 
 their assertions were responded to by the acknowledgments, 
 respectively, of St. Optatus and St. Augustin. Somewhat 
 later came St. Celestine, A. D. 422, who wrote to the Illyrian 
 Bishops : " An especial anxiety about all persons devolves on 
 us, on whom, in the Holy Apostle Peter, Christ conferred the 
 necessity of making all persons our concern, when He gave 
 him the keys of opening and shutting." 86 His assertion 
 tallies with the statements of his contemporary, St. Prosper, 
 who calls Rome " the seat of Peter, which being made to 
 the world the head of pastoral honour, possesses by religion 
 what it does not possess by arms;" 87 and of Vincent of 
 Lerins, who calls the Pope, or, perhaps, the Roman See, 
 "the head of the whole world." 88 
 
 And this brings us to St. Leo (A.D. 440,) whose own asser- 
 
 82 St. Jerome, Ep. 14, vol. iv. 2. 19. 
 83 Epist. Ixx. 84 In I Tim. iii. 14, 15. 
 
 85 Ess. on Devel. p. 174. 
 88 Constant, p. 1063. 87 De Ingrat. 2. 88 Common. 30. 
 
208 
 
 tions are as distinct, as was the response made to them by 
 the Council of Chalcedon. For " as St. Athanasius and the 
 Eusebians, by their contemporary testimonies, confirm St. 
 Julius; and St. Jerome, St. Basil; and Ambrosiaster, St. 
 Damasus ; and St. Optatus, St. Siricius ; and St. Augustin, 
 St. Innocent ; and St. Prosper and Vincent, St. Celestine ; 
 so do St. Peter Chrysologus, and the Council of Chalcedon, 
 confirm St. Leo." 89 Their testimony has been exhibited in 
 the earlier part of this chapter; St. Leo's assertions, in a 
 letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne, show his 
 own claim, and the principle on which it was rested. u The 
 Lord hath willed, that the mystery of this gift (of announcing 
 the Gospel,) should belong to the office of all the Apostles, on 
 the condition of its being chiefly seated in the most blessed 
 Peter, first of all the Apostles : and from him, as it were from 
 the Head, it is His pleasure that His gifts should flow into 
 the whole Body, that whoever dares to recede from the Eock 
 of Peter, may know that he has no part in the divine 
 mystery. For him hath He assumed into the participation 
 of His indivisible unity, and willed that he should be named 
 what Himself is, saying, ( Thou art Peter, and upon this 
 Rock I will build My Church;' that the rearing of the 
 eternal temple by the wonderful gift of the grace of God 
 might consist in the solidity of Peter, strengthening with 
 this firmness His Church, that neither the rashness of 
 men might attempt it, nor the gates of hell prevail against 
 it." 90 
 
 It is needless to go further than St. Leo, for everything 
 which can be claimed for the Primate is virtually included in 
 such assertions as these; I turn, therefore, to the other asser- 
 tion, that the unity of the Church could not have been 
 maintained, unless a central power had existed somewhere ; 
 while it is notorious that no centre has ever been thought of, 
 save the successor of St. Peter. In making this assertion I 
 do not build upon a priori grounds, or argue that the author 
 of revelation must needs have provided for its permanent ex- 
 planation. Those who are convinced that God is the God 
 
 89 Ess. on Devel. p. 176. 90 S. Leo, Ep. x. 1. 
 
INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 209 
 
 of order, and conceive that the purpose for which revelation 
 was given cannot be carried out without some such provision, 
 will no doubt feel the force of such a mode of reasoning. 
 But such analogical reasoning is far less effective in the 
 establishment of truth, than when it can be used for the 
 confutation of error. And the present argument does not 
 rest upon any assumption of that which the Supreme Go- 
 vernor might be expected to do, but upon that which He 
 predicted under the Ancient Economy, and revealed under 
 the New. The prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel, 
 contemplate the Church as a kingdom, which should take 
 its place among the institutions of the earth. So was it 
 described in the Parables of Our Lord ; this is the conclusion 
 to be drawn from St. Paul's arguments, and St. John's vision. 
 Such was it believed to be by the first followers of the 
 Apostles. They supposed that it was truly Christ's Body, 
 inhabited by the Holy Ghost, and endowed with that gift 
 of life, which ramified through all its members. Hence 
 flowed its functions of guidance, and its form of govern- 
 ment. All were believed to have their root in that In- 
 carnation of the Son of God, which was once for all vouch- 
 safed in the flesh, that it might be perpetuated for ever in 
 history. 
 
 Now, such functions could not be discharged by the Body 
 of Christ, unless it possessed order, shape, and government. 
 Without these there could be no rule exercised in the earth, 
 and no administration of discipline. They imply that the 
 Body of Christ must have an earthly head, as well as earthly 
 members. And exactly in proportion as the circumference 
 grew more wide, must the force lodged in the centre be 
 augmented. St. Peter's voice was heard readily among the 
 Twelve, but the Pope must speak loud to be heard by all 
 nations. But if all Bishops derive their commission from 
 the Apostles, and the power which they received has been 
 handed on to their successors, so assuredly must it be with 
 the Primacy also. If such a bond was needed for the union 
 of those Twelve Brethren, how much more, now that their 
 descendants have multiplied among all nations ! So that 
 the Pope's Supremacy stands on two assumptions; one of 
 
210 ST. PETER'S PRIMACY INVOLVES THE SUPREMACY. 
 
 them borne out by plain words in Scripture, the other at- 
 tested by the universal belief of the early Christians that 
 St. Peter was Primate of the Twelve, and that the office of 
 the Twelve was not to last merely for a year, or a life, but 
 throughout all generations. 
 
211 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 HOW FAR THE POPULAR PRINCIPLE OF SUBSCRIPTION TO 
 THE ENGLISH FORMULARIES IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
 RULE OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 IN the preceding part of this work it has been shown what 
 was that belief respecting Church-authority, which prevailed in 
 this country till towards the middle of the sixteenth century. 
 It was the same which had been entertained in the Empire 
 while our forefathers were still inhabitants of the German 
 forest, and which they derived from that great Pope, to whom 
 they owed their faith and their civilization. Let us now go 
 on to consider, how far it is compatible with those engage- 
 ments which are contracted by all Englishmen who graduate 
 at the Universities, or become teachers in the National 
 Church ; and which virtually, therefore, determine the faith 
 of all Churchmen. For though the laity are not required to 
 do more than to abstain from impeaching any part of the 
 "regal supremacy" "in Causes Ecclesiastical" 1 (Canon 2,) 
 or from affirming that " the Book of Common Prayer" " con- 
 taineth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures" 
 {Canon 4,) or that "any of the Nine-and-thirty Articles" are 
 " erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience 
 subscribe unto" (Canon 5;) yet since all are called upon to 
 profess belief "in the Holy Catholic Church," and since 
 " the Church hath authority in controversies of faith," it 
 follows, that all are bound to receive that which the Church 
 teaches by her authorized ministers, and, therefore, that all 
 
 1 By the 27th Canon the clergy are forbidden to administer the Holy Com- 
 munion " to any that have spoken against ... his Majesty's Sovereign autho- 
 rity in Causes Ecclesiastical." 
 
212 THE COMMON PRINCIPLE 
 
 are interested in the Formularies which determine their 
 belief. 
 
 The Clergy were required to subscribe to the Queen's 
 Supremacy, by 1 Eliz. 1. A.D. 1558; and to the doctrinal 
 Articles, by 13 Eliz. 12. A.D. 1570; they have since been 
 required by the 36th Canon, A.D. 1603, to declare their assent 
 not only t'o all the Articles and to the Supremacy, but like- 
 wise to the Book of Common Prayer ; and, finally, by the 
 13 and 14 Car. 2. c. 4. A.D. 1662, those who are admitted to 
 benefices, are required to give a still more particular sanction 
 to the last, by publicly declaring their " unfeigned assent and 
 consent to the use of all things therein contained and pre- 
 scribed." On what principle is this done, and how are men 
 justified in doing it ? I will first state what appears to be 
 the common principle on which subscription is made, and 
 then, in a subsequent chapter, consider what seems to have 
 been the Church's intention in requiring it. 
 
 There can be little doubt that Subscription is grounded 
 in most instances on the mere principle of private judgment. 
 Various works have been written in explanation of the 
 Articles, most of which undertake to demonstrate them from 
 Holy Scripture, and appeal to the reason of their readers as 
 a competent, and indeed the only judge, by which such 
 questions can be determined. That such is the case is what 
 the majority of Englishmen would either fully admit, or freely 
 affirm. Yet such a practice is entirely at variance with that 
 which was shown in the second Chapter to be a fundamental 
 law of the Gospel, that the judgment in matters of faith 
 does not rest with individuals, but with the Body of Christ. 
 It implies an entire forgetfulness of Our Lord's own state- 
 ment, that His words could only be comprehended by a 
 divine guidance ; for divine guidance, as was shown in the 
 third Chapter, is derived from God the Holy Ghost, by whom 
 the Body of Christ is inhabited. So that the principle of 
 Subscription commonly adopted, implies a forgetfulness that 
 God is wiser than man, and that the system of grace has 
 Superseded the system of nature. 
 
 But besides this capital error, the conduct referred to is 
 beset by two other difficulties. First, it takes for granted 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 213 
 
 the authority of Holy Scripture. But, as St. Augustin said 
 long ago, what proof has any one of the authority of Holy 
 Scripture, unless he recognizes the judgment of the Church ? 
 Almighty God might have given us a revelation, which was 
 authenticated either by some public national act, or by the 
 testimony of certain well-known individuals. The first was 
 the case with the Law of Moses ; the second, perhaps, with 
 some books of the New Testament. But it was shown in the 
 second Chapter that such was not the case with the New 
 Testament at large. The volume, looked at as a whole, and 
 many important portions of it, depend for their authority 
 upon the judgment of the post-Apostolic Church. We 
 receive it as inspired, because it was adjudged to be so by 
 the Church. Those, therefore, who do not admit the rule of 
 Church-authority, and who appeal instead of it to their own 
 individual reason, are guilty of a happy inconsistency when 
 they recognize the authority of Holy Writ. For their prin- 
 ciples should lead them to admit nothing, which is beyond 
 the sphere of their own knowledge. And hence some, like 
 the Rationalist Semler, 2 consider that the only test of the 
 inspiration of Scripture is the individual consciousness of its 
 readers ; while the majority are contented to assume Scrip- 
 ture to be an authority, without considering how its claims 
 are authenticated. 
 
 Another great difficulty in Subscription to the Formularies 
 of the Church of England, arises from the extent and intricacy 
 of the statements to be subscribed. First, they require 
 considerable historical knowledge : how can any one, for in- 
 stance, be justified in affirming, on his private judgment, that 
 " the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have 
 erred," unless he has made diligent inquiry into the truth of 
 the accusation ? It is not consistent with the ninth Command- 
 ment to bring charges even against individuals without 
 examination; how much less against large bodies of our 
 fellow-Christians ! It can hardly be thought, as Dr. Hey 3 
 seems to suppose, that we may throw out imputations of this 
 
 2 Vid. Tholuck's Vermischte Scnften, ii. 56, as quoted Doctrine of Incar- 
 nation. Cap. xiv. Note 33. 
 
 3 In what these Churches " have erred, seems but of little moment," &c. 
 Hey's Lectures, iv. Art. 19. 
 
214 THE COMMON PRINCIPLE 
 
 sort, on the general expectation that there may be something 
 to substantiate them. 
 
 A more serious difficulty still is, the necessary intricacy of 
 many of these statements. Here are a vast number of proposi- 
 tions, touching upon the most deep and mysterious questions 
 of human knowledge, which every one who takes Orders is 
 required to subscribe, and which he is excommunicated if he 
 declares to be a in any part erroneous." The diversity of 
 human judgments makes it strange that so many persons 
 should exactly agree respecting so many propositions : and 
 especially is it singular, that those who feel justified in af- 
 firming, in consequence of the general infirmity of human 
 nature, that the chief Churches of Christendom have erred, 
 should find no difficulty in asserting the truth of everything 
 which is propounded by the Church of England. 
 
 The difficulty becomes greater when it is considered, that 
 the clergy are divided into various parties, who are widely 
 opposed to one another in almost every particular. It may 
 be allowable, perhaps, to employ the phraseology of a recent 
 Eeviewer, who has distributed them into three classes, which 
 he designates as High, Low, and Broad. The last may be 
 expected to be comparatively inattentive to matters of doc- 
 trine; regarding the Church chiefly as a social institution, 
 designed merely to raise the standard of morals and amelio- 
 rate the manners of men. But the High and Low agree in 
 one point, if in nothing else, that to contend for the truth is 
 the first duty of Christians. They differ, however, respecting 
 almost every point of doctrine. One believes the Church to 
 be the Body of Christ, inhabited by His Spirit; the other 
 supposes it to be little more than a religious Club. One be- 
 lieves in Baptismal Regeneration, and in the Real Presence ; 
 the other speaks of the Sacraments as if they were only 
 acted Sermons. One affirms Christ to speak by the voice of 
 His Priests, and that deadly sin requires absolution ; the 
 other affirms, that the Priest's words are no more effective 
 than those of his parish clerk. Yet both parties, as well as 
 the Broad who lie between them, subscribe to the same 
 Formularies, which they interpret avowedly in contradictory 
 senses, and from which they deduce the most opposite results. 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 215 
 
 If all this does not arise from the laxity of those who sub- 
 scribe, but from the ingenuity of those who devised our 
 Formularies, they must certainly have been the greatest 
 masters of equivocal expression whom the world has known. 
 But, in truth, they never supposed that subscription would 
 be made on the principles which at present are prevalent. 
 They give no countenance to the necessary dishonesty which 
 must be engendered, if such Formularies are subscribed on 
 private judgment; for they designed them, like Scripture 
 itself, to be accepted on authority. All Christians agree in 
 admitting the Bible to be true, although they differ in the 
 meaning which they assign to its individual statements. If 
 Scripture appears to assert anything, which we have reason 
 to suppose false, we never imagine Scripture itself to be in- 
 accurate. For believing it to come from an inspired source, 
 we accept it, not because we have verified its words, but be- 
 cause we admit its authority. We take for granted that an 
 explanation exists, though it may not at present be apparent. 
 This is the only principle, on which Subscription can safely 
 be made to any extended body of Formularies. Those who 
 recognize the Church's authority, are justified in declaring 
 their assent to everything which she teaches ; for they know 
 that she will teach nothing to which they are not bound to 
 assent. And such was the claim, which our Formularies were 
 supposed to possess by those who promulgated them. The 
 Church of England, as shall be shown in the next Chapter, 
 was believed to be the Church Catholic sojourning in this 
 land, and the decrees, therefore, which she set forth here hi 
 England, were supposed to emanate from the same source, 
 and to be entitled to the same deference, with any other 
 declaration of her unerring authority. The first Prayer 
 Book of Edward Vlth. was declared by Parliament (A. D. 
 1548,) " to be drawn up by the aid of the Holy Ghost." And 
 such has been the principle on which this and the other 
 authorized Formularies have been subscribed by those who 
 recognize the Church's authority. So that their Subscrip- 
 tion may be vindicated from the suspicions which attach 
 to those, whose private judgment is found to harmonize with 
 their worldly interests. 
 
216 THE COMMON PRINCIPLE 
 
 But even their case has its difficulties. Its principle is, that 
 some better judge is needed than the reason of individuals, 
 because the things of God can only be comprehended by the 
 Spirit of God. It is clear that each individual cannot pre- 
 tend to be guided infallibly by God's Spirit ; for the best 
 men differ among themselves ; neither was such a claim ad- 
 vanced in ancient times for any but the Apostles. This 
 better judge has always been understood, therefore, to be the 
 Church ; and the Church is represented to each individual 
 by those particular officers, to whom his position gives him a 
 relation. Here, in England, therefore, the Archbishops and 
 Bishops of the Provinces of Canterbury and York claim our 
 obedience ; we subscribe the Book of Common Prayer and 
 the Thirty-nine Articles at their instance ; they stand to us 
 in the place of that Church Catholic, which inherits the pro- 
 mises ; the writings which they put into our hands are their 
 instruments, and are endued with a living power, because 
 they are the voice of that sacred community, which is in- 
 habited by the Holy Ghost. In setting forth these books, 
 the Church Catholic proceeds, of course, as in every other 
 instance, on a reference to the past ; she employs both Scrip- 
 ture and Antiquity as that deposit of truth, which was set 
 forth once for all on inspired authority. But to apply their 
 teaching to fresh emergencies is her office ; she does not argue 
 but explain ; she declares how every new case is to be de- 
 cided according to ancient principles. So that the principle 
 on which the Formularies of the Church of England are sub- 
 scribed is, that she is herself a living, acting authority, which 
 speaks through those whom she has put in trust, and gives 
 utterance, as the Body of Christ, to that which the Holy 
 Ghost teaches. 
 
 It is this view of the character of the Church of England 
 which is expressed, when we are told in the Articles, that 
 " the Church hath authority in controversies of faith." The 
 words would be nugatory, if they did not refer to some body 
 with which the parties who subscribe were acquainted ; and 
 their sense is fixed by the accompanying statement, that the 
 same body " hath power to decree rites and ceremonies." For 
 this power is stated by the Thirty-fourth Article to belong to 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 217 
 
 " every particular or National Church." But this view of the 
 Church of England, as claiming authority over the conscience, 
 was dissipated by the Gorham Case. 4 It then became mani- 
 fest, that neither the rulers of the English Church, nor the 
 Church herself in her corporate capacity, exert any such 
 power, or claim to act on any such principles. No part of 
 
 4 Many persons suppose that the Gorham Case was not an ecclesiastical deci- 
 sion, and does not affect the Church of England. But it is plainly a Spiritual 
 act, when a Bishop pronounces upon the doctrinal soundness 9f any one who 
 is intrusted with the cure of souls. Now, how does such a process change its 
 nature, when it is carried by appeal from the Bishop to the Archbishop, 
 or from the Archbishop to the Crown ? If it is a religious question in its 
 lower stage, why not in its higher? And the Crown's interference in such 
 cases was meant to be Spiritual ; for it was substituted for the power of the 
 Pope by 25 Henry VIII. xix. s. 6, and it was justified on the ground, that the 
 King was " a spiritual man" ( Vid. infra, p. 225.) It is true that in the pre- 
 vious year the Crown had admitted, that any question of " spiritual learning" 
 ought to be referred to " the spirituality." (24 Henry VIII. 12.) And for many 
 years the Crown acted on this principle, and appointed Ecclesiastics as its 
 instruments in exercising its spiritual power. But the Crown was never bound, 
 and has long ceased to do so. And the Bishops, who were thus appointed, 
 never professed to act by their own inherent power, but only as delegates 
 of the "supreme" ruler. As the Gorham Case, however, was the first im- 
 portant decision on doctrine which the Sovereign has ever given in person, it 
 was possible that the Church of England might refuse to submit to such dic- 
 tation. But, as the writer of these pages stated in 1850, " if her Courts recog- 
 nize this sentence as binding, and the Church sits still, and by no legislative 
 act declai-es her disapprobation, how can she be understood to dissent ?" {Charge 
 on the Gorham Case, p. 10.) Now, the Church's Courts have publicly accepted 
 the decision, and her Prelates have given mission to the Clerk who was charged 
 with heresy. And by this time it must be obvious, both that the appellate ju- 
 risdiction of the Crown is not likely to be taken away, and that the Church of 
 England is prepared to submit to it. Whether this power be exercised by 
 the King in Chancery or the King in Council, is of little moment, since it is 
 plainly that ultimate jurisdiction which belonged formerly to the Patriarch, and 
 which must be exercised by some one, if questions of doctrine are to receive any 
 decision. For the Gorham Case was not a temporal question which incident- 
 ally involved spiritual rights (like those which occasionally arise in the Courts 
 of Westminster ;) on the contrary, it was a spiritual question, by which rights 
 of property were incidentally involved. The point in dispute was the right 
 to the Cure of Souls ; and it was purely accidental that certain worldly emolu- 
 ments happened to belong to the office which was contested. And, there- 
 fore, the trial was in Courts of Spiritual cognizance, and turned wholly upon 
 an examination of doctrine. So that the Gorham sentence " has force," as 
 was said four years ago ; " it must have force, till it is rescinded by some act 
 equally formal and authoritative." {Charge, &c. p. 18.) It either proves that 
 to leave Baptism an open question is right, or that the Church, which does so, 
 is in the wrong ; it binds men's consciences either to allow the lawfulness of the 
 step, or to disallow the authority of the Body by which it has been sanctioned. 
 
218 THE COMMON PKINCIPLE 
 
 her Formularies, probably, are drawn up with greater precision 
 than those which relate to Baptism ; for as this subject did 
 not happen to be disputed in the 16th century, the ancient 
 precedents were followed with little deviation. If the Church, 
 therefore, does not enforce agreement on this subject, it can 
 scarcely be supposed that she does on any other. But the 
 Gorham Case decided, that those who deny baptismal grace 
 have the same right to act as the Church's representatives as 
 those who affirm it : so that the Church of England denies 
 in one parish, by the mouth of her minister, that which she 
 affirms in another. And this decision resulted from the fur- 
 ther fact, that the civil power had taken possession, with the 
 Church's assent, of her spiritual organs ; her courts pro- 
 fessed themselves bound to affirm or deny according as the 
 temporal Sovereignty ordered them ; and cannot claim, there- 
 fore, to be the expression of that mind of the Spirit, which 
 utters its voice through the Body Mystical of the Son of God. 
 And when her chief Spiritual Officer was publicly consulted 
 on the subject by a clergyman, who wished to learn on what 
 principle the clergy were called upon to subscribe, he avowed 
 that he possessed no more authority than any other individual, 
 but that any one who could read, and could procure a copy of 
 the New Testament, was as much entitled to be a judge of 
 doctrine as himself. Four years have since passed, during 
 two of which the Convocation of Canterbury has had oppor- 
 tunity of discussion ; yet neither the principles avowed by the 
 Archbishop, nor those which were acted upon by his Court, 
 have been repudiated by the clergy collectively, nor by the 
 Bishops of either Province. The justice of the decision has 
 been called in question, indeed, by many individuals ; but 
 that such questions are to be decided by the civil power, and 
 not by the Church, seems to be acquiesced in on all hands as 
 inevitable. 
 
 It is plain, then, that this principle of Subscription falls to 
 the ground also. For no one can imagine that the doctrinal 
 decisions of the civil power bind the conscience, or that the 
 words of the Queen of England have any claim to express 
 the mind of the Catholic Church. Perhaps, it may be urged, 
 that the Formularies of the Church of England remain unal- 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 219 
 
 tered ; and that it is to these, and not to the voice of her 
 existing leaders, that we should pay deference. Why should 
 not we be satisfied, it is said, so long as we are sure that 
 the Book of Common Prayer expresses those truths, which 
 are taught in Scripture and were sanctioned by Antiquity ? 
 But this would be to accept our Formularies, because they 
 have been examined and approved by our individual reason, 
 not because they possess authority ; and, therefore, to abandon 
 the idea that we have any better criterion than private judg- 
 ment. For these books do but represent the mind of those 
 by whom they are put forth ; they express at every moment 
 the judgment of the society which sanctions them : now, why 
 should we admit the authority of that past generation of our 
 spiritual rulers, by whom they were promulged, if we make 
 no account of the authority of that present generation, by 
 whom they are interpreted 1 The books may be good and 
 true, and may approve themselves to our private reason ; 
 but we cannot subscribe them on the ground that they are 
 the voice of the Church Catholic sojourning here in England, 
 and proceed from that higher Wisdom, which we are bound 
 to respect. 
 
 It remains, therefore, that our Formularies should be 
 accepted, because their truth approves itself to our own 
 minds, upon reference to Scripture and Antiquity. But is 
 not this precisely that principle of private judgment, which 
 these very authorities have been shown to repudiate ? For 
 what is Antiquity but a series of books, which differ from 
 Scripture only in possessing greater extent, and inferior 
 authority ? Antiquity may increase the extent of our rule, 
 but it cannot act as a judge of doctrine. It cannot supply the 
 place of a living Body, or discharge those functions, therefore, 
 which the ancient Fathers .ascribe to the Body of Christ. In 
 all these respects, indeed, its wide extent involves peculiar 
 difficulties. Scripture is a fountain of instruction which it 
 is possible to approach, though impossible to fathom ; but 
 Antiquity is inaccessible to the majority of men. So that they 
 can do nothing but trust to the assertions of some self-chosen 
 teacher, whose learning or piety commands their confidence. 
 And this is the very principle of Sectarianism. The Church 
 
220 THE COMMON PRINCIPLE OF SUBSCRIPTION. 
 
 Catholic is the Body of Christ, in which those who rule are 
 empowered to speak on behalf of a Divine institution, how- 
 ever feeble their individual powers. The Church of England 
 is the Church of a great nation, and its rulers, therefore, have 
 that respectability which results from worldly acceptance, 
 and legal recognition. But those who lean on the judgment 
 of individuals, can neither refer to that Divine authority 
 which speaks through the one, nor to that human consent 
 which gives weight to the other. They are surrendering 
 themselves to that private attachment to some individual 
 leader, which is eminently un-Catholic in its tendency, and for 
 which St. August in reprehends the Donatists. He contrasts 
 it with that love for the unity of the Catholic Body, which 
 the Spirit of love diffuses through its members. "Let no 
 one say, I will follow him, because he has made me a Chris- 
 tian ; or I will follow him, because he has baptized me. For 
 neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, 
 but God, that giveth the increase. And God is love, and 
 he that dwelleth in God, dwelleth in love, and God in him. 
 For no one who preaches the name of Christ, and who exhibits 
 and ministers the sacraments of Christ, ought to be followed 
 against the unity of Christ." 5 
 
 5 Cont. Lit. Petiliani. iii. 6. 
 
221 
 
 CHAPTEE XIII. 
 
 HOW FAR THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE OF SUBSCRIPTION TO 
 THE ENGLISH FORMULARIES IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
 RULE OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 THE last Chapter has shown how untenable are the prin- 
 ciples, on which the English Formularies are usually sub- 
 scribed. But what is to be said respecting that principle, 
 on which they were originally proposed, and on which their 
 compilers rested their authority 1 Would it not be sufficient 
 if this could be revived ; and should we not then have a rule, 
 which was consistent at once with Scripture, and with the 
 teaching of the ancient Church ? This shall be considered 
 in the present Chapter. 
 
 The ancient principle of Church-authority has been shown 
 to have depended upon the belief, that the gift of guidance, 
 which had its dwelling in Our Lord, had been inherited by 
 the collective body of His followers. It was essential, there- 
 fore, to its application that they should act together. Each 
 Bishop was listened to with confidence, when he taught his 
 people the way of truth, because he was a representative of 
 that society of Christians, in whose name and with whose 
 sanction he spoke. Though he was individually the repre- 
 sentative of Our Lord, yet he retained this function because 
 he was a member of the Body. So that the Mission possessed 
 by each Bishop, and transmitted by him to his inferior clergy, 
 was only the consequence of that power of guidance, of which 
 the Body at large was possessed. It might be conveyed to 
 him either virtually, as when one man speaks for a crowd, 
 
222 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 which gives an implicit sanction to his words ; or formally, 
 as when a delegate is explicitly appointed by an organized 
 society. In the earliest age of the Church, the Mission of 
 each Bishop had partaken of the former character ; because 
 the Church's organization had not yet been moulded into 
 shape by time and opportunity ; as years went on, Mission 
 had come to be a formal sanction, transmitted to each Bishop, 
 either by his immediate Metropolitan, or by the Primate. 
 This arrangement arose out of that system, by which the 
 Church's unity had been secured : the combination, namely, 
 of many Bishops into a Province, and the relation of all 
 Provinces to the Successor of St. Peter. By this means was 
 the whole body enabled to co-operate ; and the rule, on 
 which Our Lord had framed the College of His Apostles, 
 was perpetuated in their successors. 
 
 This system, which necessarily made the successor of St. 
 Peter the last standard of reference in all disputes of doctrine, 
 Henry VIII. found it expedient to change. The Pope 
 (whether for good or bad reasons) had refused to annul his 
 marriage with Catherine ; and thus to enable him to obtain 
 a younger bride. And Elizabeth was pressed by a similar 
 motive ; for her legitimacy rested on a denial of that power of 
 the Pope, by which her mother's marriage had been declared 
 invalid. But what new system of Church-authority was to 
 be found ? To claim it nakedly for the civil power, as was 
 done subsequently in Germany, was too glaring a profaneness 
 to be successful; though it was afterwards occasionally at- 
 tempted. It seemed safer, however, to employ the ma- 
 chinery which was supplied by the Church in Henry's own 
 dominions. But on what principle could the English Bishops 
 be shown to possess that power, which they were designed 
 to exercise '? For it is obvious that no Bishop has authority 
 by himself to decide matters of faith : he must act with the 
 concurrence, and as the representative, of his brethren. 
 Otherwise each diocese of the Church Catholic might have 
 a different Creed. But was it not possible to prescribe some 
 limits, less extensive than those of the Catholic Church, 
 which might give this power to the Bishops, who were in- 
 cluded in them I The chemistry of Nature seems to depend 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 223 
 
 upon the fermentation of its materials upon .that gigantic 
 scale, which human agency is unable to imitate. Yet won- 
 derful results have been effected by rivalling, as far as pos- 
 sible, the grandeur of her operations. Was there no way by 
 which a portion of the Church could be cut off from the rest, 
 and united into a whole, so as to pronounce doctrinal decisions 
 with the same security as the collective Body of Christ ? 
 
 This was the problem proposed to Henry VIII. and his 
 obsequious Parliament. They appear to have solved it by 
 the consideration, that in ancient times the Christian Em- 
 perors had not only possessed great authority in religious as 
 well as civil questions a thing freely conceded to all believing 
 Princes but that the subject Bishops, whom the Emperors 
 had called together, had given final decisions in matters of 
 faith. Here, then, was a limit which might fence round the 
 Church of England, and give its Prelates the like authority. 
 For was not England an Empire also, or at all events might 
 it not be so declared 1 Such, at least, was the judgment of 
 Henry VIII. and his Parliament. They decreed (24 Henry 
 VIII. 12,) that " this realm of England is an Empire, and 
 so hath been accepted in the world," "the bo dy Spiritual 
 whereof having power, when any cause of the Law divine 
 happened to come in question, or of spiritual learning, then it 
 was declared, interpreted, and showed by that part of the 
 said body politic, called the Spirituality, now being usually 
 called the English Church, which always hath been reputed, 
 and also found of that sort, that both for knowledge, integrity, 
 and sufficiency of number, it hath been always thought, and is 
 also at this hour, sufficient and meet of itself, without the in- 
 termeddling of any exterior person, or persons, to declare and 
 determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices 
 and duties, as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain." 
 
 Here, then, was a principle, which if it could be maintained, 
 would exactly meet what was wanted. The self-same power 
 of resolving all questions, which had formerly been possessed 
 by the Church Catholic, when it sojourned in the Empire of 
 Kome, it might still be alleged to possess, when sojourning 
 in the British Empire. The Imperial limits, which had de- 
 termined its capacity of united action in the one case, existed 
 
224 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 also in the other. How much of its power was due to the 
 Bishops, as representing the Apostles, and how much to the 
 King, as possessing an immediate delegation from God, 
 through his Divine right to govern, was not clearly stated. 
 This was a point, respecting which their several partizans 
 might dispute; but that between them they possessed suffi- 
 cient authority to bind the conscience was affirmed in ex- 
 press words both by Church and State, and was uniformly 
 witnessed by their actions. 
 
 The combination of the two powers, which were thus 
 amalgamated, has led to much of that uncertainty, by which 
 those who desire to understand on what principle their faith 
 is dependent, have ever since been perplexed. The two 
 tendencies still exist : the majority of the laity accept, or sub- 
 mit to, the Church's teaching, because she is the National 
 Church; the assent of the public, sanctioned by solemn 
 Acts of the Legislature, and graced by the concurrence of 
 Koyalty, stands in the place of that Right Divine which was 
 asserted by the Tudors and the Stuarts. On the other hand, 
 a large body of the Laity, and still more of the Clergy, rely 
 upon the fact, that the English Bishops are successors to the 
 Apostles. The two principles had their advocates from an 
 early period ; if the Royal authority predominated under the 
 Tudors, the Episcopal principle was asserted under the 
 Stuarts. 1 Cranmer was the type of the one ; Laud, Andrewes, 
 and Overall of the other. Cranmer 2 maintained not only 
 that all Mission was derived from Princes, but that they 
 might confer Orders also ; and he affirmed that the Apostles 
 themselves had no authority from Christ, but merely took 
 the lead in the Church, as a provisional measure, till it could 
 be assumed by some secular Prince. And the principle, on 
 which the submission of the clergy to Henry VIII. was 
 urged by his emissaries, 3 implied the King to be, as the 
 
 'This is pointed exit by Dr. Cardwell, Documentary Annals, vol. ii. p, 172. 
 
 2 Questions concerning the Sacraments, No. 9. Jenkyns's Cranmer, vol. ii. 
 p. 102. 
 
 3 Among the arguments used with the monks of Greenwich to induce them 
 to admit the King's Supremacy, " We affirmed unto them," writes Roland Lee, 
 Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to Cromwell (A.D. 15?5,)"that they were 
 the King's subjects, and that by the law of God they owed him their entire 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 225 
 
 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum styled him, "the foun- 
 tain of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction." 4 On the other hand, 
 Andrewes and Overall, as we see by a letter of the last to 
 Grotius, dwelt upon the fact, that the King did not give 
 judgment himself on any spiritual matter, but merely con- 
 firmed the decisions of his theologians. 5 
 
 In the fusion, then, of these two powers, it is not clearly 
 stated how much was ascribed to each ; and probably it was 
 thought the wisest course to evade the question. One point, 
 however, is certain, that all subjects of this realm were sup- 
 posed to be bound in conscience to admit every conclusion, 
 which was sanctioned by the concurrent authority of the Crown 
 and the Clergy. So that the two, between them, were to be 
 relied upon with that plenary confidence which the Primitive 
 Church ascribed to the decisions of the collective Episcopate. 
 The Act of Parliament 6 which was passed A. D. 1541, as a 
 
 obedience ; and that the Pope, and Saint Francis, and they themselves, with 
 their vows, oaths, or professions, could take away not one jot of the obedience 
 which they owe to the King by God's Law. And we showed them that none 
 of the King's subjects could submit himself, or bear obedience to any other 
 Prince, or Prelate, without the King's consent. And if he did, he did the 
 King's Grace great injury, and offended God, breaking His laws commanding 
 obedience towards Princes. And in this behalf we showed that the King, being 
 a Christian Prince, was a spiritual man, and that obedience, which they owed 
 to the King by God's law, was a spiritual obedience, and in spiritual causes ; 
 for they would be obedient, but only in temporal causes." Letters relating to 
 the Suppression of Monasteries, by Thos. Wright, Esq. xv. p. 44. 
 
 4 De Officio Judicum. 
 
 5 " Nee sibi sumere, nee in aliis potestatibus laicis probare, ut ipsi per se de 
 rebus sacris aut divinis, praecipue Catholicae fidei, judicium ferant." Epistolce 
 Freest. Vir. No. 292. Vid. also History of Erastianism, p. 11, 20. 
 
 6 " As his Highness is our Sovereign liege Lord, and supreme Head of the 
 Church of England, so his Grace taketh the care and solicitude thereof, most 
 diligently foreseeing and providing all that can be to the quiet, union, concord, 
 &c. of the same : considering, also, that nothing so much troubleth the Com- 
 monwealth, and hindereth quiet and concord, as diversity in opinions and belief 
 especially in things that concern Almighty God and His Religion. And of 
 his prudence and wisdom well weighing, that out of sundry outward parts and 
 places there have sprung, been sovven and set forth, divers and sundry heretical, 
 erroneous, and dangerous opinions and doctrines in the religion of Christ, 
 whereby some of his Grace's liege people might be not only disquieted and 
 moved to variances, strifes, commotions, and seditions among themselves, but 
 also induced and allured to unfaithfulness, misbelief, miscreance, and con- 
 tempt of God, to the utter confusion and damnation of their souls, unless by 
 his Majesty's prudence some good remedy should be ordained for the same: 
 hath of his bountiful royal clemency thereof appointed, established, and or- 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 preparation for certain resolutions on the subject of religion, 
 which were to be agreed upon by the Clergy, and approved 
 by the Crown, enjoins that everything which was thus sanc- 
 tioned should be " believed, obeyed, and performed" " by all 
 his Grace's subjects, and all other resiants and inhabitants 
 within this his Grace's realm." And the same deference for 
 everything in which these two powers agreed was claimed by 
 Convocation. The "general affirmation, that the Church 
 possessed ' authority in controversies of faith,' was carried 
 out by the ninth and twelfth Canons, wherein it was said, that 
 to c separate from the communion of Saints, as approved in 
 the Church of England/ and * for any sort of ministers or lay- 
 persons, or either of them, to join together and make rules in 
 causes ecclesiastical without the King's authority, and submit 
 themselves to be ruled by them,' were ( wicked errors ;' and if 
 any affirmed that they are not bound by the decrees made by 
 the Clergy in Synod, and ratified by the King's authority, 
 1 as not having given their voices unto them/ they are by the 
 
 dained the Archbishops and sundry Bishops of both Provinces of Canterbury 
 and York, within this his realm, and also a great number of the best learned, 
 honestest, and most virtuous sort of Doctors of Divinity, men of discretion, 
 judgment, and good dispositions, of this said Eealm, to the intent, according 
 to the very Gospel and law of God they should declare in writing and publish 
 as well the principal articles and points of our faith and belief, with declaration, 
 true understanding, and observation of such other expedient points, as by them 
 with his Grace's advice, counsel, and consent shall be thought needful and 
 expedient : and also for the lawful rites, ceremonies, and observation of God's 
 service within this his Grace's Eealm : Be it, therefore, enacted, ordained, and 
 established by the King's Majesty, with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and 
 Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and au- 
 thority of the same, that all and every determinations, declarations, decrees, 
 definitions, resolutions, and ordinances, as according to God's word, and Christ's 
 Gospel, by his Majesty's advice, and confirmation by his letters patent under his 
 Grace's great seal, shall at any time hereafter be made, set forth, declared, decreed, 
 defined, resolved, and ordained, by the said Archbishops, Bishops, and Doctors, 
 now appointed, or other persons hereafter to be appointed by his royal Majesty, 
 or else by the whole Clergy of England, in and upon the matter of Christ's 
 religion, and the Christian faith and lawful rites, ceremonies, and observations 
 of the same ; shall be in all and every point, limitation, and circumstance 
 thereof, by all his Grace's subjects, and other resiants and inhabitants within 
 this his Grace's realm, and other his Grace's dominions, fully believed, obeyed^ 
 observed, and performed, to all purposes, intents, constructions, and interpreta- 
 tions, upon the pain and penalties therein to be comprised," &c. 32 Henry 
 VIII. 26. Gibson's Cod. p. 345. 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 227 
 
 140th Canon ' excommunicated and not restored, until they 
 repent and publicly revoke that wicked error.' " 7 
 
 Nor was this a bare assertion ; for the State proceeded to 
 require submission, under the heaviest penalties, to every- 
 thing which was imposed by the combined authority of the 
 Crown and the Clergy. Not only was compliance demanded 
 with the outward forms which were established by their co- 
 operation ; but no belief was allowed, except that which they 
 sanctioned. As late as in the reign of James I. two men were 
 burnt alive for denying the Trinity ; and minor punishments 
 were inflicted by the High-Commission Court in abundance. 
 The 5th of Elizabeth, 23, mentions "matter of heresy," "or 
 error in matters of religion or doctrine now received and al- 
 lowed," as well as the refusal " to come to Divine Service," or 
 "to receive the Holy Communion, as it is now commonly used 
 to be received in the Church of England," as grounds for excom- 
 munication, and, therefore, for imprisonment " without bail." 
 
 Now, in considering how far this system accords with the 
 rules of the Church Catholic, we must take it under its best 
 aspect, without considering whether it came up in all points 
 to its own professions. This is the fairest way of dealing 
 with any system, when its principles are in question; and 
 no system could stand without such equitable allowance. No 
 question, therefore, shall be made about the gift of Orders. 
 Let it be as&umed that Consecration and Ordination con- 
 tinued to be ministered, and that men were set apart as 
 heretofore for Priestly functions. But the Church was not 
 instituted merely to minister sacraments and sacramentals, 
 but likewise for the maintenance and teaching of truth. For 
 this purpose she empowers each of her ministers to speak in 
 her name. And every one who does so, speaks with the 
 authority of all his brethren ; his words have the sanction of 
 that collective Body, which professes to be inhabited by the 
 Holy Ghost. This has been shown to be the principle 
 which is involved in Mission. No one can teach save by 
 the authority of God ; this authority comes to him through 
 the Body of the Church ; and if this authority should be 
 withdrawn, his commission to teach or minister sacraments 
 
 1 Vid. History of Erastianism, p. 23. 
 
228 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 would be suspended. For though he may have been law- 
 fully set apart for that purpose, yet he can only discharge 
 his function through the perpetual presence of the Holy 
 Ghost, and that presence is bestowed upon him for the pur- 
 pose of witnessing to doctrine, as well as to give efficacy to 
 his priestly acts. 
 
 This Mission, then, to teach and minister, had always been 
 supposed to be derived from the collective Church. If it 
 was transmitted through a single functionary, whether Bishop, 
 Metropolitan, or Patriarch, it was because he acted on 
 behalf of the whole Church. The collective Body 8 spoke 
 through each of its ministers. So that its participation, either 
 virtual or avowed, was requisite to that act by which priestly 
 functions were sanctioned. And how was this Mission 
 bestowed in the English Church ? It was supposed to come 
 from the Body of the Church at large, which was as capable 
 of acting in this relation, as the Church Universal itself. And 
 that which qualified it for such functions was the authority of 
 the Sovereign, which made the Bishops of our two Provinces 
 into a Body, just as the collective Bishops of Christendom had 
 formerly been combined into the one Body of Christ. This was 
 the assertion of the 24th of Henry VIII. 12, and the ground 
 on which the title 9 " Head of the Church" was important. 
 It implied, that the Bishops who stood to Henry in the rela- 
 tion of subjects, were combined by that circumstance into a 
 Body, or Spiritual Entity, and had the same power, there- 
 
 * Unitas tenet, unitas dimittit. vid. supr. c. iv. p. 90. 
 
 ' To deprive the King of any " title, united to the Imperial Crown of this 
 Realm," was made High Treason by 35th of Henry VIII. 3. The Convocation 
 of 1603 speaks of "the Sacred Synod," meaning thereby the Clergy of the two 
 Provinces, who, though meeting separately, were supposed to make up a single 
 Body, because the clergy of one nation. So Gibson speaks of " the Sacred Sy- 
 nod," as meaning " the Convocation of 1603" (Codex, xl. i. p. 931) ; and Stilling- 
 fleet : " We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representa- 
 tive Church of England, as the Church of England is a National Church ; for 
 that is only representative of this Province, there being another Convocation 
 in the other Province ; but the consent of both Convocations is the representa- 
 tive National Church of England." Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 3. The 
 Irish Convocations were not noticed; because Ireland was supposed to be 
 either a dependency, in which case they would be only an appendage to the 
 Body ; or to be a separate kingdom, in which case they would be a separate 
 Body. 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 229 
 
 fore, to grant Mission or determine doctrine, which had for- 
 merly been possessed by the Universal Church. This power 
 must either belong to every Bishop individually, or to the whole 
 Body taken collectively, or else there must be some rule or 
 law, which prescribes what number of Bishops is essential to 
 its exercise. If the Church of Christ was supposed to consist 
 of homogeneous ingredients, which would crystallize into their 
 appointed shape, whenever a certain quantity of them was 
 allowed to act freely together, it was necessary that there 
 should be some measure or receptacle in which the requisite 
 quantity might be set apart, and have opportunity for in- 
 ternal action. Such a measure was the recognition of the 
 King as the " one Supreme Head ;" those who admitted this 
 claim became themselves on the same principle a " Body 
 Spiritual;" and the two between them possessed those rights, 
 which enabled them to act as a Moral Person, in resolving 
 religious questions for the subject nation. Elizabeth, indeed, 
 did not call herself " Head of the Church," as her Father and 
 her Brother had done, but she exercised the same powers as 
 they had done, and asserted herself to possess the same rights ; 
 and the title of " Supreme Head of the Church of England" 
 still belongs to our Sovereigns by Act of Parliament. It was 
 assigned to them by 25 Henry VIII. 21, s. 2, and by 37 
 Henry VIII. 17, s. 3, which were revived by the 1st of Eliza- 
 beth; and it was again bestowed in 2 and 3 Anne, 11. 
 
 It has been disputed whether the powers which were thus 
 possessed by the Crown, were inherent in it by its own 
 right, or had been transferred from the Papacy. Bramhall 
 says, " Whatsoever power our laws did divest the Pope of, 
 they invested the King with it." 10 But Mr. Palmer main- 
 tains that the " Papal jurisdiction was suppressed, not 
 
 transferred to the King." u The doubt seems to respect those 
 powers which made up the Papal Supremacy, and which had 
 gradually devolved upon the Successor of St. Peter with the 
 acquiescence of the Church. Now, it will be found, that from 
 the time of Henry VIII. all those powers which have been 
 shown to be characteristic of the Papal Supremacy, have 
 
 10 Schism Guarded, p, 340. 
 11 Treatise on the Church, i. 355. 
 
230 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 either been unexercised altogether, or have been exercised 
 by the Crown. Since the Papal Supremacy was the Church's 
 instrument for combining order and unity, it is natural that 
 so far as these have since been dispensed with, the power 
 which maintained them should be left in abeyance. But in 
 the three departments, in which the Papal Supremacy was 
 supposed to be exercised (Cap. xi.) the very same power 
 which was possessed by the Pope, has, by different Acts of 
 Parliament, been bestowed upon our Sovereigns. The final 
 judgment in appeal was given in the first instance to the 
 King in Chancery, with the expectation, probably, that he 
 would appoint Spiritual persons for the decision of questions 
 of doctrine. Still it rested with himself what he would do ; 
 and the judges 'selected would at all events be the repre- 
 sentatives of the Civil Power, and not of the Church. And 
 the decision has since been transferred to the Sovereign in 
 person, advised by a Committee of her Council. The Crown 
 gained complete control over the Councils of the Clergy by 
 the 25th of Henry VIII. 19: they can neither meet, nor 
 make constitutions without its consent ; and its sanction is re- 
 quired to give validity to their conclusions. And as to the 
 third head ; a right of interfering in ecclesiastical appoint- 
 ments this power also, though disguised by the Conge 
 d'Elire, belongs virtually to the Crown. It was directly exer- 
 cised in the time of Edward VI. and the Crown possesses it 
 in the same immediate manner in all the Colonial dioceses. 
 
 If the authority, then, which made up the Papal Supre- 
 macy, is not plainly exercised by our Kings, the reason is, 
 because authority has been allowed to go to sleep, and 
 religious questions are left in a great measure to men's own 
 inclinations. The Clergy teach what they like in their 
 parishes ; and the Bishops observe what order they please in 
 their dioceses. But if that greater uniformity were aimed at, 
 which it was the purpose of the Papal Supremacy to main- 
 tain, it would be by the Crown only that it could be effected. 
 And of this there are instances enough in our history. The 
 Gorham Case, the most important judgment probably of a 
 doctrinal kind, which has been given since the time of Eliza- 
 beth, was decided by the Crown. The authority of the 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 231 
 
 Crown over Church-Synods will not be disputed. And as 
 to ecclesiastical appointments, did not James I. suspend 
 Abbot, and Elizabeth, Grindal? Did not the last-named 
 Sovereign deprive fourteen Bishops at once, and put others 
 in their room ? The Nonjuring Bishops were deprived by 
 William III. on temporal grounds, but Elizabeth interposed 
 as arbiter of the religion of her people. What acts of her 
 own can the Church of England exhibit, which indicate equal 
 authority over her members I And has not the Civil Power 
 interfered in like manner in enacting Articles of Faith ? Were 
 not the clergy of the Northern Province required to sub- 
 scribe the Thirty-nine Articles, by 13 Eliz. 12, to which the 
 Northern Convocation had given no assent ? Was not the 
 Book of Common Prayer imposed upon the Church without 
 its concurrence by the 1st of Elizabeth ? Was it not altered 
 by James I. and the Catechism annexed, on his own author- 
 ity ? He had stated, in his first proclamation, that he would 
 " proceed according to the laws and customs of this realm, 
 by advice of his Council, or in his High Court of Parliament, 
 or by Convocation of his Clergy, as he should find reason to 
 lead him." And the course which he adopted was the same 
 which had been taken by his predecessor. " It was the con- 
 stant maxim of Queen Elizabeth," says Dr. Cardwell, " de- 
 rived not so much from the Statute of Supremacy, as from 
 the inseparable rights and prerogatives of the Crown, that 
 she might establish or repeal Canons, and might ordain or 
 abolish any religious rite or ceremony ; and that in so doing 
 she might call in the aid of her Council, of a Commission of 
 Divines, of a Convocation, or a Parliament, as she judged 
 most expedient. In the case of the Articles she considered 
 their authority to rest upon her ratification of them, after 
 they had been prepared by the Synod of the Clergy for her 
 examination and approval. This doctrine was adopted by 
 Archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft, and was sanctioned by 
 solemn decisions from the highest legal authorities." 1 
 
 It is plain, then, that so far as any form of government 
 exists in the Church of England, it is practically in the hands 
 of the Crown. Our Church-history but too truly illustrates 
 12 Documentary Annals, ii. 172. 
 
232 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 the assertion of Parliament : " Archbishops, Bishops, Arch- 
 deacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of 
 jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but by, under, and from, your Royal 
 Majesty." (37 Henry VIII. 17.) The only question is not, 
 whether this was transferred from the Pope to the Crown, 
 but whether the Crown had first been robbed of it by the Pope. 
 When Christianity first entered the world, it came assuredly 
 as a spiritual system, and it was exposed to heathen per- 
 secution, because it would not yield that compliance to worldly 
 rulers, which was freely conceded by the systems of Pagan- 
 ism. When the world became Christian, the Emperors 
 gained a measure of that power by kindness, which they had 
 been unable to extort by the sword. But it passed again 
 into the hands of the Church on the fall of the Roman 
 Empire, and was lodged in the Successor of the chief Apos- 
 tle. And it is difficult to see what right the Princes of the 
 earth had to extort it a second time. Still it has been gained 
 in a measure even by Princes in communion with Rome ; 
 and it would probably be wise in the Church to submit to a 
 large amount of interference, provided her cardinal principles 
 were secured. But it is a different thing when the right 
 invaded is not the Supremacy only, but the Primacy of St. 
 Peter; and when the worldly power assails that principle, 
 on which the Church's unity is based, and on which her 
 promise of perpetuity depends. And this it is which appears 
 to have been especially endamaged by the Supremacy 
 claimed for the British throne. 
 
 For the purpose which the Crown's Supremacy was in- 
 tended to effect, was exactly that which Our Lord's promise 
 to St. Peter was designed to secure. The operation of that 
 promise, as we have seen, was to form the College of Apostles 
 into a single body, and thus to enable them to act together 
 in the maintenance of truth. This is the precise object 
 assigned to it by the early Fathers. And this is just that 
 which Henry VIII. proposed to imitate by his Supremacy. 
 Its purpose was to unite the clergy of the English Empire 
 into a single " Body Spiritual" Thus was there a new prin- 
 ciple of combination in place of that provided by Our Lord. 
 Hence the assertion of the Supremacy was the first actual 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 233 
 
 step in Henry's proceedings ; and on its legality depends the 
 lawfulness of the whole. Under cover of the maintenance 
 of the Succession, he compelled all his subjects to pledge 
 themselves to it with the sanction of an oath, A. D. 1533, 
 and the same obligation was reimposed by the first statute of 
 Elizabeth. Upon this, therefore, stood all the doctrinal 
 changes, which were subsequently made ; for thus only were 
 they rendered binding. The clergy, who enacted or allowed 
 them, would have had no power to decide questions of doc- 
 trine, had not this act isolated them from the rest of the world. 
 If we ask, why we should accept the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 we are referred by Churchmen to the sanction given by the 
 Convocation of Canterbury in 1562 ; if we ask, why English- 
 men should be guided by the Synod of London, rather than 
 by the contemporaneous Council of Trent, the reason is, that 
 its members formed the "Body Spiritual" of the English 
 nation. But it was the Eoyal Supremacy by which the 
 English Bishops were first moulded into a Body, and there- 
 by were supposed to gain power to decide questions of 
 doctrine. 
 
 The lawfulness, then, of the change must turn upon the 
 legality of the Supremacy, on which it was based. On what 
 principle could the Crown bestow this power upon its Bishops 1 
 Local Councils were no doubt held in the Primitive Church, 
 and they adopted important decisions ; but the authority ex- 
 erted was always understood to be that of the one Catholic 
 Communion. The local bodies, therefore, which assembled, 
 spoke of themselves as representing their brethren ; they 
 were always in actual communion with the rest of the world, 
 and made open or implicit reference to the authority of the 
 whole Church. Such local Synods, therefore, afford no jus- 
 tification for a proceeding, the very principle of which was its 
 isolation. For to affirm, as was required by the oath of 
 Supremacy, that no foreign Prelate had any Spiritual autho- 
 rity in this realm, was to exclude all reference to any but 
 native sources. So that it cut us off from the whole Episco- 
 pate of Europe, as well as from the Bishop of Kome. 
 
 That such were the principles respectively of the ancient 
 Church and of the so-called English Reformation, was plainly 
 
234 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 avowed on both sides. The local Councils of the former 
 frequently declared, that their whole authority depended on 
 their giving expression to the mind of the Collective Body of 
 the Church. The words of Alexander of Alexandria, in the 
 Synod held against Arius, have already been quoted : he 
 appealed to all his brethren, as "being of one mind," and 
 "giving judgment with" him; he declared himself to set forth 
 "the Apostolical doctrines of the Church:" "we acknow- 
 ledge one and one only Catholic and Apostolic Church, per- 
 petually indestructible, though the whole world should war 
 against it." 13 And so the local Council of Milevis grounds its 
 interpretation of Scripture upon the fact, that so " the Catho- 
 lic Church, everywhere diffused, has always understood it." 1 
 The contrary principle, introduced by Henry VIII., is laid 
 down by Burnet : " Another thing was also established, 
 which opened the way to all that followed ; that every na- 
 tional Church was a complete Body within itself: so that 
 the Church of England, with the authority and concurrence 
 of their Head and King, might examine and reform all errors 
 and corruptions, whether in doctrine or worship." 15 And to 
 the same circumstance did Sir Thomas More refer, in that 
 memorable speech before his sentence, which put to shame 
 the pusillanimity of his contemporaries : (f ' This indictment "is 
 grounded upon an Act of Parliament, directly repugnant to 
 the laws of God and His Holy Church.' And in order to 
 the proof of his assertion he declared among other things, 
 that this kingdom alone being but one member, and a small 
 part of the Church, was not to make a particular law dis- 
 agreeing with the general law of Christ's Universal Catholic 
 Church, no more than the City of London, being but one 
 member in respect to the whole kingdom, might enact a law 
 against an Act of Parliament to be binding to the whole 
 realm. 'And, therefore, my Lord, I do not think myself 
 bound to conform my conscience to the counsel of one King- 
 dom, against the general consent of all Christendom.'" 1(J 
 There can be no doubt that, according to the principles of 
 
 13 Harduin, i. p. 307, 306. " Id. 1. 1218. Canon ii. 
 
 15 Hist, of Reform, vol. i. Pref. p. xiv. 
 18 State Trials, vol. i. p. 62. Ed. 1776. 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 235 
 
 the ancient Church, Sir Thomas More was right ; and that 
 he died a martyr for that article of the Creed, " one holy 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church." But the contrary system 
 continues to be maintained by the oath of Supremacy, which 
 the thirty-sixth Canon imposes upon the Clergy. The theory 
 of the ancient Church was, that every Bishop had authority 
 throughout the whole world, though the laws of the Church 
 indicated the particular locality in which that authority 
 should be exercised. But the oath of Supremacy denies all 
 authority, spiritual or temporal, to any Bishop who is not 
 a subject of the Crown. It excludes the authority of the 
 Bishop of New York, therefore, as much as that of the Bishop 
 of Rome. It does not deny either of them to be a Bishop, 
 or that he is able to discharge those functions which are 
 inseparable from that office. But whereas the Episcopal au- 
 thority is one, and is held conjointly by the whole College of 
 Bishops, this oath limits its exercise to the particular Bishops, 
 who form the Spiritual Council of our earthly Sovereign. 
 And whereas it was observed by Nazianzen, that St. Cyprian 
 had authority throughout the whole world, this oath, in its 
 anxiety to exclude the Successor, of St. Peter, cuts off the 
 succession of the residue of the Apostles. 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, that when authority is denied to 
 foreign Bishops, it is not meant to exclude their influence in 
 General Councils, but only such immediate jurisdiction as was 
 claimed by the Bishop of Rome throughout all Christendom. 
 And in support of such a notion it is possible no doubt to 
 quote some general expressions both of Henry VIII. and of 
 Cranmer, respecting their willingness to submit to a free 
 General Council. But it is clear that such expressions had 
 no real meaning. They would never have submitte'd to a 
 Council, which was called and presided over by the Pope : 
 yet, now that Europe is divided into different kingdoms, by 
 whom could the Church be called together but by its chief 
 Bishop ? But the best proof that such professions were wholly 
 nugatory, is, on the one hand, that British Synods adopted 
 such final decisions as superseded the appeal to any higher 
 authority ; and, on the other, that an Act 17 of Parliament for- 
 
 17 By 25 Henry VIII. 21. s. 20, it is forbidden "that any person, religious or 
 
236 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE 
 
 bade, and continues to forbid, any English ecclesiastic from 
 attending Councils held out of the King's dominions. 
 
 The history of the Donatists is the only thing in ancient 
 times, which affords any parallel to the system thus intro- 
 duced in England. Other points there were, such as re-bap- 
 tism, in which they differed from the English Church ; but 
 they agreed with it in maintaining, that the Bishops of a 
 single Province had a right to prescribe laws for its inhabi- 
 tants, without the concurrence of the residue of the Church. 
 This is the great principle, on which they were assailed by 
 St. Augustin ; and it is the same which is involved in the 
 oath of Supremacy. St. Augustin's whole argument is ex- 
 pressed in the sentence ; " that which has been settled by the 
 decree of the Universal Church, ought to be preferred to 
 that which depends on the authority of a single Bishop, or of 
 the Council of a single Province." l Whereas it is the ori- 
 ginal principle of the English Church, that whatsoever is 
 determined by our own Bishops, with the authority of the 
 Crown, is at once to be believed by all Englishmen, however 
 contrary to the decrees of the Universal Church. This is 
 the theory of a national religion, as it has been carried out by 
 our laws, and explained by our Formularies. 
 
 And as this notion, that the Bishops of a single Province 
 might determine conclusively in matters of faith, has no early 
 precedent but that of the Donatists ; so the idea of sustaining 
 it by reference to the Royal authority, has no more support 
 from history than from Scripture. The Successors of the 
 Apostles cannot possess more right to interpret God's will 
 
 other, resiant in any the King's dominions, shall from henceforth depart out of 
 the King's dominions to or for any visitation, congregation, or assembly for 
 religion, but that all such visitations, congregations, and assemblies, shall be 
 within the King's dominions." In the year 1551, great attempts were made by 
 Charles V. to induce the German Protestants to attend the Council of Trent, 
 for which end a safe conduct was granted them by the Council. Bullinger 
 wrote to Cranmer to dissuade the English from attending it. Cranmer replied : 
 as to the point " that I would advise the King's Majesty not to send any delegate 
 to the Council of Trent, there was no need of any advice of mine to dissuade 
 him from a measure, which never came into his mind." And he proceeds to 
 express his desire for a rival assembly, to be composed of the principal Protes- 
 tant ministers. Original Letters. (Park. Soc.) xiii. p. 23. 
 18 De Baptism. C. Don. ii. 2. 
 
OF SUBSCRIPTION. 237 
 
 with authority, than the Apostles themselves. But the Apos- 
 tles possessed this power collectively. St. Philip or St. 
 Matthew could not have separated themselves from their 
 brethren, and imposed laws upon any separate body of Chris- 
 tians, at variance with those which the residue of the Apostles 
 imposed upon the body at large. And to guard against such 
 a division in the College of Apostles, was the very purpose, 
 as we learn from Antiquity, for which the Primacy of St. 
 Peter was instituted by Our Lord. But it is implied by the 
 principles of the English Church, that though St. Philip and 
 St. Matthew possessed no such power while they continued 
 in the same country with their brethren, yet that they would 
 have acquired such power by removing into this kingdom, 
 and obtaining the sanction of its ruler to their acts. Or, 
 again, if they had settled in one of the two Provinces of York 
 or Canterbury, they would have had no right to make doctri- 
 nal decisions to the exclusion of such Apostles, as might have 
 settled in the other Province ; but they would have acquired 
 such a power, if they had gained the sanction of the Sove- 
 reign of the whole country, and been the only Apostles 
 whom he had called his subjects. On no other ground, cer- 
 tainly, was it that the Bishops of our two Provinces imposed 
 doctrinal resolutions, to which all the clergy were compelled 
 to subscribe, which were at variance with those which were 
 received throughout the rest of Christendom, and which were 
 unknown, if not repugnant, to Antiquity. Why do English- 
 men declare that " fai tit only," to the exclusion of obedience, 
 is necessary to a participation in the merits of Christ's Sacri- 
 fice, or that " the Church of Rome hath erred," or that 
 " General Councils may err," or that Confirmation and Matri- 
 mony are not " Sacraments of the Gospel," or that " the 
 Sacrifices of Masses" are " blasphemous fables," or that " the 
 Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Eng- 
 land," but because these things were agreed upon by the 
 Bishops of our two Provinces, and assented to by the Crown ? 
 Now, is it not clear that the function thus assumed by our 
 Sovereigns is exactly that, which, according to the laws of the 
 ancient Church, belonged to the chief Apostle I Its purpose 
 is to constitute the Bishops into a whole, so that they may 
 
238 THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE OF SUBSCRIPTION. 
 
 be able to make final settlement in questions of doctrine. 
 To ground this right on the statement that England was " an 
 Empire," as was done by 24 Henry VIII. 12, was to mistake 
 an accidental circumstance in the Church's history for the 
 principle of its incorporation. The Church happened at a 
 particular moment to lie within the precincts of a single 
 Empire, as at another it had been gathered together in an 
 Upper Chamber; but neither of these circumstances were 
 anything more than accidents of its existence. St. Augustin 
 referred to Barbarian Tribes, who lay beyond the limits of 
 civilization, as contributing already to the testimony of the 
 Church, and forming part of its universality. 19 The example, 
 therefore, of the Roman Empire afforded no justification to 
 that oath of Supremacy, which ascribed a new and unheard-of 
 authority to the English Sovereigns. The purpose of that 
 oath was to break up the one Body of Christ into divers 
 National Societies. Christ had built His Church upon His 
 chief Apostle, that its extension through the world might 
 leave its continuity unaffected. For this was a principle, 
 which was independent of the affinities of race, or of the 
 rights of temporal government. The new principle which 
 came in its place, was the substitution of a human for a 
 divine order of things. It had its ground no doubt in that 
 natural relation of mankind, of which national union is an 
 expression. It has its respectability, therefore, among men, 
 and will continue, probably, as long as that national greatness 
 with which it is so intimately associated. But when national 
 distinctions cease to exist, and mankind, small and great, are 
 assembled before God, it will be seen whether it was wiser, 
 like Henry VIII. and his minion Cromwell, to break up the 
 Church Catholic for the sake of ruling it, or, like More and 
 Fisher, to die for its unity. 
 
 19 Cont. Crescon. iii. 71. 
 
239 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE ALLEGED IN DEFENCE OF THE 
 ANGLICAN SYSTEM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 THE original principle of the Anglican system has been shown 
 to be as indefensible as those which have superseded it. The 
 latter are only modifications of individual judgment ; the 
 former can appeal to nothing but the authority which certain 
 isolated Bishops derive from the sanction of the Crown. But 
 the generations which found themselves in this state of sepa- 
 ration, while the system of private judgment had not yet 
 become predominant, looked round for grounds on which to 
 justify a system, which was endeared to them by the pre- 
 judices of education, and the assent of a great nation. These 
 feelings are powerful even in the present day, when the 
 Establishment does not embrace half the British people ; but 
 so long as the whole nation hung together, they must have 
 been well-nigh irresistible. 
 
 The two strongest arguments which have been alleged, are 
 no doubt the examples of the Ancient British, and of the 
 Modern Greek Church. From the first, it is said, we inherit 
 that independence from Rome, which was its peculiar privi- 
 lege : the other shows that though out of communion with 
 the Successor of St. Peter, we are in communion with the 
 Catholic Church. Let us take a brief survey of these two 
 arguments. 
 
 The alleged independence of the early British Church was 
 not heard of when the separation from Rome was first 
 effected: it was an after-thought, devised by those who 
 
240 THE ANCIENT BRITISH 
 
 wished to account for our position. It shall be shown, 1st, 
 that the British Church was not independent of Rome ; 
 2ndly, that its alleged separation from Rome would have 
 been wholly indefensible ; 3rdly, that had the British Church 
 possessed this privilege, it would be nothing to the Church 
 of England ; 4thly, that the Church of England was not 
 separated from Rome by her own act, but by the violent and 
 unlawful interference of the civil power. 
 
 1st. It is agreed, both by our own and foreign historians, 
 that the persons who introduced Christianity into this 
 country, were sent here by the Bishops of Rome. Bede 
 affirms the English Church to owe its first existence to Pope 
 Eleutherus, 1 A.D. 156, and that " Palladius was sent by 
 Celestine, the Roman Pontiff, to the Scots that believed in 
 Christ, to be their first Bishop." 2 This last statement is 
 confirmed by the Chronicle of Prosper, 3 who adds, that when 
 the Christian faith was endangered by the heresy of the 
 Pelagians, it was the same Pope Celestine who sent Germa- 
 nus, Bishop of Auxerre, into Britain " as his representative," 
 A.D. 429. To no part of Europe does Celestine's attention 
 seem to have been more directed than to these islands. Pal- 
 ladius, whose mission was to the Scoti in Ireland, and whom 
 Usher 4 supposes to have been their Primate, died A.D. 431. 
 He was succeeded by St. Patrick, 5 who also received his 
 orders and mission from Celestine, and whose Canons 6 ex- 
 pressly recognize the principle of appealing to the Roman 
 See. 
 
 These circumstances render it improbable that the British 
 
 1 Beda, i. 4. 2 Id. i. 13. 
 
 3 Germanum Antisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit, ut deturbatis 
 haereticis, Brittaniios ad Catholicam fidem dirigat. JSib. Pat. viii. p. 196. 
 4 Brit. Eecles. Antiquitates, Cap. xvi. p. 800. 
 
 5 Ab ipso Celestino Papa Patricium ordinatum esse Pontificem, prseter 
 Malmesburiensem jam citatum, etiam Joceliuus et Officii Patriciani Scriptor 
 affirmant, &c. Usher, c. xvii. p. 841. 
 
 6 Si in ilia (the chair of St. Patrick) cum suis sapientibus, facile sanari non 
 poterit talis causa prsedictse negotiationis : ad sedem Apostolicam decernimus 
 esse mittendum ; id est ad Petri Apostoli Cathedram, auctoritatem Romae 
 urbis habentem, &c. Vetus Codex Eccl. Armachance. in Usher's Religion of 
 the Ancient Irish, cap. viii. p. 87. 
 
 A shorter, but equivalent Canon, is given by Wilkins, vol. i. p. 6. 
 
CONNECTED WITH HOME. 241 
 
 Islands were less bound to Rome than France or Spain, 
 which cannot be proved to have been indebted to the Roman 
 Bishops for their early teachers. It is asserted, however, that 
 Britain possessed the same privilege with the Island of 
 Cyprus, which the Council of Ephesus protected from the 
 encroachments of the Patriarch of Antioch, when he desired 
 to interfere in the appointment of its Bishops. Britain, in 
 like manner, it is said, was not included in the Patriarchate 
 of Rome, which embraced the rest of Western Christendom. 
 But there is not the slightest trace of any such distinction in 
 ancient times. It has been seen 7 that Patriarchal authority, 
 in its stricter sense, was exercised by the early Bishops of 
 Rome, within a very limited district. The Bishops of Gaul 
 and Spain were neither consecrated by them, nor attended 
 their ordinary Councils. But when any great occasion arose, 
 which required the action of the whole Church, the Successor 
 of St. Peter was consulted. And as the Church's system was 
 gradually consolidated, the duties of a Patriarch devolved 
 upon the Primate, where no other Patriarch existed. But 
 the authority of the Successor of St. Peter had been admitted 
 and exercised, long before it grew into that particular shape 
 which it acquired in the Roman Patriarchate. Of this we 
 have an example in the case of Marcian 8 of Aries, when Faus- 
 tinus and other Bishops of the Province of Lyons solicited 
 St. Stephen to depose him. 
 
 The same kind of authority was certainly exercised by the 
 Bishops of Rome in these islands, both in British and Saxon 
 times. Two years before the Council of Ephesus had recog- 
 nized the privileges of Cyprus, Celestine sent Germanus as 
 " his deputy" into England. In that very year did he con- 
 secrate his Deacon Palladius, as the first Bishop, or (accord- 
 ing to Usher) the Primate of Ireland. These were surely 
 instances of the interposition of a superior. Not only were 
 there British Bishops at Aries, as shah 1 be noticed presently, 
 but St. Athanasius 9 states them to have taken part in that 
 Council of Sardica, which gave the Pope such especial author- 
 ity in cases of Appeal. Gildas, the chief remaining British 
 
 7 Vid. c. v. p. 97, and c. x. p. 1 56. 8 Vid. c. x. p. 157. 
 
 9 Apologia c. Arian. i. vol. i. p. 123. 
 R 
 
242 THE ANCIENT BRITISH 
 
 writer, speaks of St. Peter as " Prince of the Apostles," of 
 the power of the keys as bestowed especially on " Peter and 
 his successors," and of "the seat of St. Peter," 10 as equivalent 
 to ecclesiastical power. And the opinion of the early Saxon 
 Church (to say nothing of the mission of Augustin and The- 
 odore,) is sufficiently shown by the words of Bede ; that Pope 
 Gregory " bore the Pontifical Primacy over all the world." l 
 
 To this it is objected, that there were peculiarities in the 
 early British Church, which indicate its Eastern origin ; and, 
 therefore, that the Bishop of Rome could not have possessed 
 that power which belonged to him in such Churches as had 
 been founded by his ancestors. The main thing referred to is 
 a difference in the time of keeping Easter, respecting which 
 Bishop Colman, 12 at the conference at Whitby, referred to 
 the example of St. John, who had observed the Quartode- 
 ciman usage. But other points are mentioned, as for instance, 
 that the word Church is of Greek derivation (from Kvpiaicj],) 
 whereas Ecclesia was the prevalent term in Western Chris- 
 tendom. To make this last argument of any force it should 
 be shown, that Church was exclusively a Celtic term, whereas 
 it is unknown in Celtic, while it has existed from the earliest 
 period in all the Teutonic 13 languages. But were it other- 
 wise, such peculiarities would not prove independence from 
 Rome. They might have come from the Church in Gaul, 
 with which Britain would doubtless maintain great inter- 
 course, and which retained a close connexion with Asia 
 Minor. But as this circumstance had not rendered the 
 Church of Lyons itself independent of the See of St. Peter, 
 why should it confer any such immunity on Britain ? 
 
 10 In Eccles. Ordinem. Bib. Patr. 8, p. 720, 719, 715. 
 
 11 Beda, ii. 1. Vid. also his statement in his letter to Egbert, that " the 
 Bishop of York was designed to be a Metropolitan, receiving his pall from the 
 Apostolic See." 12 Beda, iii. 25. 
 
 13 Kirclie is certainly an ancient German word. Adelung says, "Dieses alte 
 Wort kommt schon seit dem ersten Alter der Deutsche Sprache vor." He re- 
 fers to Isidor and Notker ; and to the Swiss, Low Saxon, Danish, Swedish, 
 &c. forms of the word. But he does not derive Kirche (Church) from xvpi&x-h, 
 but supposes it to be a translation of Ecclesia, derived from koren or kiesen, to 
 choose. And had the German word been of Greek origin, it might have been 
 expected to come through Ulphilas ; whereas he uses Aikklesjo. The word 
 used in the Welsh versions is Eglwys. The more ancient term is Llan. Kit, 
 in Irish, seems to come from Cella. 
 
CONNECTED WITH ROME. 243 
 
 The dispute concerning Easter is the main one, which 'we 
 hear of, when St. Augustin was sent to the Saxons by Gregory 
 the Great. It is the only thing which Bede specifies, when 
 he relates the first conference between St. Au<mstin and the 
 
 O 
 
 British " Bishops or Doctors ;" and when he says " they pre- 
 ferred their own traditions before all the Churches in the 
 world, which in Christ agree among themselves." St. Au- 
 gustin had " begun by brotherly admonitions to persuade 
 them, that preserving Catholic unity with him, they should 
 undertake the common labour of preaching the Gospel to the 
 Gentiles. For they did not keep Easter Sunday at the proper 
 time." 1 St. Gregory, and St. Augustin, have often been 
 censured for their overbearing conduct to these British Bi- 
 shops, whose authority they have been supposed desirous to 
 supersede. It is curious, that while Gregory the Great is 
 adduced on the one side as a witness against the Pope, 
 because he objected to the term " Universal Bishop," he is 
 blamed on the other for exercising that power, which he is 
 asserted to have opposed. But it does not appear that either 
 he or St. Augustin designed to abridge the privileges of the 
 British clergy. The Popes have never asserted that their 
 Primacy so superseded the Episcopate, as to give them any 
 right to interfere with its functions, except for the redress of 
 some fault, or when some emergency requires the interposi- 
 tion of the chief Bishop. St. Gregory's own words have 
 already been cited : " If any fault is found in Bishops, I 
 know not what Bishop is not subject to the Apostolical See. 
 But when no fault requires, we are all equal on the principle 
 of humility." 1 And on this system he acted towards the 
 British. There is no reason for supposing that he would 
 not have consented to their continuing, if they desired it, 
 to constitute a separate Province. But they had been com- 
 pletely cut off from the rest of Christendom by the Saxon 
 invasion, and, as we learn from Gildas, had fallen into the 
 utmost immorality and ignorance. It was no tyrannical inter- 
 ference, then, on the part of the chief Bishop of Christendom, 
 when he wrote to Augustin : " We commit to your brotherly 
 care all the Bishops of Britain, that the unlearned may be 
 14 Beda, ii. 2. 15 Epis. Lib. ix. 59. 
 
244 THE ANCIENT BRITISH 
 
 taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion, the perverse 
 corrected by authority." 16 
 
 Neither does it appear from Bede's account, that St. Au- 
 gustin put forward any harsh claims to personal authority, 
 at the second conference at which he met, " as is asserted, 
 seven British Bishops, and many learned men ;" if he called 
 upon them to adopt the Roman customs, it was because they 
 were the customs of " the Universal Church." 17 The chief 
 point in which he required conformity, was the observance 
 of Easter, at the time which was usual throughout Christen- 
 dom. This may seem a matter of little moment to modern 
 readers ; but to those whose life was governed by the laws of 
 the Church, and moulded upon the divisions of the Christian 
 year, it was of the utmost importance. Not only men's 
 private habits the times of fasting and feasting, of mourning 
 and rejoicing but the public affairs of nations were in- 
 fluenced by the events which had befallen Our Lord. The 
 Holy Week gave rest to the busy, and respite to the accused. 
 Now, as the whole system of the year was regulated by the 
 time of Easter, a difference in this particular would have been 
 fatal to that unity of action which was the Church's grand 
 characteristic. So that it is not too much to say, that to 
 refuse to keep Easter with the rest of Christendom, implied 
 a refusal also of the other main request of St. Augustin : 
 " that they would join with us to preach the word of God to 
 the nation of the English." And so the matter seems to 
 have been found by all parties. One of the Bishops of the 
 Scots, 18 says Laurentius, the successor of St. Augustin, 
 " coming to us, not only refused to eat with us, but even to 
 take his repast in the same house where we were entertain- 
 ed." 19 They may, perhaps, have been feasting at that which 
 his calculation made a solemn fast. 
 
 16 Beda, i. 27. 
 
 17 Nostrae consuetudini, immo universalis ecclesise, contraria geritis. Beda, 
 ii. 2. 
 
 18 It was only the northern Scots who differed in their time of keeping Eas- 
 ter from the rest of Christendom. Those of Ireland conformed to the usual 
 custom. Beda iii. 3. In other points of less moment they seem to have done 
 the same. The Roman mode of Tonsure is enjoined in one of St. Patrick's 
 Canons. Wilkins, i. 2. 19 Beda, ii. 4. 
 
CONNECTED WITH ROME. 245 
 
 But it may be said, that it was as easy for St. Augustin 
 and his associates to conform to the British rule, as for the 
 British to conform to theirs. This is to forget that the 
 time of Easter was not, as it had been before the Council of 
 Nice, an open question. That Council had determined by 
 the public authority of the whole Church, that it should be 
 observed at one time in all countries. The Council had 
 written a letter expressly forbidding any deviation. It was 
 decided by the common judgment of all, that the sacred 
 Paschal Feast should be observed on one and the self-same 
 day. 20 St. Augustin, therefore, was not at liberty to de- 
 viate from the established custom, had he been inclined. 
 And it must be added, that since the Anglo-Saxons held 
 intercourse with the Gauls on one side, as well as with the 
 Britons on the other ; such a step would have created as 
 much inconvenience as it would have removed. 
 
 St. Augustin, then, had good ground for his demand. But 
 what ground had the Britons for their refusal? First, it 
 should be observed, that their custom was not in reality that 
 Quartodeciman usage, which has been alleged to indicate 
 their Eastern origin. The ground of their peculiarity was, 
 that, like the Scots, they had lost the true reckoning of the 
 Vernal Equinox ; " as having none to bring them the syno- 
 dal decrees for the observance of Easter, by reason of their 
 being so far away from the rest of the world." 2 They kept 
 to the Cycle which had been introduced by Anatolius, A. D. 
 276, and had not availed themselves of the improvements, 
 which had been introduced by Victorinus and Dionysius 
 Exiguus, A. D. 527. As this is affirmed by Bede, in re- 
 spect to the Scots, .so it must have been the case with the 
 Britons also ; for Britain is enumerated in the letter of Con- 
 stantine, 22 as one of the countries, which coincided with the 
 rest of Christendom in its time of keeping Easter; and 
 British Bishops joined in the decrees of the Council of Aries, 
 which ordered that Easter should be everywhere observed 
 at the same period, and that the time of its observance 
 should be announced by the Pope. 23 
 
 20 Vita Constantini, iii. 19. 
 
 21 Beda, iii. 4. Vid. also Prideaux's Connection, part ii. b. 4. vol. iii. p. 337. 
 22 Vita Const, iii. 19. 23 Harduin, i. 262. 
 
246 THE ANCIENT BRITISH 
 
 The British Bishops, then, had no ancient tradition, or 
 authority, on which to ground their maintenance of a cus- 
 tom, which divided them from the rest of the Church. 
 Various modern writers have supposed that their opposition 
 was directed against the Papal Supremacy, of which this 
 particular demand was supposed to be a test. And a Welsh 
 document is printed by Wilkins, in which they are repre- 
 sented to have replied, that they owed no obedience to the 
 Pope. But this document, as Dr. Giles 24 observes, is ob- 
 viously of modern date ; and it does not appear from Bede 
 that the Pope's authority was ever disputed between the 
 parties. 
 
 That which Augustin demanded, and which was rejected 
 by the British Bishops, was a compliance with the practice of 
 the Universal Church. The ground which Bede assigns for 
 their conduct was purely personal ; that they were offended 
 with Augustin for not rising up to meet them. It is pro- 
 bable enough that their separation from the rest of the world 
 had involved some forgetfulness respecting the centre of 
 ecclesiastical unity. Otherwise they could hardly have fallen 
 into the inaccuracies, which their own predecessors at the 
 Council of Aries had intended to obviate. They certainly 
 did not receive Augustin, when he was sent to them by 
 Gregory, as their fathers had received Germanus, when he 
 was sent by Celestine. But it must be remembered, that 
 though Gregory the Great received appeals from all 
 Churches, yet that the Western Church did not as yet possess 
 that complete organization, which subsequently existed. It 
 was to prevent such diversities as separated the British 
 Christians from their brethren, that a more methodized con- 
 nection with the Eoman See was afterwards introduced by 
 our countryman, St. Boniface. It does not follow, therefore, 
 that the Mission of St. Augustin would necessarily have 
 upset their local system of government. The superiority, 
 which he demanded, may have been little more than would 
 naturally result from the ascendancy of a Bishop of greater 
 acquirements, who was likely to become their channel of 
 
 24 Beda, Hist. ii. 2. note. 
 
-I 
 CONNECTED WITH HOME. 247 
 
 communication with the rest of the world. And though 
 Bede says that they would not " receive him as their Arch- 
 bishop/' he nowhere mentions that St. Augustin claimed 
 any such title, or asserted that any Metropolitical power 
 had been bestowed upon him by the Pope. Had a question 
 arisen respecting the authority of the Successor of St. Peter, 
 it is strange that Bede, who speaks of Gregory as " bearing 
 the Pontifical Primacy over the whole world," should have 
 made no allusion to it. But this point is not said to have 
 been raised. The Britons must, no doubt, have felt, that to 
 join in missions and worship with St. Augustin, who was 
 connected with the more powerful race, against which they 
 were attempting to defend themselves, and was recognized 
 in the capital of their ancient country, would endanger their 
 national existence. The history of Bede is the only early 
 account of these transactions, which can be trusted. But the 
 chroniclers, who have been adduced, imply them to have been 
 actuated by national 25 antipathy rather than by ecclesiastical 
 jealousy. The intense hatred of the Anglo-Saxons, which 
 had withheld them from making any attempt themselves for 
 their conversion, disinclined them to co-operate in this work 
 with others. And a refusal which was grounded on personal 
 considerations is not to be set against those clear marks of 
 relationship, which in previous times had bound the British 
 Church to the Bishops of Rome. 
 
 2ndly. The considerations, which have been adduced, 
 must be borne in mind, when we pass to the next subject 
 that such a separation between the Britons and the Church 
 of Rome, if it had existed, would have been indefensible. 
 For it was not founded upon any alleged contrariety between 
 the rights of the Episcopate and those of the Primacy ; it 
 turned upon a specific and narrow ground, upon which the 
 Church Universal had given a definite judgment. The 
 
 25 This is suggested even by a passage, quoted by Bramhall, if indeed it be 
 genuine. It represents the jealousy of the Britons as directed rather against 
 the Anglo-Saxons, than against the Bishop of Borne. " Se Caerleonensi 
 Archiespiscopo obedire voluisse, Augustino autem Bomano Legato omnino 
 noluisse, nee Anglis inimicis, et paulo ante Paganis (a quibus suis sedibus 
 pulsi erant) subesse se, qui semper Christian! fuerunt, voluisse." Just Vin~ 
 dication, p. 102. 
 
248 RULE RESPECTING EASTER. 
 
 Council of Nice had decided, that to maintain unity of prac- 
 tice throughout the Body of Christ, it was essential that the 
 great Christian Feasts should be celebrated everywhere on 
 the same day. To this regulation the people of one small 
 and remote province chose to oppose themselves. The Pri- 
 mates of Christendom, being charged with the maintenance 
 of unity throughout the whole Body, were the fitting parties 
 to remonstrate. " Pope Honorius," therefore, A. D. 634, 
 " wrote to the Scots, earnestly exhorting them not to think 
 their small number, placed in the utmost borders of the 
 earth, wiser than all the ancient and modern Churches of 
 Christ throughout the world ; and not to celebrate a different 
 Easter, contrary to the Paschal calculation, and the syno- 
 dical decrees of all the Bishops upon earth." 26 
 
 Now, whether they followed the Quartodeciman usage 
 or not, their position would have been equally indefensible. 
 If they did, as has been alleged by those who claim an 
 Eastern origin for the British Church, they were condemned 
 by the Second General Council (Canon 7) as heretics, who 
 could only be received to communion on renouncing their 
 error. For the Quartodeciman usage, like other approxi- 
 mations to Judaism, had been tolerated in the earliest age 
 of the Church, but was afterwards forbidden on pain of 
 excommunication. But if we take the other and truer view, 
 and suppose the Britons to have been in error merely in their 
 calculation of time, they were condemned by the Council of 
 Nice, as the Quartodeciman usage by that of Constan- 
 tinople. For its letter had required, that the practice of the 
 general Body should be a law in this respect to individual 
 provinces. So far, indeed, as their mistake arose only from 
 those circumstances, which had cut them off from inter- 
 course with the rest of the world, no kind of blame could 
 attach to them. Bede speaks with the utmost veneration 
 of several of the Scottish Bishops who adhered to the 
 custom of their own country, not perceiving the relation, 
 in which it placed them to the rest of the Church. Its 
 tendency, however, was to break up the unity of Christ's 
 
 26 Beda, ii. 19. 
 
AUGUSTIN'S SUCCESSION ENDED. 249 
 
 Body, and it was a direct violation of the rule of the most 
 venerated of General Councils. And the British Bishops 
 had the less reason to rebel against such a rule, since it 
 had been specifically accepted by their own predecessors 
 at Aries, who had concurred in referring the settlement of 
 this point to the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 3rdly. The relation, then, of the early British Church 
 to the Bishop of Eome does not indicate that it possessed 
 any peculiar claim to independence ; and so far as a differ- 
 ence existed, the British Bishops were clearly in the wrong. 
 But supposing it otherwise, how does this affect the Church 
 of England ? The identity of a Church must depend either 
 upon the continuity of the people of whom it is composed, 
 or of the rulers by whom it is governed. In neither respects 
 can the British Church be looked upon as identical with the 
 Church of England. Our language shows how little Celtic 
 blood has mixed itself with the Anglo-Saxon nation. And 
 neither our temporal nor our spiritual rulers are the lineal 
 descendants of those who presided over the Celtic race. It 
 has been alleged, that the English Episcopate was derived 
 not only from the Bishops who came from the Continent to 
 convert the Anglo-Saxons, but likewise from Colman, and 
 other Scottish Bishops, who have been supposed, therefore, to 
 have transmitted the peculiar rights, of which they were 
 said to be possessed. But the history of Bede shows this 
 statement to be erroneous. The old succession from St. 
 Augustin died out before the time of Theodore, and a new 
 one was introduced by him, which derives its descent solely 
 from Pope Yitalian, and the Bishops of Gaul. After the 
 death of Archbishop Deusdedit, A. D. 664, Wini, Bishop of 
 the West Saxons, is said by Bede to have been " the only 
 Bishop in England, who was canonically ordained." 27 But 
 Wini was not of Augustin's succession ; he had been con- 
 secrated in Gaul. 28 Wilfred, 29 who came into England the 
 year following, had also received consecration at Paris. When 
 Theodore arrived, A. D. 669, he filled up the vacant Sees. 
 Bisi was consecrated by him for the East Angles ; his pre- 
 
 27 Beda, iii. 28. 28 Id. iii. 7. 29 Id. iii. 28. 
 
250 AUGUSTUS'S SUCCESSION ENDED. 
 
 decessor Boniface 80 having died the year before ; Leutherius 
 he consecrated Bishop of the West Saxons, where there 
 had long been a vacancy. 31 There would seem to have been 
 a vacancy also in the Bishopric of the East Saxons, for 
 Cedd 32 had died, A. D. 664, and Earconwald 33 was consecrated 
 by Theodore, A. D. 674. And in consequence no Bishop of 
 this See was present at the Council at Herutford 34 A. D. 673 ; 
 and its affairs had been transacted by the Bishop of Mercia. 35 
 Putta, who appeared at this Council as Bishop of Rochester, 
 had been consecrated either by Wilfred, 36 or Theodore. 
 There remains no diocese except that of the Mercians, which 
 was also vacant by the death of Jaruman, at the time of 
 Theodore's arrival, since in that year Cead, 37 or St. Chad, 
 was consecrated to it. Cead had been consecrated Bishop of 
 York 38 by Wini and two British Bishops : but he resigned 39 
 his diocese and commission; and his former consecration, 
 which was imperfect through irregularity, was perfected by 
 Theodore. 
 
 This last circumstance would be sufficient to show, that 
 Theodore was not likely to allow the Anglo-Saxon succession 
 to be derived from those who differed from the rest of Chris- 
 tendom ; even if the enumeration which has been given did 
 not prove that its whole Episcopate took its commission from 
 himself and the Bishops of Gaul. For he himself, with Wini 
 and Wilfred, formed the whole channel through which it was 
 continued. So that the English Church cannot be identified 
 with the early British through its ecclesiastical rulers, any 
 more than through its civil governors, or through the mass 
 of its people. Indeed, if any peculiar claim of independence 
 could be set up for the British Bishops, on what principle 
 could it be transferred to the Suffragans of Canterbury ? 
 The British Bishops are said by recent writers to have 
 claimed to be a separate Province, owing obedience to no 
 
 30 Beda, iv. 5. That Boniface, Bishop of the East Angles, was dead when 
 Theodore arrived appears, because Bishop Felix died, A. D. 646, [vid. Dr. 
 Giles's note to Beda, iii. 20.] and the two following Bishops occupied twenty- 
 two years between them. Beda, iii. 20. iv. 5. 
 
 31 Beda, iii. 7. 32 Id. iii. 23. 33 Id. iv. 6. 
 
 34 Id. iv. 5. 35 Id. iii. 30. 36 Id. iv. 2. 
 
 37 Id. iv. 3. with Dr. Giles's note. 38 Id. iii. 28. 39 Id. iv. 2. 
 
AUGUSTIN'S SUCCESSION ENDED. 251 
 
 one but the Bishops of Caerleon. 40 Even if this were 
 true, by what counterchange have the privileges of Caerleon 
 been transferred to Canterbury 1 The ecclesiastical right of 
 the See of Canterbury was the commission bestowed upon it 
 by Gregory the Great, and which has been inherited by its 
 successive Archbishops. If this was an invasion of the rights 
 of the Province of Caerleon, and if the first occupants can 
 exclude all subsequent intruders, by what act has the original 
 injustice been corrected ? The Bishops who were in commu- 
 nion with the rest of Christendom, gradually excluded those 
 who were not so, and occupied their ground. But how can 
 it be affirmed that they are the same body, when the very 
 principle of their combination implies them to be distinct I 
 
 4thly. There is one further difficulty in supposing that the 
 Church of England was merely exercising a right, which she 
 had inherited from the peculiar constitution of the early 
 British Church. For this would imply, that the change made 
 in the sixteenth century was the act of the Church of Eng- 
 land herself, whereas it was the act of the civil power, to 
 which she yielded an unwilling or a tame submission. 
 
 The separation between the Church of England and the 
 rest of Christendom has been shown to depend upon that 
 spiritual Headship, which is claimed by our Sovereign, where- 
 by the Bishops of this Keahn are constituted into a distinct 
 Body, and determine all articles of faith, as though they 
 were the whole Body of Christ. This power has been ex- 
 ercised by our Sovereigns ever since it was bestowed by 
 Parliament upon Elizabeth, A.D. 1558 ; and every successive 
 generation of those who have received ecclesiastical prefer- 
 ment, or have graduated at the Universities, has been re- 
 quired to give its separate sanction to that which was then 
 done, by taking the oath of Supremacy ; so that each indi- 
 vidual commits himself to a personal rejection of the ancient 
 maxims of Christ's Church, and takes his part for time and 
 eternity with the adherents of Henry and Elizabeth. Now, 
 whether the Church accepted this pledge voluntarily, must 
 depend upon that which passed at its first adoption. So that 
 
 10 It seems probable that this See had ceased to exist in St. Augustin's time. 
 
252 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 we are led back to the first year of Elizabeth, when " spiritual 
 and ecclesiastical jurisdiction" was "united to the Crown." 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as the Act which was then passed was 
 grounded upon a law of Henry VIII. we must first go back 
 to that period, and see whether the oath of Supremacy, 
 which was enacted by the 28 Henry VIII. 7, A.D. 1536, and 
 which numbers of his subjects had been compelled to take 
 two years before, was voluntarily accepted by the Church, 
 or had been imposed upon her members without her sanction. 
 For it has been maintained, that however compulsory may 
 have been the steps which were taken in the first year of 
 Elizabeth, they were justified by the full and free concurrence 
 of the English Church, in the abolition of all Papal authority, 
 A.D. 1534. In that year, Burnet tells us, "commissioners 
 were sent everywhere to offer the oath of the succession to 
 the Crown to all, according to the Act of Parliament, which 
 was universally taken by all sorts of persons." 41 And docu- 
 ments 42 which remain show, that the form subscribed by the 
 clergy, and by members of religious communities, whether 
 men or women, contained an admission, that the King was 
 Head of the Church, and a denial of the Pope's authority. 
 And similar admissions were made, about the same time, by 
 the Convocations, both of Canterbury and York, and by the 
 Universities. 
 
 No doubt it must be allowed, that the Church of England 
 was committed to that which was generally accepted by her 
 members ; just as it is impossible to deny her to be respon- 
 sible for that interference of the Civil Power in her Legisla- 
 tive functions, and for that surrender of her judicial inde- 
 pendence to the Crown, which have been practically sub- 
 mitted to during the last three centuries. But in considering 
 how far the acts of 1534 excuse the irregularities of 1558, it 
 makes considerable difference whether they were imposed by 
 force, and still more whether they were disguised by fraud. 
 And it will be found that they contained a large measure of 
 both. When it is said that the Koyal Supremacy was ad- 
 mitted and the Pope's power denied, it seems to be implied 
 
 41 Hist, of Eefor. vol. i. p. 283. Ed. 1816. 
 <2 Id. vol. 1. Records, No. 50. vol. iii. book 2. No. 28. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 253 
 
 that these steps were taken voluntarily, and indicate the 
 unbiassed judgment of those who accepted them. But on the 
 contrary, their rejection would have involved, not only the 
 loss of property and liberty, under the charge of misprision of 
 treason, (25 Henry VIII. 22,) but also a painful and igno- 
 minious death, (26 Henry VIII. 13.) That none could hope 
 to escape such consequences was shown by the execution of 
 Fisher and More, the next year, A.D. 1535. For the re- 
 jection of the King's Headship, and the admission of the 
 Pope's authority, were held to be a denial of the right of 
 succession to the Crown, and were the sole ground on which 
 Fisher and More were put to death. 
 
 So much for. the force, by which this "admission was ob- 
 tained. And the concessions made by the clergy, compared 
 with the interpretation put upon them, show that there was 
 not only cowardice on the one side, but fraud on the other. 
 When the clergy found themselves at Henry's mercy, A.D. 
 
 1530, they consented, after expressing great repugnance, to 
 acknowledge him Head of the Church, as the only means of 
 saving their lives and property. But they insisted on putting 
 in the saving clause, quantum per Christi legem licet,, which in 
 effect made the concession nugatory. This admission was 
 made by the Convocation of Canterbury, 43 Jan. 24, 1530 ; 
 and by that of York, 44 the least subservient of the two, May 6, 
 
 1531. But it was still in their power to retract ; and, therefore, 
 the King, A.D. 1532, required them to surrender their power 
 of independent Legislation, and to engage to make no laws 
 without his consent. No doubt this was to give practical 
 effect to the admission of his Headship ; for such a step finally 
 cut them off from the rest of the Church Catholic, and ren- 
 dered their Legislative authority dependent upon the concur- 
 rence of the new Head, by whom they were combined into an 
 isolated body. They expressed, as they had previously done, 
 the utmost repugnance ; but when the King complained to the 
 Commons, that " the clergy were but half his subjects ;" they 
 were alarmed and gave way. 45 And now, therefore, that 
 
 43 Wilkins, iii. 742. " Id. 745. 
 
 45 Collier vindicates them from the accusation, and shows, by the acknow- 
 ledgment of Lord Coke, that their submission in Spirituals to the Pope, had 
 not interfered with their loyalty. Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 68, 69. 
 
254 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 they were entirely helpless, an Act of Parliament was passed 
 the very next year, A.D. 1533, in which it was stated, that 
 the King " is supreme Head of the Church of England, as 
 the Prelates and Clergy of your realm, representing the said 
 Church in their Synods and Convocations, have recognized." 
 (25 Henry VIII. 21. s. 2.) And again : The King is the 
 supreme Head of the Church of England, and so is recognized 
 by the Clergy of this Kealm in their Convocations." (26 
 Henry VIII. 1.) So that they were affirmed to have made 
 the admission unconditionally, when they had accompanied 
 it by a condition, which rendered it virtually nugatory. 
 
 Much the same thing happened respecting the denial of 
 the Pope's authority. It was debated in the Convocation of 
 Canterbury, March 31, 1534, " whether the Roman Pontiff 
 has any greater jurisdiction than any other foreign Bishop, 
 conferred upon him by God in Holy Scripture." 41 Now, since 
 Scripture says nothing in express words about any Bishop, 
 it might be possible to deny this, without denying that the 
 Pope was the Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, was 
 entitled to that authority, which Our Lord had bestowed 
 upon the chief Apostle. It was only in this equivocal 
 manner, however, that the Pope's authority was denied 47 
 either by Convocation, or by the Universities. But when 
 the oath was imposed upon individuals, and when it was 
 subsequently enacted by Parliament, A.D. 1536, aU persons 
 were required to deny the Pope's power in an absolute and 
 unequivocal manner ; and the decision of thesejearned bodies 
 was referred to, as is shown by Sir Thomas More's trial, as 
 though their acts had been explicit. The oath imposed in 
 1536 was, " he from henceforth shall utterly renounce, refuse, 
 relinquish, or forsake the Bishop of Rome and his authority, 
 power, and jurisdiction ;" and that " he shall accept, repute, 
 and take the King's Majesty to be the only supreme Head 
 in earth of the Church of England." (28 Henry VIII. 1 0. s. 5.) 
 And when these words were subsequently changed to the 
 statement, that " I do freely and clearly renounce, refuse, 
 
 46 Wilkins, iii. 769. 
 
 47 At York, May 5, vid. Collier, vol. ii. Records, No. 26. At Cambridge, 
 May 2, Wilkins, iii. 771. At Oxford, June 27, Wilkins, iii. 775. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 255 
 
 relinquish, and forsake that pretended authority, power, and 
 jurisdiction both of the See and Bishop of Rome, and of all 
 other foreign powers ;" it was enacted, strangely enough, 
 " that they which have already sworn the other aforesaid 
 oaths, or any of them, shall take and esteem it of the same 
 effect and force, as though they had sworn this." (35 Henry 
 VIII. 1.) 
 
 Here, then, as in the admission of the King's Headship, 
 the State had given a sense, which it hardly bore, to the 
 Church's concession. In neither case had the Church's ad- 
 mission been either full or free : but the State had legislated 
 as though it were both. The case resembled that of some of 
 the Libellatici in the ancient Church, who did not actually 
 sacrifice, but allowed it to be put on record that they had. 
 A change took place, however, after the death of Henry and 
 his son : their laws were reversed by 1 and 2 Philip and Mary ; 
 and Elizabeth had to renew that claim to Supremacy, which 
 had been abandoned. The submission which the clergy render 
 at present, dates from the first year of her reign, when the 
 oath of Supremacy was for a second time imposed upon the 
 Church of England. But it cannot be pretended that the 
 Church at that time concurred in the demand which was 
 made upon it. When the question came on in Parliament, 
 the Bishops with one consent opposed the measure both by 
 votes and speeches ; and all of them but one subsequently 
 refused the oath, and were deprived 48 by the Civil Power. 
 The Lower House of Convocation opposed it likewise by a 
 solemn protest, in which the two Universities concurred. 
 They stated it as their belief, "that the chief power of 
 feeding and ruling Christ's Church militant, and of strength- 
 ening his brethren, has been committed to the Apostle Peter, 
 and to his legitimate Successors in the Apostolical See. 
 Also, that the authority of treating and determining on those 
 points, which refer to faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical 
 discipline, has hitherto belonged and ought to belong to the 
 Pastors of the Church, whom the Holy Spirit has set for this 
 purpose in the Church, and not to the Laity." 49 
 
 48 Fourteen Bishops and three Bishops Elect. Collier, ii. 431. 
 49 Wilkins, iv. 180. 
 
256 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 The assent, then, which the Church of England is alleged 
 to have given to the claims of Henry VIII. had at best been 
 uncertain and limited ; but its opposition to the same claim 
 when revived by Elizabeth, was distinct and full. If its as- 
 sent in the first case is supposed to have been important, much 
 more was its dissent in the second. Against this, however, 
 it is objected, first, that the acquiescence given in the reign 
 of Henry VIII. had never been canonically rescinded, and, 
 therefore, ""( was still in force, independently of any fresh 
 enactment : secondly, that the Bishops, who were found in 
 possession by Elizabeth, had been uncanonically obtruded in 
 the reign of Mary, and had no right to represent the Church. 
 These objections, however, are not borne out by history. 
 When Convocation met in the second year of Queen Mary, 
 the Lower House, perceiving that the Upper desired to 
 restore " this noble Church of England to her pristine state, 
 and unity of Christ's Church," 50 petitioned " that the ancient 
 liberty, authority, and jurisdiction be restored to the Church 
 of England according to the article of the great Charte, 
 called Magna Charta, at the least in such sort, as it was in 
 the first year of Henry VIII." " Item : that the statute of 
 the submission of the clergy, made anno 25 Henry VIII. 
 and all other statutes made during the time of the late 
 schism, in derogation of the liberties and jurisdictions of the 
 Church, from the first year of King Henry VIII. may be 
 repealed, and the Church restored < in integrum.' " 51 
 
 There is no reason to suppose that this application was 
 extorted by fear ; for it was made at least a year before the 
 first of those acts of cruelty, which afterwards so alienated 
 the nation. The reference to the Great Charter may have 
 been suggested by the words of Sir Thomas More, at his 
 trial, who spoke of the oath of Supremacy as " contrary to 
 the laws and statutes of the Kingdom, yet unrepealed, as 
 might evidently be seen by Magna Charta, wherein are these 
 words : Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, et habeat omnia jura 
 Integra, et libertates suas illesas." But it was for the State 
 to carry out the desire which the clergy had expressed, since 
 
 50 Wilkins, iv. 95. 51 Id. p. 96. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 257 
 
 the separation from Home had been brought about by Acts 
 of Parliament. When these were rescinded by 1 and 2 Philip 
 and Mary, 8. A. r>. 1554, the clergy of both Provinces ap- 
 peared before Cardinal Pole, February 10, 1556, and accepted 
 certain " Legatine Constitutions." And the second of these 
 provided that " the decrees of all Councils, general or pro- 
 vincial, which were received by the See of Rome, the consti- 
 tutions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the laws of the Church, 
 which were formerly promulged in this kingdom, should be 
 restored to their former state." 52 
 
 Whatever assent may have been given to the demands of 
 Henry was, therefore, canonically withdrawn by the proper 
 authority. But it is said that the Bishops who assented to 
 these acts, and who afterwards protested against the Supre- 
 macy of Elizabeth, had been uncanonically admitted. For 
 their predecessors had been deprived by the Royal authority, 
 and they had been consecrated by Suffragan Bishops, and not 
 by the Metropolitans of Canterbury and York. In consider- 
 ing whether the steps thus taken were lawful, we may pro- 
 ceed either according to the general laws of the Church 
 Catholic, or the particular laws of the Church of England. 
 According to the first it was shown (cap. iv. p. 72,) that the 
 authority of a Bishop depends on his representing the whole 
 Episcopate, and, therefore, on his union with the rest of his 
 brethren. There was no reason, therefore, why the Sove- 
 reign should respect the authority of those, whose very claim 
 to authority depended on their renouncing the communion 
 of their brethren. For every one of those who were thus 
 removed, had qualified himself for office by taking the oath of 
 Supremacy, in which the authority of the rest of the Episco- 
 pate was denied. Several of them, moreover, were displaced 
 for marrying after their ordination : an act, which, besides 
 that it was contrary to their vows, was a legitimate ground 
 for deprivation according to the Canons of the ancient Church 
 Catholic, 53 from which the Church of England had professed 
 not to vary. So that though the persons whom Mary ejected 
 
 52 Wilkins, iv. 121, 132. Burnet's Keform. p. ii. b. ii. p. 588. 
 " Vid. the 1st. Canon of Neo-Cesarea, which had been sanctioned by the 
 first Canon of Chalcedon. 
 
 S 
 
258 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 from their Sees, may have been really Bishops, she was not 
 bound to recognize their commission according to the laws of 
 the Church Catholic. And in removing them she had the 
 sanction of the successor of St. Peter, so that she was exactly 
 following that course, which St. Cyprian 54 prescribed to the 
 people of Aries. Marcian of Aries, like Cranmer and Hoi- 
 gate, was a Metropolitan ; and St. Stephen's ground for 
 depriving him was not stronger than that which might be 
 alleged against persons who had violated a Canon, which was 
 sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon. 
 
 Again : If we go by the rules of English Church-law, rather 
 than by those of the Church Catholic, the vindication of 
 Mary's measures is not less complete. The English law 
 gave Queen Mary " full power and authority from time to 
 time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, 
 and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, con- 
 tempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any 
 manner, spiritual authority, or jurisdiction, ought or may 
 lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, 
 restrained, or amended." (26 Henry VIII. 1.) And the 
 manner in which this power was to be exercised in regard to 
 Bishops, was pointed out by the commissions which had been 
 granted by Edward VI. not only to the Bishops whom he 
 had nominated, but to the Primate also. These commis- 
 sions have been spoken of, as though they concerned no one 
 but the individual Bishops who accepted them. No doubt 
 these Bishops were more immediately concerned in them, for 
 they were tantamount to a promise that they would resign 
 their offices whenever they were called upon by the Crown. 
 And in consequence, probably, the Bishops who were removed 
 seem to have made no sort of opposition. But considering 
 that these commissions were issued to the members of the 
 Upper House of Convocation, including the Primates, and 
 that no objection was taken to them by the Lower House, 
 which met and adopted certain petitions some months after 
 Cranmer's new commission had been issued, it is impossible 
 to deny them to have received an implicit sanction from the 
 Church. 
 
 84 Vid. supra, p. 157. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 259 
 
 Now, the commission granted to Cranmer begins by stating, 
 that " all jurisdiction of any kind, whether ecclesiastical or 
 secular, flows from the Royal Power, as from its Supreme 
 Head." It then proceeds to give him authority to " ordain," 
 " institute," " invest," and " deprive ;" but concludes, " we 
 license you by this present instrument, which is to be of force 
 only during our pleasure." 55 It throws light on the meaning 
 of this commission, that in the same year, A.D. 1547, an Act 
 of Parliament was passed, which stated that the elections to 
 Bishoprics " be in very deed no elections, but only by a writ 
 of conge ffelire, have colours, shadows, or pretences of elec- 
 tions, serving, nevertheless, to no purpose, and seeming also 
 derogatory and prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal." 
 With these acts of the State, and these admissions of the 
 Church before her, Mary was surely borne out in considering 
 that it was for her, through her commissioners, to judge 
 whether those who claimed the Episcopal title, when she 
 came to the throne, had more right to it, according to the law 
 of England, than they had according to the laws of the Church 
 Catholic. Those who dislike her principles may say that she 
 acted harshly and arbitrarily in issuing a commission to de- 
 prive them, but it appears impossible to dispute that she 
 exercised a power which was given her by law, and, therefore, 
 that her acts were valid. Indeed, she only exercised the 
 same power which was exerted by the two next Sovereigns, 
 when they suspended Grindal and Abbott. Such authority, 
 must, no doubt, belong to the Crown ; for it has been in- 
 vested with a such jurisdiction as by any spiritual or eccle- 
 siastical power or authority hath heretofore been, or may 
 lawfully be exercised, for the visitation of the ecclesiastical 
 state and persons ;" and it does not appear either that the 
 Primates are irresponsible, or that any other power exists to 
 which they are subordinate. 
 
 The deposition of Bishops, then, by Queen Mary, was not 
 
 at variance with the rules of the Church of England, any 
 
 more than with those of the Church Catholic. Nor yet was 
 
 the appointment of their successors invalid, because not 
 
 Wilkins, iv. 2. 
 
260 THE KOYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 sanctioned by the two Metropolitans, Cranmer and Holgate. 
 For these were the very parties whose authority was annulled 
 by their separation from the rest of the Church, and by their 
 violation of its Canons. And the English law contained a 
 special provision, by which the concurrence of the Metro- 
 politan in the appointment of his Suffragans, was rendered 
 unnecessary. For it was provided (25 Henry VIII. 20, s. 5,) 
 that the King should " signify the said election to one Arch- 
 bishop and two other Bishops, or else to four Bishops within 
 this realm," commanding them " to confirm the said election, 
 and to invest and consecrate the said person." And to this 
 provision every ecclesiastic in Queen Mary's reign had bound 
 himself by oath, for they had all sworn (35 Henry VIII. 1,) 
 to "observe, keep, maintain, and defend all the King's 
 Majesty's styles, titles, and rights, with the whole effects 
 and contents of the acts provided for the same, and all other 
 acts made, or to be made, within this Realm, in and for that 
 purpose." 
 
 The Bishops who were consecrated in Queen Mary's days, 
 then, were not intruders, and the opposition which they made 
 to the revival of the oath of Supremacy by Elizabeth, was a 
 legitimate expression of the mind of the Church of England. 
 It had yielded an uncertain and forced consent to the claim of 
 Supremacy when it was made by Henry VIII. ; its denial of 
 it in the first year of Elizabeth was distinct and consistent. 
 It is probable that the change arose from the clearer insight 
 which men had gained into the real nature of the claim, for 
 the very persons (such as Tunstall, of Durham,) who had 
 yielded in the first instance, now braved deprivation rather 
 than repeat their submission. And this formal opposition 
 which the Church of England offered to her separation from 
 the rest of the Church Catholic, is in exact agreement with 
 two circumstances of contemporary history. 1st. The move- 
 ment against the Royal Supremacy appears to have proceeded 
 from the clergy, because it arose when the representatives of 
 the clergy were allowed to act ; while the enactment of the 
 Supremacy was accompanied by the imposition of restraints 
 upon Convocation. 2ndly. Of all the Formularies of Faith, 
 whether doctrinal or devotional, which were put forward 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 261 
 
 during the ascendancy of the Tudors, none can be shown to 
 have had the sanction of Convocation, except the Thirty-nine 
 Articles; and that only in a single Province, and after its 
 members had been purged by the deprivation of all op- 
 ponents. 
 
 The Act for " the submission of the clergy," (25 Henry 
 VIII. 19,) renders it probable that they were expected to 
 retract their admission of the Supremacy, if thev had oppor- 
 tunity to do so. And during the rest of Henry's reign, no 
 party in the nation was allowed sufficient liberty to exhibit 
 its unbiassed inclination. But when Edward succeeded, and 
 men breathed again in consequence of the repeal of the per- 
 secuting acts of his Father, (by 1 Edw, VI. 12,) there seems 
 to have been no disposition to allow Convocation to act freely. 
 " The Popish party was so prevalent in both houses," says 
 Burnet, " that Cranmer had no hope of doing anything, till 
 they were freed of the trouble, which some of the great Bishops 
 gave them." 56 This was in 1547, when they showed their 
 jealousy by the demand, " that all such statutes and ordi- 
 nances, as shall be made concerning all matters of religion, 
 and causes ecclesiastical, may not pass without the sight and 
 assent of the said clergy." 57 Nothing was obtained from 
 them, in favour of the reforming party, except their sanction 
 to the marriage of the clergy, and the allowance of commu- 
 nion in both kinds. 58 And though the most important changes 
 were afterwards made, no mention occurs of their co-opera- 
 tion : they met, as it seems, merely to be adjourned, and their 
 wish to be consulted in everything which was adopted, does 
 not appear to have been attended to during this reign. 
 
 Compare this with that which passed under Queen Mary. 
 Convocation 59 was summoned by a writ addressed to Cranmer, 
 Aug. 4, 1553, and immediately proceeded to business, dis- 
 cussing the question of the Real Presence, and the Catechism, 
 which had been prepared, probably, by Nowell. It is easy to 
 say that the parties elected did not truly represent the clergy, 
 but the assertion has not a shadow of proof ; and ad Cranmer 
 was not sent to the Tower till September 14th, he had it in 
 
 56 Hist, of Reform, p. ii. b. i. p. 87. 
 57 Wilkins, iv. 15. 58 Id. p. 16. 
 
 59 Wilkins, iv. 88. 
 
262 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 his power to prevent any unfairness in the elections. It is 
 obvious, however, that the majority was entirely adverse to 
 him. Peter Martyr writes to Bullinger, December 15th of 
 the same year : " The opponents of Transubstantiation could 
 do no good, inasmuch as they were overwhelmed by num- 
 bers." And he goes on to deduce such conclusions as show 
 a consciousness that the mass of the clergy were against his 
 party. " These things indicate to us what may be expected 
 from the Convocations of the Bishops ; for either good men 
 are not admitted, or should they be summoned inadvertently, 
 they are of no avail, since they are overpowered by a crowd 
 of unlearned and ungodly men : whence our modern Bishops, 
 and the ^Fathers and Councils of our own times, lead us to 
 regard the ancient Councils with suspicion, so that we rightly 
 withhold our confidence in them, without the authority of the 
 word." 60 
 
 This is evidently the testimony of a person who was 
 against the Church, because it was against him ; and who 
 considered his private interpretation of Scripture to be more 
 trustworthy than that of the collective body of Christ. In- 
 deed, the selection of the doctrine of the Real Presence, as 
 the point which was to be publicly disputed in Convocation, 
 showed an intention to appeal to the popular feeling, and an 
 expectation of carrying things by argument. For this was 
 the particular, in which the ancient system retained its 
 strongest hold both upon clergy and people : the Zuinglian 
 theory seems to have been slow in destroying their faith in 
 the Incarnation and Real Presence of Our Lord : Hooper 61 
 
 60 Original Letters, &c. (Parker Soc.) No. 238, p. 508. 
 
 61 Though it is administered in both kinds, yet in some places the supper 
 is celebrated three times a day. Where they used heretofore to celebrate in 
 the morning the mass of the Apostles, they now have the communion of the 
 Apostles ; where they had the mass of the blessed Virgin, they now have the 
 communion, which they call the communion of the Virgin ; where they had the 
 principal, or high mass, they now have, as they call it, the high communion. 
 They still retain their vestments and the candles before the altars ; in the 
 Churches they always chant the hours, and other hymns relating to the Lord's 
 Supper, but in our own language. And that Popery may not be lost, the mass- 
 priests, although they are compelled to discontinue the use of the Latin language, 
 yet most carefully observe the same tone and manner of chanting to which 
 they were heretofore accustomed in the Papacy. Letter to Bullinger, Dec. 27, 
 1549. Id. No. 26, p. 72. Vid. also the Council's Letter to Banner, June 24, 
 1549. WUkins, iv. 34. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 263 
 
 complained that the clergy did their best to keep up the old 
 belief, even when they were compelled to use Edward's 
 Prayer Book; and Burnet says that even in Elizabeth's days 
 " the greater part of the nation continued to believe" " the 
 corporal presence." 62 
 
 62 Hist, of Reform, p. ii. b. iii. p. 704. By way of illustration I introduce 
 the following extract from a letter which appeared in the Evening Journal, and 
 
 which was understood to be written by a person of great local knowledge : 
 
 " Lutheranism was, I think, introduced into Norway in quite a different way 
 from what it was elsewhere. In other countries it was at first an ecclesia mill' 
 tans, having to struggle desperately with Catholicism, or rather with Popery, 
 obtaining more and more influence, and its regular introduction being thus 
 regularly prepared. In Norway no such thing took place. The people were 
 thoroughly Catholic. Some Lutheranism was, as I understand, preached a 
 little at Bergen by a powerful German preacher, but he did not make many 
 proselytes. The people were fond of their religion and of the priests, who 
 certainly, as far as we can judge from the scanty evidences left, were a more 
 worthy set of people than in most other countries at that time. Even the 
 same magister Geble, first Lutheran bishop in 1537, wrote, whilst archdeacon, 
 in a letter, dated April 14, 1531 only six years, therefore, before his changing 
 about 'the heresy which, God better it, has now all too much spread' that 
 is to say, in Europe, speaking of certain meetings to be held then on the sub- 
 ject by the sovereigns. Thus our people were not at all prepared for such an 
 event, when it came like a thunder-clap. Norway, being only personally, not 
 politically, united to Denmark through the Sovereign, by the union of Calmar, 
 had, like Sweden, struggled to maintain its independence of Denmark, or rather 
 of the Danish aristocracy, then lording it here. Sweden had an aristocracy of 
 its own, that could counterbalance the Danish, and many of them had patriot- 
 ism enough to side with the people. This saved Sweden. Norway had no 
 aristocracy except its clergy. The old aristocracy had already been humbled 
 and beaten down by the last independent kings. For a long while the struggle 
 against the Danish influence was only, and faintly, kept up by the clergy, 
 whose ranks even were not seldom opened to Danish prelates, forced in amongst 
 them on purpose. Through marriages arid other clever management, most of 
 the family estates were brought into the hands of Danish noblemen. The last 
 effort of the Norwegian patriots was to embrace the cause of the old legitimate 
 king, Christian II. in opposition to his uncle Frederick I. who had usurped 
 the throne, but was supported by the Danish aristocracy, in whose hands he 
 was a mere tool. But Christian II. was enticed to visit his rival, and betrayed. 
 His standard (although himself a prisoner) being afterwards raised by the 
 Danish middle and lower classes, the aristocracy, headed by Christian III. 
 the son of Frederick I. and like him their tool, resolved to put an end to all 
 such movements, and to avail themselves of the opportunity to grasp the power 
 completely. They, therefore, embraced the Reformation, which afforded them 
 the means not only of humbling their rivals the clergy, but also of dividing 
 the rich spoil of their secularized possessions ; and when this work was com- 
 pleted in Denmark, the turn came to Norway. The Norwegian clergy was not 
 only the main strength of patriotism, but it was also immensely rich. There 
 were thus two reasons to prompt its doom. Norway was to be made a pro- 
 vince of Denmark, a domain of the Danish nobility. The most effectual 
 
264 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 Again : Nothing shows more clearly that the changes made 
 by the Tudor Sovereigns did not carry with them the con- 
 currence of the Clergy, than the irregular manner in which 
 the Book of Common Prayer was imposed upon the nation. 
 It was originally put forth in 1548-9, and subsequently altered 
 in 1552 and 1559. It has never been alleged that Convo- 
 cation was consulted on either of the two latter occasions, 63 
 but those who wish to maintain the Catholic character of the 
 Church of England, have laboured hard to show that at its 
 original introduction the Prayer Book was not destitute of 
 Synodical authority. Their arguments rest entirely upon two 
 statements a letter of the Council to Bonner, A.D. 1549 
 and an assertion of Abbott (afterwards Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury,) in his answer to Hill, A.D. 1604. If these statements 
 were ever so positive, they could hardly be accepted as stand- 
 ing instead of the formal acts of a public body, which ought 
 unquestionably to be attested in a Synodical manner. But 
 they are so loose and vague as to prove nothing. The 
 records of Convocation show that Communion under both 
 kinds was authorized, and that it was contemplated that there 
 should be a new Form 64 of Worship ; but what evidence is 
 there that Convocation compiled such a Form, or sanctioned 
 it after its compilation? However imperfect the Records 
 may have been, this main point could not have been wholly 
 omitted : and if the slightest mention of it had remained, 
 it would not have been overlooked by Heylin, who wrote 
 
 way of doing this \v s by introducing the Reformation. And accordingly 
 the Reformation was introduced by brute force, sword in hand, the people 
 being taken partly by surprise, partly by the most wily traps ; and a province 
 of Denmark it was made. You may easily conceive with what feelings the 
 Norwegian people received these alterations. The common people, knowing 
 nothing of Lutheranism, and being quite unprepared for it, despised the new 
 priests; they killed them even in several places. There were churches empty 
 for generations, barbarism and ignorance became widely spread, and only a 
 long, a very long, time afterwards some order was introduced. And at this 
 hour many Catholic reminiscences are still kept up, Catholic faith and predi- 
 lections having never been entirely eradicated." Christiana, Feb. 1852. 
 
 63 "Convocation," says Dr. Cardwell, "was not permitted to pass its judgment 
 on the second Service Book put forth by authority of Parliament in the reign 
 of King Edward VI. and for this plain reason, that it would have thrown all 
 possible difficulties in the way of its publication." Pref. to Synodalia, x. 
 64 Wilkins, iv. 15, 1C. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 265 
 
 before they were destroyed by the fire of London, Now, the 
 Council and Abbott do not in reality say more, than that 
 Convocation assented to the setting forth some new Form : 
 whereas, the thing which requires to be proved is, that 
 they assented to the particular Form which was set forth. 
 The Council uses the most vague and indeterminate lan- 
 guage : 65 and nothing can be made of Abbott's statement, 
 (even if he were correct in his allusion to that which hap- 
 pened above fifty years before.) " The more material points," 
 he says, "were disputed and debated in the Convocation- 
 House by men of both parties : and might further have been 
 discussed, so long as any Popish divine had aught reasonably 
 to say." And so, he says, " the religion which was then 
 
 and is now established when it had been collected 
 
 into the Book of Common Prayer was afterwards 
 
 confirmed by the Upper and Lower Houses." 66 What is 
 wanted is some proof that the Form of Prayer was examin- 
 ed and approved ; and not that there was such an indefinite 
 assertion of acquiescence in the new system, as the silence 
 of Convocation might be taken to supply. 
 
 If we turn from these vague statements to Edward's 
 Act of Uniformity, it becomes apparent that no Synodical 
 sanction could be alleged for his Prayer Book. When the 
 Liturgy was revised in 1661, the Act mentions that "the 
 Presidents, Bishops, and Clergy of both Provinces, have 
 reviewed the said Books." But how different was the lan- 
 guage of Edward's Parliament ! " His Highness . . . hath 
 appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the 
 most learned and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of 
 this realm, to .... make one convenient and meet order, rite, 
 and fashion of common and open prayer . . . which ... is of 
 them concluded, set forth, and delivered to His Highness to 
 his comfort and quietness of mind." (2, 3 Edw. VI. 1.) Had 
 there been any ground for alleging the concurrence of Con- 
 vocation, it would not have been omitted ; for this was a 
 circumstance of which Parliament knew how to make the 
 most. Henry's Parliament (25 Henry VIII. 2) speaks of 
 
 65 Wilkins, iv. 35. 
 66 Strype Eccl. Mem. vol. ii. p. i. b. i. c. ii. p. 137. 
 
266 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 the King's title as acknowledged by " the Prelates and clergy 
 of your realm, representing the said Church, in their Synods 
 and Convocations ;" whereas neither of Edward's Acts of 
 Uniformity contain any reference to the consent of Convoca- 
 tion. The contrast becomes evident when the events of 
 these two reigns are referred to in 8 Eliz. 1. s. 2. It is 
 said that Henry's Title was admitted, "as well by all the 
 Clergy then of this realm in their several Convocations, as 
 also by the Lords . . . and Commons :" " and that also the 
 said late King Edward the Sixth in his time, by authority of 
 Parliament, caused a godly and virtuous book, entituled, the 
 Book of Common Prayer ... to be made and set forth." 
 
 The notices, which are supplied by Heylin and Strype, lead 
 to the same conclusion. Strype gives the history of the 
 Communion Office, which was put out early in 1547, as pre- 
 paratory to the First Prayer Book. For this purpose, " the 
 King appointed certain grave and learned Bishops, and others, 
 to assemble at Windsor Castle, there to treat and confer to- 
 gether ; and to conclude and set forth one perfect and uniform 
 order of communion." " Of this commission were most of the 
 Bishops, and several others of the most learned divines in the 
 nation." 67 It is clear that this, then, was purely a Royal 
 Commission, which was wholly unconnected with Convocation. 
 Convocation can never be shown to have met at Windsor ; 
 nor is it recorded to have given any sanction to these divines, 
 either previous or subsequent. Yet this was the Committee 
 by which King Edward's First Book was drawn up, for as 
 Strype tells us, in the following winter, 1547, it was " ap- 
 pointed to examine all the Offices of the Church, and to 
 consider where they needed reformation, and accordingly to 
 reform them." 68 But that which sets the matter beyond 
 dispute is the testimony of Heylin, who wrote while the 
 Records of Convocation existed, and while tradition was 
 comparatively fresh ; and whose principles inclined him to 
 make every effort to vindicate the Church of England in this 
 main particular. He evidently felt the difficulty, to which he 
 alludes in no less than three of his works. "It is objected," 
 
 7 Strype's Cranmer, vol. i. b. ii. c. iv. p. 224, 226. Oxf. 1812. 
 68 Id. The same account is given by Fox. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 267 
 
 he says, respecting this First Prayer Book, " that neither the 
 undertaking was advised, nor the book itself approved, in a 
 Synodical way by the Bishops and Clergy ; but that it was 
 the act only of some few of the Prelates, employed therein 
 by the King, or the Lord Protector, without the privity and 
 approbation of the rest." 69 He refers for an answer to his 
 Life of Laud, where, however, he does not deny, but excuse 
 the fact. The case of the Scotch Liturgy, he says, " seems 
 to be much like that of King Edward YI. when the first 
 Liturgy was composed by some few of the Bishops, and other 
 learned men (not above thirteen in number) especiaUy there- 
 to authorized ; or unto that of Queen Elizabeth, when the 
 second Liturgy of that King was fitted and corrected by her 
 appointment. Neither of which durst trust their clergy, but 
 acted sovereignly therein of their own authority, not ventur- 
 ing either of the said books to their Convocations, but only 
 giving them the strength of an Act of Parliament." 70 For 
 this he finds palliations in the assertion, that the Liturgy did 
 not teach any new doctrine ; and that one of the Articles, 
 which he supposes were sanctioned by Convocation, approves 
 of Service in the English Language. But his main argument 
 is one which is conclusive against any attempts to justify the 
 Reformation on the principles of the ancient Church : he says, 
 that to accept the King's Supremacy, as the Clergy had done, 
 was, "in effect, to devolve on him all that power, which 
 formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity." 71 
 
 There seems, at first sight, more plausibility in the asser- 
 tion, that the Forty -two Articles of 1552 were sanctioned by 
 Convocation. For though there is no record that any sanc- 
 tion was given to them, yet such a conclusion has been 
 deduced from their title. Heylin, who does his best to vin- 
 dicate their authority, supposes " that the Convocation had 
 devolved their power on some grand Committee, sufficiently 
 authorized to debate, conclude, and publish what they had 
 concluded in the name of the rest." For it is not said, as in 
 the Articles published in Queen Elizabeth's time, A. D. 1562, 
 
 69 Hist, of the Keform. 3rd. Ed. p. 67. 
 
 70 Life of Laud, p. ii. 1. 4. A. D. 1636, p. 326. 
 
 71 Heylin's Tracts, p. 40. 
 
268 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 " That they were agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops 
 of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy, in the Convo- 
 cation holden at London ; but that they were agreed upon 
 in the Synod of London by the Bishops, and certain other 
 learned men ; which seems to make it plain enough, that the 
 debating and concluding of the Articles contained in the said 
 book, was the work only of some Bishops, and certain other 
 learned men, sufficiently empowered to that end and pur- 
 pose." 72 
 
 But this defence turns entirely upon the fact, that such 
 authority had been devolved by Convocation upon a Com- 
 mittee of Divines. A commission like this ought surely to 
 be definite and unequivocal ; but not only can no such Com- 
 mittee be proved to have been authorized, but the only 
 Committee which is known to have laid claim to such a com- 
 mission, can be proved not to have been authorized by 
 Convocation. Indeed, had Convocation been willing to 
 accept the Forty-two Articles, there seems no reason why it 
 should have objected to sanction Edward's Second Prayer 
 Book, to which it is generally allowed to have been opposed. 
 Now not only were Articles put forth, as " agreed upon by 
 Bishops and learned men in the Synod of London," but a 
 Catechism also, " bearing the name of this honourable 
 Synod." 73 This was complained of by Weston, the Prolo- 
 cutor of Convocation, in the first year of Queen Mary ; and 
 the majority of members subscribed their names to a state- 
 ment, " that it was not of that House's agreement set forth." 
 To whom Philpot replied, " That he thought they were de- 
 ceived in the title of the Catechism, in that it beareth the 
 title of the Synod of London last before this, although many 
 of them, which then were present, were never made privy 
 thereof in setting it forth ; for that this House had granted 
 the authority to make Ecclesiastical Laws unto certain per- 
 sons to be appointed by the King's Majesty ; and whatsoever 
 Ecclesiastical Laws they or the most part of them did set 
 forth, according to a statute on that behalf provided, it might 
 be well said to be done in the Synod of London, although 
 
 72 Hist, of Reform, p. 121. 73 Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 16. 
 
NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY. 269 
 
 such as be of this House now, had no notice thereof before 
 the promulgation." 74 
 
 The fairness of this proceeding depends, then, upon the 
 nature of the sanction, which Convocation is alleged to have 
 given. But its Records show, that its concurrence in the re- 
 vision of the Ecclesiastical Laws did not imply any transfer 
 of its authority in putting forth doctrinal Formularies. The 
 Lower House petitioned 75 " that it be provided, that the 
 Ecclesiastical Laws be examined and promulged, according to 
 the Act of Parliament, 35 Henry VIII. c. 19." And even 
 the Act of Parliament, on which the real power of the Com- 
 missioners was dependent, was far from giving them that 
 unlimited right of putting out doctrinal Formularies, which is 
 pretended. The Act (continued by 3, 4 Edw. VI. 11,) pro- 
 vided that " such Laws Ecclesiastical, so compiled, gathered, 
 and ordered by the said thirty persons, or the more number of 
 
 them shall be taken for the King's Ecclesiastical Laws 
 
 of this realm." It was a gross unfairness to represent either 
 Parliament or Convocation as responsible for all the publica- 
 tions which might emanate from such a body. The preten- 
 sion shows how unscrupulous an use was made of the name of 
 Convocation ; and the reason given for it explains apparently 
 on what principle Articles, respecting which nothing could be 
 said but that they were agreed upon by " Bishops and cer- 
 tain other learned men," were yet connected with the Synod 
 of London. When Weston objected that "there be fifty, 
 which witnessing that they were of the number of that Con- 
 vocation, never heard of that Catechism," Cranmer could only 
 reply : " I was ignorant of the setting to of that title ; and as 
 soon as I had knowledge thereof, I did not like it : therefore, 
 when I complained thereof to the Council, it was answered 
 me by them, that the Book was so entitled, because it was 
 set forth in the time of the Convocation." r6 
 
 There is no evidence, then, that either the Prayer Book or 
 the Articles were sanctioned by the Church's representatives, 
 when they were originally put forth in the time of Edward : 
 
 74 Id. " Wilkins, iv. 15. 
 
 76 Disputation with Chedsey, Jenkyn's Cranmer, iv. 65. 
 
270 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY, ETC. 
 
 on the contrary, there is good reason for supposing that they 
 were not. It was the same when the Prayer Book was again 
 introduced in the first year of Elizabeth. And even the 
 Thirty-nine Articles, though not submitted to Convocation 
 till it had been purged of opponents by the removal of those 
 who scrupled to take the oath of Supremacy, were not sanc- 
 tioned by the clergy of both provinces, as their title would 
 seem to indicate, but only by the clergy of the Southern 
 Province, and the Bishops of both. The clergy of the North- 
 ern Province, having met like their brethren, Jan. 12th, 1562, 
 were immediately adjourned to Feb. 5th, 77 before which time 
 everything appears to have been decided. The reason may, 
 perhaps, have been, that the deprivations had fallen principally 
 upon the dignitaries and the Cathedral clergy, who consti- 
 tute the majority of the Southern Convocation, so that the 
 deputies of the Parochial clergy, who form the majority in 
 the Northern Province, were less to be depended upon. And 
 it is observable, that the Northern Convocation had stood out 
 longer against the admission of Henry's Supremacy, than 
 their southern brethern.. 
 
 It cannot be affirmed, then, that the separation of the 
 Church in England from that of the rest of Christendom, 
 was her own voluntary act ; or that it was brought about by 
 the free action of her spiritual rulers. It was effected by 
 the strong arm of the Civil Power, aided by the efforts of a 
 party, which desired entire emancipation from the bonds of 
 spiritual authority ; and accelerated by the existence of those 
 abuses, which the Church's worldly prosperity, and the rude- 
 ness and ignorance of the times, had engendered. But had 
 it been otherwise, it would have been untrue to allege either 
 that the position of the early British Church justified the 
 Church of England in severing herself from the rest of Chris- 
 tendom, or that she had any peculiar claim to the heritage 
 of her Celtic predecessor. But in truth she did not sever 
 herself from the rest of the world : she yielded but an enforced 
 and equivocal assent to the demands of Henry ; and the Su- 
 premacy of Elizabeth was imposed by the State in opposition 
 to her solemn protest. So that every one who assents to that 
 77 Wilkins, ir. 243. 
 
THE GREEK CHURCH NO JUSTIFICATION. 271 
 
 
 
 claim, by binding himself to the like submission, must take 
 this step on his own individual judgment ; and is opposing 
 the recorded conviction of the English Clergy, as well as the 
 belief of collective Christendom. 
 
 So much respecting the authority of the ancient British 
 Church : that of the Greek Church may be dismissed more 
 speedily. For however effective may be its testimony against 
 the Church of Rome, its witness on behalf of the Church of 
 England amounts to nothing. So that though it may be an 
 useful weapon for those who deny that any such thing exists 
 as Church-authority ; it cannot be relied upon by those who 
 desire to construct any system of belief, or hope to see any 
 positive opinions prevail among mankind. Such seems the 
 natural result of the three following considerations. 1st. 
 The main doctrinal opposition between the Greek Church 
 and the Church of Rome respects the Procession of the Holy 
 Ghost. Now, on this point the Church of England is com- 
 mitted to the self-same principles as the Church of Rome. 
 For she retains the same Creed which she receivecf while yet 
 in communion with the residue of the West. The symbol of 
 St. Athanasius binds her as much as it ever did ; and sepa- 
 rates England from Greece, no less effectually than it sepa- 
 rates Rome. This is one of those parts of our faith, which 
 was received originally on the authority of the Apostolic 
 See, and w r hich is retained in our separation from it. If 
 Catholicity, then, means communion with the residue of the 
 Church, how are we benefitted by the separation of Rome 
 from Greece, since the Church of England can communicate 
 with neither ? 
 
 2ndly. As the Church of England is opposed to Greece in 
 that particular in which Greece is most opposed to Rome, so 
 in all those points of doctrine in which she is opposed to 
 Rome, she is equally opposed to Greece. For there is hardly 
 a tenet in which she has departed from the popular Creed of 
 the Western Church, in which the Eastern Church would 
 not condemn her. How can we profess to be in communion, 
 then, with the Eastern Church, when the Easterns agree with 
 Rome respecting those very doctrines, which the Church of 
 England has been disputing for the last three centuries ? 
 
272 THE GREEK CHUKCH NO JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 
 
 3rdly. There is a Bishop resident in the East, who is 
 called " the Bishop of the United Church of England and 
 Ireland in Jerusalem." The Queen has been "graciously 
 pleased to assign Syria, Chaldaea, Egypt, and Abyssinia, as 
 the limit within which the said Bishop may exercise spiritual 
 jurisdiction." " His spiritual jurisdiction" extends " over 
 the English clergy and congregations, and over those who 
 may join his Church, and place themselves under his Epis- 
 copal authority." 78 This Bishop has received various de- 
 serters from the Greek Church, and formed them into what 
 he calls Protestant congregations. And when some clergy- 
 men in England complained of this act, the four Metropoli- 
 tans of England and Ireland put forward a statement, in 
 which they justified the Bishop, or at least expressed no dis- 
 satisfaction at his conduct. Neither have any of their Suf- 
 fragans protested against such acts either in them or him ; 
 nor have they been objected to by Convocation. How, then, 
 can it be said that the Church of England is in communion 
 with the Church of Greece, any more than with that of 
 Rome ? So that whatever use may be made of the Greek 
 Church as a weapon against our opponents, it is useless for 
 the purpose of justifying ourselves. Those who believe that 
 God has His Church in the world, and that its purpose is to 
 teach truth, will not be satisfied with arguments which are 
 simply destructive, and which result only in the overthrow 
 of all authority. 
 
 78 Stephens's Statutes, p. 2151. 
 
273 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 RESULTS OF THE ANGLICAN SYSTEM OF CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 
 
 OF the results of the Anglican system of Church-authority 
 I shah 1 say little, because it is painful to bring an accusation 
 against the system in which I have been brought up, and in 
 which I had hoped to die. But it is impossible not to notice 
 shortly the effect of that separation from the rest of Christen- 
 dom, which the acceptance of the Royal Supremacy involved, 
 I will first observe, how completely the Church of England 
 has taken her character from the three Dynasties, under 
 which it has been her fortune to live ; and then notice the 
 effect of her present position upon the question of Church- 
 authority. 
 
 Since England was separated from the Successor of St. 
 Peter, the throne has been occupied successively by the 
 Tudor, Stuart, and Hanoverian Families. The first asserted 
 absolute authority for themselves ; the second recognized 
 the Church as a Divine institution, yet on the condition that 
 it must receive its commission through the Sovereign, whose 
 right was also of Divine origin ; the third has allowed the 
 principles of pure Private Judgment to predominate. These, 
 therefore, have been the systems, which have severally 
 prevailed in the Church of England, which, on the whole, 
 has always reflected the principles of the reigning power ; 
 and the last of them has the ascendancy at the present 
 moment. 
 
 The circumstances mentioned in the last chapter show the 
 absolute power, which was claimed and exercised by the 
 
 T 
 
274 EESULTS OF THE 
 
 Tudors. Elizabeth, as well as Edward, imposed Articles, 
 and enacted Canons by her own power. She is known to 
 have made important additions to the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 after they had been agreed upon by the clergy ; and in her 
 " Injunctions" she claimed the same power, which had been 
 possessed by her father and brother. To say, as her " In- 
 junctions " l proceed to do, that this was no more than the 
 ancient Supremacy, which had originally belonged to the 
 Crown, is an untenable assertion ; for what English Sovereign 
 before Henry VIII. had taken upon him to excommunicate, 
 or to decide questions of doctrine on appeal, or to set forth 
 Articles of Faith ? The estimate at that time formed of the 
 Royal Supremacy is attested by the declaration of the Twelve 
 Judges, shortly after Elizabeth's death, that " the King, 
 without Parliament, might make orders and constitutions for 
 the government of the clergy, and might deprive them, if 
 they obeyed not." 2 " So that independently of the powers 
 acknowledged in the statute, there was yet in reserve within 
 the capacious bosom of the common law, an undefined autho- 
 rity, which being similar in its character, might also be equal 
 in its amount, to the omnipotence of Rome." 3 
 
 This absolute authority over the Church, which had been 
 secured to Elizabeth by express statute (1 Eliz. c. 2. s. 26,) 
 and which the judges determined in Cawdry's case to be 
 inherent in the Crown, had been fully admitted both by 
 the Church and the nation. Parliament acknowledged 
 the Queen's right to make such reforms as she pleased 
 " by her supreme power and authority over the Church of 
 England;" 4 and the feeling which prevailed among the 
 Churchmen of his day is explained by Hooker. " There is 
 required an universal power, which reacheth over all, import- 
 ing supreme authority of government over all courts, all 
 judges, all causes ; the operation of which power is as well 
 to strengthen, maintain, and uphold particular jurisdictions, 
 which haply might else be of small effect, as also to remedy 
 that, which they are not able to help, and to redress that 
 wherein they at any time do otherwise than they ought to 
 
 1 Wilkins, iv. 188. * Cardwell's Doc. Ann. Pref. p. ri. 
 
 ' Id. p. xi. Id. p. xii. 
 
ANGLICAN SYSTEM. 275 
 
 do. This power being sometime in the Bishop of Rome, 
 who by sinister practices had drawn it into his hands, was 
 for just considerations by public consent annexed unto the 
 King's royal seat and crown." 5 And, therefore, Hooker felt 
 himself compelled to deny that, which had been maintained 
 by the concurrent judgment of Antiquity ; that God " hath 
 appointed" "the ministry of the Church alone to have" 
 " principality of judgment in Church-matters ;" " therefore, 
 it may not from them be translated to the civil magistrate." 6 
 
 This absolute control of the Sovereign over the Church 
 was somewhat modified under the Stuarts. Either the wish 
 to take more defensible ground against Rome, or the growth 
 of juster sentiments in themselves, induced James I. and 
 still more his son, to recognize the Church as a Divine Body, 
 which, though incomplete without the Sovereign, yet by his 
 concurrence gained the powers of a substantive whole. This 
 is the principle expressed in Charles the First's Declaration 7 
 respecting the Articles, A. D. 1628 ; and it led to a revival 
 of the powers of Convocation, which had been comparatively 
 inactive during the reign of Elizabeth. This, therefore, was 
 the period at which the Anglican theory of Church-authority 
 was developed, and defended both against the Puritans and 
 against Rome. Its opposition to the former is exhibited 
 especially in the Canons of 1603; and the learning and abil- 
 ities of Andrewes, Laud, Bramhall, Mason, and others, were 
 exerted against the latter. 
 
 Now, it has been already observed, that the Anglican 
 system of Church-authority is open to the very same objec- 
 tions, which were alleged against the Donatists. For \vhat 
 right had the Bishops of a single Province to legislate inde- 
 pendently in matters of faith 1 The excuse was, that as a 
 chemical solution will crystallize into the same shape, when 
 poured into any vessel where its ingredients can act freely, 
 so the clergy of each nation retained that gift of inerrancy 
 which belonged by God's promise to the Universal Church, 
 because the Royal Supremacy consolidated them into a whole, 
 and thus enabled them to speak with authority. On no 
 
 3 Eccles. Pol. viii. 8, 4. * Id. viii, 8, 6. 
 
 7 Card well's Doc. Ann. vol ii. p. 172. 
 
276 RESULTS OF THE 
 
 other principle could it be maintained to be a " wicked error" 
 to affirm "that any of the Nine-and-thirty Articles" is "in 
 any part erroneous/' or for persons to " maintain, that there 
 are within this realm other meetings, assemblies, or congre- 
 gations of the King's born subjects, than such as by the laws 
 of this land are held and allowed, which may rightly chal- 
 lenge to themselves the name of true and lawful Churches." 
 As the cause of Christendom, then, was vindicated against 
 the Donatists by those internal divisions, which St. Augustin 
 speaks of as a "judgment" 8 against them, so the Anglican 
 system was overthrown by those domestic dissensions against 
 which the lack of Catholicity rendered it helpless. For 
 how could the British Episcopate censure the Puritans for 
 separating from their communion, when they were sepa- 
 rated themselves from the communion of Christendom ? So 
 that their coercive measures produced the same effect, which 
 the Council of Carthage speaks of, as resulting from the 
 conduct of the Donatists towards their Maximian separatists : 
 " Where they have a divine proof, if they choose to attend 
 to it, that they are as censurable themselves for their sepa- 
 ration from the unity of the Church, as they complain that 
 the Maximians are censurable for making a division from 
 them." 9 
 
 The opposition to the High-Commission Court, and its 
 destruction by the Long Parliament, were the necessary 
 results, therefore, of that division from the rest of Chris- 
 tendom, which made the attempt to enforce religious agree- 
 ment unreasonable, as well as oppressive. But the Anglican 
 system did not finally fall, till the league between the Clergy 
 and the King was dissolved by James II. The two last 
 Stuart Princes were conscious that a claim was made in 
 their names, which they had no right to advance. Their 
 exile on the Continent must have showed them the unten- 
 ableness of a territorial religion ; and James refused to live 
 
 8 Maximian enses, divino judicio, ad eos in omnibus confundendos, et, si 
 sapiant, corrigendos, appositi. Con. Crescon. iii. 76. vid. also iv. 69. 
 
 9 Monumenta Vet. xlv. Galland. v. 564. St. Augustin says, " Horrere 
 homines, et graviter detestari, quod etiam se ipsi in multa scismata diviserunt 
 et maxime in Africre capite et notissima civitate Carthagene." De Bap. c. 
 Don. ii. 16. 
 
ANGLICAN SYSTEM. 277 
 
 in a system, in which his brother had been afraid to die. 
 And now, therefore, it was discovered that the Supremacy, 
 as interpreted by the Crown lawyers, was wholly different 
 from any authority which the Crown had anciently possessed. 
 Stillingfleet 10 proved the High-Commission Court, when 
 restored by James II. to be illegal, and showed the erro- 
 neousness of Lord Coke's assertion, that the Crown had 
 exercised the power of excommunication before the Refor- 
 mation. This was virtually to overthrow the whole system 
 of Anglican Church-discipline ; for it has never had any 
 real effect upon the nation at large, except when backed by 
 that strong-handed associate. But a more important circum- 
 stance still was, that the dynasty which succeeded, possessed 
 only a Parliamentary, not a hereditary title ; and ruled, there- 
 fore, through such ministers, as had the confidence of Par- 
 liament. Henceforth the Supremacy of the Crown meant 
 the Supremacy of a Parliamentary Sovereign. And Par- 
 liament consisted in part of Dissenters, to whom William 
 of Orange and his successors looked as their most trusted 
 supporters. 
 
 Whereas Elizabeth, 11 then, had been despotic, and the 
 Stuarts Anglo-Catholic, their successors were essentially Pro- 
 testant. The Tudors had required all persons to agree with 
 themselves ; the Stuarts, with their Bishops ; but William of 
 Orange was indifferent what men believed, provided they 
 differed from the Pope. The oath of Supremacy, under 
 Elizabeth, had affirmed that the Pope neither did, nor ought 
 to possess, any spiritual authority in England ; and, also, that 
 the final authority in spiritual causes belonged exclusively to 
 the Crown. The first of these statements was expunged from 
 the oath by 1 William and Mary, 8, because it interfered with 
 the freedom of judgment which was claimed by Dissenters 
 for themselves. So that the Crown gave up that right of 
 judging in spiritual matters which Henry VIII. had won from 
 10 Stillingfleet of Eccles. Juris, c. 2, and Gibson's Codex, i. p. 44. 
 
 11 When Elizabeth was asked to tolerate, she replied, " that it was not with 
 her safety, honour, and credit, to permit diversity of opinions in a kingdom 
 where none but she and 'her Council governed." Strype's Ann. v. i. p. i. c. 4. 
 p. 128. 
 
 King Charles says of the Articles, " agreed upon by the Clergy :" " from 
 which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree." 
 
278 RESULTS OF THE 
 
 the Church, and made it over solemnly to its subjects. And 
 Private Judgment has ever since been the real system, which 
 has prevailed in England. 
 
 Yet this statement must be taken with one important 
 exception. For the laws, obligations, and oaths under which 
 Churchmen live, continue precisely the same which they were, 
 while a single system of belief was enforced upon the nation. 
 Every one who is admitted to the Priesthood promises to 
 " administer the discipline of Christ," "as this Church and 
 Realm hath received the same." He subscribes to the state- 
 ment that "the King's Majesty" "is the only supreme Gover- 
 nor" " in all spiritual things or causes." The Ecclesiastical 
 Laws assume every baptized person, who lives within the 
 limits of this country, to be a member of the Church. He is 
 so dealt with by our Ecclesiastical Courts, and in return they 
 compel the clergy to deal so with him. However notorious 
 his schism, or gross his unbelief, the Church's courts re- 
 quire the minister, in whose parish he dies, to use words 
 at his burial which imply him to have been her consistent 
 member. Neither can this system be given up, without an 
 abandonment of those defences which our great Divines have 
 constructed against Rome. For they proceed upon the sup- 
 position, that there is an identity between the Church and 
 the nation, so that the Sovereign, as being naturally the 
 head of the one, is of necessity the head also of the other. 
 This circumstance, as has been seen, is alleged to give the 
 English clergy that unity which forms them into a whole, 
 and were it withdrawn, what authority would there be for 
 those Articles of Faith, from which the Canons affirm it to 
 be wicked for an Englishman to dissent ? 
 
 There are reasons, therefore, why the Church of England 
 should choose to retain those engagements, which belonged 
 to an earlier stage of her history ; for otherwise she must aban- 
 don the defences which were raised for her by learned and 
 able men, and renounce her alleged identity with the ancient 
 Church. Yet how is it possible to make these declarations, 
 without feeling, that if they do not assert falsehood, they at 
 least palter with truth? For how can the Crown be alleged 
 in any true sense to be the Spiritual Head of the nation ? 
 
ANGLICAN SYSTEM. 279 
 
 Not only does it allow Roman Catholics and Dissenters to 
 teach their several systems ; but by their admission into Par- 
 liament, they have acquired a place in the Sovereignty itself. 
 Our gracious Queen may be only of two religions (those 
 which are established in England and Scotland,) but of 
 the sects which are represented in Parliament the name is 
 legion. To assert the Sovereign, therefore, to be " Supreme 
 Governor" "in spiritual causes," when that Sovereign is a 
 Parliamentary Sovereign, and Parliament represents a divi- 
 ded nation, is to attribute an office to the Crown which it 
 cannot really exercise, and of which it is illusory to speak. 
 
 And hence the practical system of the Church of England 
 is one of pure private judgment. In the time of the Tudors 
 and Stuarts the Church seemed to come before the world as 
 a living body, because the Royal Supremacy was alive and 
 active ; at present the Church does nothing as a body, but 
 leaves individuals to act as they will for themselves. Dif- 
 ferent parties teach as they please, agreeing in nothing but 
 to charge one another with error and dishonesty : while the 
 Bishops in general seem to sit by as umpires of the fray. 
 Those whose converse is only with books, and who live in that 
 circle of thoughts, which is suggested by our great Divines, 
 may imagine that the Church of England has one consistent 
 system of teaching, and inculcates a single body of truth; 
 but experience dissipates the delusion, and shows such hopes 
 to be like those of the Tartar Conqueror, who discarded 
 morning and evening prayer, because he imagined himself to 
 have reached the land of eternal sunshine. 
 
 The worst effect of such disappointment is, that it induces 
 men to acquiesce in this state of things as a necessary evil ; 
 and thus destroys their belief in the teaching office of the 
 Church. Perceiving that the Church of England is content 
 to assert that this function pertains to her, without discharg- 
 ing it, they take for granted that its exercise is neither neces- 
 sary nor possible. And the minds of men gradually accom- 
 modate themselves to their position ; a new explanation is 
 devised for every new difficulty. We have had a recent ex- 
 ample in the Gorham Case. When it was first decided that 
 
280 RESULTS OF THE 
 
 the validity of Baptism was to be left an open question in the 
 Church of England, many persons expressed their conviction, 
 that to allow an Article of Faith to be denied, was to abandon 
 the principle of authority, and, therefore, to lose that which 
 was essential to the vitality of the Church. But a few years 
 have accustomed men to this, as to other evils; they observe 
 that if the Church allows error to be taught by her ministers, 
 she is equally willing to allow them to teach the truth ; and 
 that they are as much at liberty as before to put any inter- 
 pretation, which they please, upon her Formularies. So that 
 this celebrated decision has but given additional support to 
 that principle of Private Judgment, which already prevailed. 
 Indeed, we may be surprised that men were so much agi- 
 tated when they found that the Church of England would 
 allow error to be taught in respect to one of the two great 
 sacraments ; since in respect to the other it has never been 
 alleged, that she does more than tolerate truth. For why 
 should the doctrine of the Keal Presence, and of the Euchar- 
 istic Sacrifice, be a less essential part of Catholic truth than 
 the doctrine of Baptismal Grace ? There was no reason why 
 those who were aware that these momentous doctrines were 
 only tolerated in the Church of England, should be greatly 
 moved, when they found that in the case of Baptism also 
 she did no more than tolerate the truth. The event, after all, 
 did but disclose, rather than alter her position, by exhibiting 
 a striking and novel instance of her system. 
 
 Now, if it be true, as was believed in early times, that the 
 Primacy was bestowed by Our Lord upon His chief Apostle, 
 with an especial view of enabling His Church to teach as a 
 corporate body, such a state of things must be looked upon as 
 the natural consequences of its denial. Why should we wonder 
 at the uncertainty and division which prevail around us, when 
 we have discarded that provision, which was specifically ap- 
 pointed for their prevention ? And it is instructive to observe 
 that exactly the same set of evils were encountered, when, 
 the same experiment of isolation from the rest of Christendom 
 was attempted by a single Province in ancient days. S$, 
 Augustin's language respecting the Donatists, and the man- 
 ner in which they gradually became accustomed to the spec- 
 
ANGLICAN SYSTEM. 281 
 
 tacle of division, till their consciousness of the necessity of 
 Christian unity was effaced, might be applied directly to many 
 among ourselves. "How many, as we well know, were 
 already wishing to be Catholics, having been aroused by the 
 obvious call of truth, but out of respect to their friends, put 
 off the giving offence to them from day to day ! How many 
 were held, not by truth, to which you have never trusted, but 
 by the heavy bond of obdurate custom ; so that in them 
 was fulfilled the divine statement, ' a stubborn servant will 
 not be corrected by words ; for though he understand, he will 
 not . hearken !' How many, too, thought that the party of 
 Donatus was the true Church, because their security made 
 them torpid, fastidious, and tardy in recognizing Catholic 
 truth ! How many ears were stopped by the tales of slander- 
 ers, who alleged that it was some strange offering that we 
 presented on the altar of God ! How many, believing that 
 it did not matter to what body a man belonged, provided he 
 were a Christian, remained in the party of Donatus, because 
 they had been born there, and because no one compelled 
 them to depart thence, and to pass over to the Catholic 
 Church 1" 12 
 
 So completely have the feelings, which these last words 
 express, become predominant in England, that separation 
 from the rest of Christendom is hardly felt to be an evil, or 
 the absence of Church-authority admitted to be a loss. So 
 that if the State were to release its captive, and having de- 
 tained her as long as suited its purpose, were now to strip 
 and turn her out of doors (of which there are not wanting 
 indications,) it may be doubted whether the result would be 
 any increased Catholicity of action or unity of doctrine. For 
 what would take the place of State-restraint, but the vague- 
 ness of popular will ? The doctrines of the Catholic Faith 
 ought not to be left to bodies of lay-delegates, any more than 
 to Kings and Parliaments ; they were entrusted by Our Lord 
 to the collective Episcopate ; and to subject them to popular 
 vote, is only to bring in the principle of Private Judgment 
 on a larger scale. But the future of the Church of England, 
 
 12 Epist. xciii. 1 7. 
 
282 RESULTS OF THE 
 
 if she were discarded by the State, may be understood by the 
 condition of the Church in America, which only reflects the 
 contests, which rage among ourselves, without that claim to 
 Nationality, on which the authority of the English Bishops 
 has professedly been grounded. 
 
 And yet it may be said, that to return to the ancient 
 system of Catholic Unity is impossible ; that nations do not 
 thus retrace their steps, nor the waves of time flow backward. 
 This may be true. Prophecy does not tell us that time will 
 of necessity give the ascendancy to truth : " Evil men and 
 seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being de- 
 ceived." But the whole objective system of Christianity 
 hangs together, and it may be doubted whether the revolt of 
 the human mind is not as fatal to each particular doctrine, as 
 to the unity of the whole. There are some doctrines, no 
 doubt, which are so remote from practice, or so accordant 
 with the inclinations of a civilized age, that they are more 
 readily accepted than denied. And customs may be allowed 
 to retain their place out of deference to ancient habit, when 
 their significance is lost. For what does it cost men to 
 practise Baptism, if it be affirmed to be only a harmless 
 custom, or to recognize Episcopacy, if it does not impose 
 restraints upon their faith, or to commemorate the death of 
 the world's great benefactor by a pious usage ? The diffi- 
 culty is when these things become realities, which demand 
 belief, and affect men's lives. And then it will be found that 
 Baptismal .Regeneration, and the Real Presence, and the 
 Authority of the Episcopate, are as hard to maintain as St. 
 Peter's Primacy ; and that the first are not practically be- 
 lieved by any large body of men, by whom the last is denied. 
 For these doctrines cannot be maintained, unless we recog- 
 nize the authority of Antiquity ; and the ancient Fathers 
 teach no doctrine of the Church more clearly than the pre- 
 eminence of the chief Apostle. 
 
 After all, however, men may say, the authority of Scripture 
 will remain, and what harm is there in falling back upon 
 Private Judgment, so long as we limit ourselves to the 
 Sacred Text I But it has been shown in the beginning of 
 this volume, that with the Church's authority, the authority 
 
ANGLICAN SYSTEM. 283 
 
 of Holy Scripture must fall also. Individuals may be con- 
 tent to take it as their guide, without inquiring into its pre- 
 tensions, but it cannot permanently influence nations, unless 
 it retains an authoritative claim to their respect. So that it 
 is idle to set up Holy Scripture against the Church, when it 
 is only through the Church's judgment that we are assured of 
 its authority. The Christian system came forth originally 
 as a living whole, in which teaching and action were indis- 
 solubly united ; and it is impossible to break up the unity 
 of the Body, without abandoning the oneness of the faith. 
 
 And now, then, to sum up the results, at which we have 
 arrived. It has been shown, by the testimony of those who 
 lived before us, that Our Lord not only taught doctrines, 
 but founded a Church. To this Church He was pleased to 
 commit the especial function of interpreting that system, 
 which He delivered to mankind. He qualified it for such 
 an office, by rendering it the habitation of that Divine Spirit, 
 which had dwelt without measure in the temple of His own 
 Humanity, and was pleased to take up Its perpetual abode 
 in His Body Mystical, the Church. Such is the statement 
 of those who have delivered to us an account of Our Lord's 
 nature and actions ; and unless this capacity of judgment 
 had been possessed by the Church, we could have no evidence 
 of the inspiration of that Sacred Volume, which contains the 
 records of our faith. For it was the Church's judgment 
 which stamped it with authority ; and in its turn it confirms 
 that which Antiquity had previously witnessed respecting 
 the authority of the Church. The Church's authority, then, 
 depends on that presence of the Spirit, which gives it life. 
 This authority had resided first in its completeness in the 
 Person of Our Lord, when He was manifest in the Flesh. 
 He was pleased to bestow it in a plenary manner on the 
 College of His Apostles. From them it has descended to 
 their successors, the Bishops throughout the world. But to 
 preserve the unity of this wide-spread commission, Our Lord 
 was pleased to give an especial promise to one of His 
 Apostles, and to bestow upon him a name and office derived 
 from Himself. And as the Episcopal College at large suc- 
 ceeded to the Apostles, so was there one Bishop, whom the 
 
284 RESULTS OF THE ANGLICAN SYSTEM. 
 
 Universal Church believed from the first to be the successor 
 of St. Peter. Hence was he spoken of in ancient times, as 
 discharging that function among the rulers of the Church- 
 Catholic, which was discharged among his brethren by the 
 chief Apostle. The successor of St. Peter is declared by 
 those General Councils, which are admitted by all Catholics, 
 to be the representative of him, who was the bond of unity, 
 and Rock of the Church. And hence, as the circle of Chris- 
 tendom grew wider, and its unity could not be maintained 
 without a stronger principle of centralization, it was through 
 this influence that the oneness of the Catholic Body was per- 
 petuated ; and the Primacy of St. Peter ripened into the 
 Supremacy of the Pope. 
 
 But now comes a change. There arises a powerful mon- 
 arch in a remote land, who resolves to separate the Church of 
 his nation from the unity of Christendom. He effects his 
 purpose by force or fraud, and bids it recognize a new'princi- 
 ple of unity in himself. He passes to his account, and his 
 children rule after him. But this new principle of unity is 
 found in time to be insufficient. No sooner is the grasp of 
 the civil ruler relaxed, than a host of parties divide the land. 
 The very thought of unity, and hope of concord, is gradually 
 lost. The national Church is surrounded by sects, and torn 
 by dissensions. Intra muros peccatur et extra. And can it 
 be doubted what advice would be given to its children by 
 that great Saint, who looked forth upon a somewhat similar 
 spectacle in his native land ; and whose life was expended in 
 winning back his brethren one by one to the unity of Chris- 
 tendom ? He did not think that the national unity of Africa 
 was any pledge of safety to the Donatists ; or that the num- 
 ber and succession of their Bishops entitled them to respect. 
 " Come, brethren, if you wish to be inserted in the vine ; for 
 we grieve, when we see you lie thus cut off from it. Number 
 the Bishops from the very seat of Peter, and in that list of 
 Fathers see what has been the succession ; this is the rock, 
 against which the proud gates of Hell do not prevail." 13 
 13 Psalm, c. Don. S. Aug. ix. 7. 
 
 John and Charles Mozley, Printers, Derby. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 tfSAll 
 
 ' ON SLL 
 
 ' 
 
 FEB 8 1996 
 
 r<t U -L> 
 
 
 
 
 UEC 22 19&2 
 
 
 74" 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 RiSCE.Wfc^ ^ 
 
 
 oeCt 2*66-2?^ 
 
 
 , , )AH D&P^* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ft&Ur^ 60 Un^o^Sni. 
 
709280 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 YC 44877 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY