a
BERKELEY'S
LIBRARY
UNiVF.FT
CAUK
A,
mm
3
REASONS
FOR
ACKNOWLEDGING THE AUTHORITY
HOLY ROMAN SEE.
' GETHSEMANI ABBEY,
GETHSEMANI, P.O. KY.
BY
HENRY MAJOR,
Late a Clergyman of the Frotestant Episcopal Church.
~^ — i^~
The Root and Matrix of the Catholic Church.— St. Ctprian.
Whoever is united with the See of Peter is mine.— St. Jehomk.
m
PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR
1846.
m
: #
LOAN STACK
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by
HENRY MAJOR,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
m
£Xito<r
-
INSCRIBED,
MOST RESPECTFULLY,
TO THE
RIGHT REV. FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, D. D.,
BISHOP OF PHILADELPHIA,
IN WHOM THE AUTHOR HAD THE CONSOLATION TO FIND
MORE THAN A FATHER
IN THE MOST MOMENTOUS PERIOD
OF HIS LIFE.
fl|
814
4
PREFACE.
It is already known to most of those into whose hands this vol-
ume may fall, that the author has recently been received into the
Catholic Church.
When one who has occupied the responsible and somewhat promi-
nent position of a religious teacher, withdraws from the society
with. which he was so long connected, and joins a communion so en-
tirely different, a proper respect for those whom he has left as well
as for himself, seems to demand a public statement of the reasons
by which he has been influenced. In accordance with this princi-
ple, the following work has been prepared.
The author was desirous to exhibit the proof by which, as he
feels assured, each of the peculiar dogmas of the Catholic Church
can be sustained. But finding that this could not be done within
the compass of a volume of ordinary size, he determined to confine
his remarks to one prominent point, which more or less involves all
the rest, that is, the authority of the Holy Roman See as the divinely
ordained instrument of unity and government in the church mili-
tant.
The point selected has been argued according to the acknowledged
rule of Anglican divines, of appealing to the concurrent testimony
of " Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors." It is true, that in the
first part of the work an argument has been drawn from probability,
necessity, and other grounds of a general nature, after the manner
of those who undertake to prove that a Divine Revelation has been
granted to mankind. But, nevertheless, it is upon the combined
testimony of Scripture and the Fathers that he chiefly relies. The
course of reasoning employed in the first Chapter is merely prepa-
ratory and subsidiary. And while it is believed that it alone would
be sufficient, if the Scriptures and the Fathers were silent upon the
point, yet, inasmuch as these have spoken in the affirmative in the
clearest and most peremptory manner, of course the former must
occupy an inferior and subordinate place.
Besides the classes of proofs just mentioned, which are resorted
to in the following work, there are many presumptive evidences,
and various outward notes or signs, which plainly indicate that the
body of Christians recognizing the universal authority of the Holy
See is the Apostolical and Catholic Church. Upon these, however,
the author has not dwelt ; chiefly because he wished to preserve to
the work as far as could be conveniently done, the character of
unity.
It is the peculiar attribute of truth, in almost every department
of knowledge, that it is corroborated by proof drawn from various
sources. In this attribute the Catholic religion participates in an
uncommon measure. The variety, number, and weight of the
proofs which unite in its support, impart to the mind of him who
duly considers them, a degree of conviction equal to that which
mathematical demonstration affords.
It cannot detract from the force of the evidence that it has re-
mained unknown in its practical influence for so many years. This
can be easily made apparent ; for, first, although the evidences in
favor of the truth of Christianity are unquestionably most complete
and overwhelming, yet very intelligent persons have, in some in-
stances, failed to realize their force until the latter stage of a long
life. And, secondly, while Protestant Churchmen will agree that
the evidence in favor of Episcopacy is of the strongest nature, yet
many intelligent persons, and persons versed in theology and eccle-
siastical history, have lived and died without recognizing its truth.
And lastly, although all will agree that either on the Protestant or
Catholic side the evidence is most abundant, yet on both sides are
found persons of education, wisdom, and age; and persons, too,
whose lives have been spent in pursuits of an ecclesiastical nature.
That an individual, then, has not at an earlier period recognized
the force of the evidence in favor of the Catholic Church, cannot be
fairly urged as an objection, either against that evidence or against
his change of religion grounded thereon. The apparent difficulty is
easily explained by the prejudices of education, or by a want of
thorough and impartial examination and inquiry.
It should be remembered, however, that the author in his transi-
tion to the Catholic Church has not renounced any article of faith
which he formerly held. The Apostles' and Nicene creeds he of
course still holds, and holds, he trusts, with a more scriptural, ra-
tional, and solid faith than before. And it is unnecessary to say
that he likewise still holds those doctrines which separate Protes-
tant Episcopalians from other Protestant Communions, viz : the
doctrines of the divine institution of Episcopacy and of Apostolical
Succession. He does indeed hold more than he held before ; but he
has not discarded any positive doctrine to which he formerly as-
sented. His change is one of progression and addition — not a change
from one ('octriae to its contrary. He formerly held a part of the
" faith on< e delivered to the Saints" — he now holds the whole. The
objection "jmmonly urged by Protestant Churchmen against any
a<ltlition to the Creeds as ptofessed among themselves, will be ex-
amined in the course of the work.
It was, indeed, painful to sever himself from the fellowship of
those whom, as individuals, he respected and loved, and among
whom every earthly motive conspired to incline him to spend the
remainder of his days. Their kind and respectful attentions to him,
down to the moment of his secession, will always be held in grateful
remembrance ; and although he can no longer join with them in la-
boring to sustain and extend the communion with which they are
identified, yet he is ready and desirous to labor in every proper way to
promote their true happiness and ultimate salvation. He conceives
that he cannot better exhibit his undiminished affection, than by
placing before them those reasons which should induce them to seek
the bosom of their true Mother — the Catholic Church. The fol-
lowing work is therefore respectfully commended to their serious
and impartial perusal, with the fervent prayer that they may be en-
abled both to know and to do the " will of God." Surely there are
many urgent reasons which should induce Protestant Episcopalians
to give the subject a thorough examination, whether they contem-
plate their own communion or the Catholic Church. More espe-
cially are they now called to do this, by the numerous secessions
from their ranks to the Catholic Church, which have recently oc-
curred in England and this country, including a large body of clergy-
men, all of good standing, and some distinguished for their piety,
talent, learning, and position.* All these, after years of inquiry,
prayer, and reflection, have been forced by their conscientious con-
victions, to forsake the homes and companions of their youth, and to
throw themselves among strangers to begin their life anew. Of
course, it is not here intimated that the mere fact that so many have
thus acted, should induce others to do likewise. Far from it. Were
the number a hundred-fold greater, no such argument would be
val.'d. It is only meant, that their transition to the Catholic Church
should lead their former companions to institute a serious, candid,
and searching examination of the points of difference. Surely no
* Bishop Mcllvane states, that the number of these seceding clergymen
in England alone is " nearly one hundred." "Reasons for refusing to
consecrate a church having an altar." p. 6.
Vlll PREFACE.
one who has a due regard for truth, and for the salvation of his soul,
will deny this.
It is proper to remark, with regard to the authorities made use of
in the following work, that in every instance they are such as Pro-
testants acknowledge. Among the ancients, the testimonies of the
Fathers are given, to whose writings Protestant Churchmen are ac-
customed to appeal, at least when advocating Episcopacy, Infant
Baptism, &c. And among the moderns, Protestant authorities only
have been used, and almost exclusively Episcopalians.
The utmost pains have been taken to have the citations from the
fathers correct ; for this purpose the original has been carefully ex-
amined and impartially translated. It is confidently believed that
no error will be found among them, which can in the least degree
affect the point at issue. Indeed, scarcely an author has been cited,
whether ancient or modern, without an examination of the original
work, unless otherwise specified.
The author has thought best, considering the character of the
work, to make use of the Protestant version of the Holy Scriptures.
This has been done the more readily, inasmuch as his reasoning has
been based entirely upon the terms employed in the original.
With these remarks the work is submitted to the judgment of the
candid reader. Should it prove instrumental in directing only one
poor wanderer to the "one fold and one Shepherd," he will be
abundantly compensated for the labor which it has cost him.
.GETHSEMAM1. p . r .#Y.
CHAPTER I.
Reasons in favor of a Supreme Officer in the Visible Church as its
Head and Centre of Unity, drawn from the nature and design of
the Church, and also from probability and necessity, with an ex-
amination of the theory of "independent branches."
Before we proceed with the argument, it seems
proper to make a few preliminary remarks respecting
the real state of the great question involved. That
question is, whether our Blessed Lord has not insti-
tuted a supreme officer to act as His Vicar in the gov-
ernment of His church ? That the " presumption" is
wholly in favor of the affirmative of this question will
hardly be denied. It is neither a new theory nor an
old one long since exploded. It is no more than has
been held for at least twelve hundred years by a large
majority of Christians ; and, indeed, it was for many
years the received doctrine of the whole of Christen-
dom. And it is now held by a society of Christians
diffused throughout the world, claiming to be the
church, and having all the marks of the church, and
embracing within its extensive fold two-thirds of those
who profess the religion of Christ. And even within
a comparatively recent period, it was held by the
whole of western Christendom. And though it is now
rejected by many whose ancestors formerly held it,
yet the rejection has been brought about in such a
manner as to deprive it of all weight in a considera-
tion of this nature — brought about as to the Anglican
church, and by consequence as to the P. E. church,
and many other offshoots, by a despotic exercise of
the civil power in the hands of Henry VIII. and others.
It was not the result of a careful examination of
evidence either on the part of the people or of the
church, but the result of brute force. Henry quar-
2
10 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
rels with the Pope for refusing to sanction his wicked
designs ; and backed by the severest penalties which
unlimited power and cruelty could inflict, he dictates
to Parliament and to Convocation a renunciation of
the supremacy of the Pope, and an acknowledgment
of himself as the head of the English church. It is
unnecessary here to give a particular account of the
proceedings in the case. One or two facts, however,
may be mentioned as a confirmation of our remarks.
The civil authorities passed a law requiring all ec-
clesiastics to take an oath renouncing the authority of
the Pope, and acknowledging the king supreme in
matters spiritual as well as temporal, on penalty of
death for refusal. It was under this infamous law
that Sir Thomas More, one of the brightest orna-
ments of the age, was put to death ; and also Bishop
Fisher, a man of great learning and piety. (See the
History of the Church of England by one of her own
bishops — T. V. Short, chapter 4.) The latter (Bishop
Fisher) was not only ultimately put to death for refus-
ing to perjure himself by taking an oath to renounce
that spiritual authority which he had long ago sworn to
uphold, but treated for some time previously with in-
human cruelty. Short says : " Fisher was detained
in prison above a twelvemonth, and treated with a
severity which nothing can excuse ; for at the age of
fourscore he was actually in want of both clothes and
fire !" (Ibid.) Such were the arguments by which
the authority of the Pope was disproved !
Thus the old having been put to death, driven from
their country, or forced into submission, and the young
having been taught and trained to acknowledge the
ecclesiastical headship of the sovereign instead of the
Pope, it has come to pass that the doctrine in question
is now rejected by the "Church of England" and the
numerous Protestant progeny to which she has given
birth. And when men have been led by such means
to reject a given doctrine, it cannot be justly regarded
as a disparagement of that doctrine.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 11
This being the state of the question, it is manifest
that the onus probandi rests upon those who deny
the doctrine, since it has confessedly pre-occupied the
ground from time immemorial. And although pre-
sumption is of itself not conclusive, yet in this case it
must be allowed to possess no little force. It gives to
the doctrine at the outset a measure of probability
which ought at least to disarm prejudice and dispose
every candid mind in its favor. Surely the fact that
a doctrine has been practically recognized by our fore-
fathers generally from a very early period (at least,)
besides being still practically recognized by so many
millions all over the earth, and who constitute the
only society of Christians which can with the least
plausibility pretend to be the one visible church spread
(according to scripture) over the world — surely this
fact gives to that doctrine a degree of probability
which no logical mind can disregard. But lest we
should seem to attach too much importance to this
presumption, we will content ourselves with these few
remarks respecting it, and proceed at once to furnish
some reasons in favor of the doctrine.
We would urge, first, the analogy of the Jewish
church. Every one familiar with the controversy re-
specting Episcopacy, knows that it is very common
for its advocates to urge the fact that there were " three
orders" of ministers in the Jewish church according
to God's appointment — High Priest, Priests, and Le-
vites. We think that this argument may be employed
with still greater force in the present discussion.
While there were thousands of Priests and Levites,
there was but one High Priest. He was the principal
officer. He was a head or " centre of unity and au-
thority" to both Priests and Levites, and head to the
whole ecclesiastical system.* If, then, the Jewish
church was a type of the Christian church, the latter
* " The High Priest sustained the highest office in the tribe, and
ranked as the head both of Priests and Levites." — Jahn's Bib. Arch.
$ 363.
12 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
as well as the former must have one chief officer, who
shall be as a head to all the rest. And if we may de-
duce from the " three-fold ministry" of the Jewish
church an argument in favor of a similarly consti-
tuted ministry in the Christian church, we have cer-
tainly a very cogent argument in favor of one Chief
Bishop, such as the Holy Father, acknowledged by
Catholics throughout the world. Most manifestly it
is only the hierarchy, with the Bishop of Rome as its
head, that answers to the Jewish Priesthood. The
Pope occupies the place of the High Priest in the
Jewish church. Thus the analogy is exact. Take
away the Chief Bishop, and you destroy the analogy ;
the Christian church would be destitute of such an
officer as Almighty God instituted in the Jewish
church.
It will not suffice to reply to this argument that the
Jewish church was confined to one nation, while the
Christian church embraces many nations. For first,
the High Priest was not the head of the Jewish na-
tion, but of the Jewish church ; and, secondly, since
it is admitted that the Christian church is one church
as well as the Jewish, and designed, too, to unite man-
kind of various nations into one brotherhood and com-
munion, the analogy plainly holds good, and the force
of the argument remains unimpaired.
Again : A head, as a centre of unity, is obviously
a necessary part of the church as described in scrip-
ture, and indeed as defined by many who are still
separated from the Catholic church. The church is
most commonly designated in scripture as a "king-
dom." It was under this character that the prophet
Daniel foretold its institution and gradual extension
over the world. And our Lord often called His
church a kingdom, when intructing his hearers in the
doctrines of His. religion ; and finally, when about to
withdraw His visible presence, spoke of it in these
most significant words : " I appear unto you a king-
dom, as my Father appeared unto me." It was a
A VISIBLE HEAD. 13
"kingdom," then, that onr Lord committed to the ad-
ministration of the Apostolic College. But can there
be a kingdom without a chief officer as its head and
ruler ? It will not suffice to say that Jesus Christ is its
head and ruler. For although this is true in a certain
sense, yet in the only sense relevant to the point it is
not true. If our Lord presided over His kingdom in
visible person, appointed its officers, enforced its laws,
in one word, administered its affairs by His own di-
rect and personal superintendence, as is the case with
the chief sovereign of every government, then no
other head would be necessary ; but every one knows
that this is not the case. Our Lord does indeed abide
ever with His church, guiding and guarding it in an
invisible and mysterious manner. Yet every one ad-
mits that the direct management of its concerns has
been committed by Himself to human instruments.
Such being the case, if the church be a kingdom,
among the many officers employed in its administra-
tion there must of necessity be a chief officer as the
centre of rule and authority. Such an officer would
no more interfere with the spiritual headship of Christ
than other officers, which all admit that it has and
must have. These officers, whether bishops or pres-
byters, act in the place of Jesus Christ in teaching and
governing His subjects; they are indeed His vice-
gerents. And if this be not derogatory to the Su-
preme authority of Christ, neither would the perform-
ance of similar functions, though more extensively,
by one chief ruler as His vice-gerent be derogatory to
the authority of Christ. For if a portion of this king-
dom may be committed to the charge of a human
agent without any infringement of the rights of its
Divine Founder, as in the case of a diocese under its
bishop, certainly the whole may be also. For if one
part may without impropriety be committed to the
jurisdiction of one bishop, and another part to another
bishop, and so on with all the parts, then the whole
is of course, part by part, placed under the jurisdic-
14 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
tion of human agents, which, so far as it can affect
the headship of Christ, is precisely the same as if the
whole were placed under the care of one chief bishop.
Unquestionably over this kingdom Jesus Christ him-
self is truly and properly the King. But the ques-
tion is, does He in his own person, and in a direct
manner, administer its affairs? And to this question
there can be but one answer, which is in the negative.
And since this church is a kingdom, there must be
the functions of king or governor to be performed in
some way or other. And as it is admitted that these
functions are not performed by our Lord in person,
they must of course be performed by some agent or
instrument commissioned by Him. Hence it is mani-
fest that an officer is necessary to act in His name in
the administration of this kingdom. The argument
may be thus stated : Our Lord himself, let it be said,
administers the government of this kingdom. There
are but two ways of acting in this capacity, viz : in
his own person, and by the person or agency of ano-
ther. All admit that He does not act in this capacity
in His own person, consequently he must act by proxy
or substitute — He must have an officer to act as His
Vicar in the government of this kingdom. It will not
do to say that the bishops throughout the world dis-
charge these functions ; for if that were so, the church
would not be a kingdom, but a multitude of distinct
and independent principalities. And while it is true
that they act as His Vicar to a certain extent in their
own spheres, yet they do not and cannot act as His
Vicar in uniting and governing the whole. Hence
a chief officer is needed to perform this office.
But that we may see more clearly the force of this
argument, let us make a practical application of it.
Some maintain that the church is divided into various
parts, according to the political divisions of the earth.
Thus they say one part is in Italy, a second in Tur-
key, a third in England, a fourth in America, &c. ;
A VISIBLE HEAD. 15
but that all these parts form the one Visible Church.*
But let it be remembered that these parts not only-
have no outward bond or connection — not only differ
in many important doctrines and practices — not only
refuse to recognize each other, but also are actually
arrayed against each other — one seeking to destroy
what the other builds up. Now the simple question
is, whether all these heterogeneous, hostile and op-
posing communities can be termed a kingdom ? A
kingdom may be composed of various provinces, all
connected with and subject to one common centre of
authority ; but the moment these provinces cease to be
subject to that one centre of authority, the " kingdom
is divided against itself," and consequently " brought
to desolation." And thus it would be with the church
were it divided as some say into various " indepen-
dent branches" — it would not be one church or one
kingdom, but many. Every one knows, that it is of
the essence of a kingdom or nation or republic, that
the whole be subject to one common centre of autho-
rity. Without this there can be no unity of govern-
ment. No one would be guilty of the folly of calling
Spain and England one kingdom. Why? Simply
because they are not under one head. With what
propriety can the church in Spain and the church of
England form parts of the same kingdom, since they
are not bound together by one common authority, but
on the contrary actually hostile to each other. The
church, then, according to the teaching of our Blessed
Lord, is a kingdom. But it is essential to a kingdom
that it be bound together under one common head.
If the church is a kingdom, it must have what is es-
sential to a kingdom. A common centre of authority
or government is essential to a kingdom. Conse-
quently the church must have a common centre of
authority or government. But the church divided
into " independent branches," according to the theory
* Vide a book edited by Bishop Whittingham, entitled " What is
the Church of Christ?"
16 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
of some, has no such common centre. Consequently
the church so divided cannot be the "kingdom"
of Jesus Christ. But the church, (according to the
theory of Catholics,) as composed of all Christians
throughout the world, who are bound together in one
corporation under the See of St. Peter, have such cen-
tre of authority, and therefore may be properly called
a kingdom, and consequently it, and it only, answers
to the church as denned by our Lord.
Besides, each particular, provincial or national
church, and indeed every Protestant sect, finds it ne-
cessary to have a system of government, with some
centre of authority as its head, besides the spiritual
headship of Jesus Christ. And if this be necessary
for a part, it must be equally necessary for the whole,
if the whole is to constitute one kingdom ; for if the
headship of Christ is not a sufficient government for
a part, surely it cannot be a sufficient government for
the whole.
Again : Our Blessed Lord speaks of His followers
as constituting a flock or fold. " Other sheep, said He,
I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must
bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall
be one fold and one shepherd." If, then, the church
be " one fold," there must of necessity be one shep-
herd over the whole. Portions of this flock may, it
is true, be assigned to the immediate guardianship of
different pastors, but there must be a chief pastor ex-
ercising a general superintendence over the whole,
otherwise there would not be " one fold," but many.
Here again it may be said that Jesus Christ himself
is the Chief Shepherd. This is certainly true. But
our reply is similar to that given above. How does
Jesus Christ act as " Chief Shepherd" over this " one
fofd ?" Does he do so in His own person, i. e. by a
direct and immediate superintendence? Every one
replies in the negative. Then as there is but one
other way, i. e. by a substitute or vicar, there must ne-
cessarily be an officer acting in His stead in the guar-
A VISIBLE HEAD. 17
dianship of this "one fold." Tt is obvious that such
an officer would not interfere with the prerogatives of
our Blessed Lord, since he acts as His instrument and
in His name and authority, just as all bishops and
presbyters do, each in his own sphere. Jesus Christ is
indeed expressly called the " Shepherd" and the " Chief
Shepherd" in Holy Writ. And while He abode with
His followers by a visible presence, no other such officer
was necessary ; but when He withdrew, it is obvious
that one to act as His deputy became necessary. And
Catholics believe that, in leaving this world, He left
to his flock such a deputy in the person of St. Peter,
when He said to him in so emphatic a manner, "feed
my lambs," feed my sheep — feed my sheep." No one
will deny that He here constituted St. Peter a shep-
herd over His flock, or at least a part of His flock, as
Protestants say. Then we argue that if it be not de-
rogatory to the Supreme authority of Christ to call
St. Peter, or any other human agent, a shepherd over
a portion of the flock, it cannot be derogatory to the
Supreme authority of Christ to call him or any other
human agent a shepherd over the whole ; since, in
both cases, the officer acts as His deputy ; and a shep-
herd, as his deputy, is as necessary over the whole as
over a part — since Jesus Christ does not, in a direct
manner, exercise the functions of a shepherd over the
whole any more than over a part. And if it be ob-
jected, that Jesus Christ is called the "Chief Shep-
herd," it must be remembered that he is also called
" the Bishop of our souls," — "Apostle" — and even
"Priest." And if men may, as His agents, bear these
offices, notwithstanding scripture assigns them to
Christ himself, certainly one may, as His agent, bear
the office and name too of " Chief Shepherd," although
applied in scripture to Christ himself. Now the
church divided according to the theory which we are
opposing is not united under one shepherd, conse-
quently the church so divided cannot be the " one
fold." But the Catholic Church, with the Bishop of
2*
18 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
Rome at its head, is united under "one shepherd,"
therefore it answers to the description which our Lord
himself gave of His church.
In the scriptures the followers of Christ are also
described as constituting " one body." " By one spirit
are we all baptized into one body." — (1 Cor. xii. 13.)
Let the reader refer to this portion of scripture, and
he will see that Christians, with their various gifts,
proceeding from one spirit, are compared to the hu-
man frame, which, though composed of divers mem-
bers, each having a distinct function, is nevertheless
one harmonious whole, each member or part sympa-
thizing and co-operating with the others. By this
beautiful figure St. Paul represents the church : "And
God hath set some (says he) in the Church, first Apos-
tles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers," and so on ;
comparing them all to the hands, feet, and head of
the human frame. And to teach us that these divers
classes should act in perfect concert, though each in
its own particular sphere, he reminds us of the unity
and mutual dependence subsisting between the various
members of the body : " The eye cannot say unto
the hand I have no need of thee ; nor again the head
to the feet I have no need of thee." If, then, as St.
Paul teaches, the human frame be a fit emblem of
the church, the church must necessarily have a visi-
ble head. While the members of the human frame
have each its own functions, they are all united and
controlled by one head, without which there could be
no unity of action, and indeed no action at all. Now
let this be applied to the respective theories of Catho-
lics and Protestant churchmen respecting the church.
Catholics maintain that the visible church is composed
of all those Christians scattered over the earth who
acknowledge and obey the Holy Roman See, which,
as a head, unites the whole into one body, and directs
and superintends its affairs. On the other hand, Pro-
testant churchmen maintain that the church is com-
posed of various " branches" — one in this country,
A VISIBLE HEAD. 19
another in England, another in Russia, another in
Italy, and so on throughout the world. These
" branches" they admit not only differ from each other
both in doctrine and discipline, but are even indepen-
dent of each other, since they are not subject to any
common centre of authority or head. Now we ask
to which of these theories aoes the comparison used
by St. Paul apply — to the one church under one
head — the" Bishop of Rome — or to these independent
and indeed antagonistic " branches 7" It must be ob-
vious to every candid mind, that it is only the former
that answers to St. Paul's description. Certainly it is
only among the former that the following words are
verified : " that there should be no schism in the body ;
but that the members should have the same care one
for another." Every one knows that the Church of
England and the P. E. Church stand opposed to the
Catholic Church ; that they accuse her of being cor-
rupt and fallen ; while on the other hand she consid-
ers them as involved in schism and fundamental er-
rors, as well as destitute of all ecclesiastical authority.
And would any one pretend that churches thus dis-
senting from each other are the "one church" which
St. Paul compares to the members of the human
frame, harmoniously co-operating under the control of
one head ? Yet such is the theory by which many
intelligent persons allow themselves to be beguiled !
Can the human body be divided into "independent
parts ?" Every one knows it cannot. The moment
you sever an arm or a leg, that arm or leg immediately
withers. So it must be with the church, if it can be
properly compared to the human body. Cut off a
portion of it and it must inevitably die. It may in-
deed still continue for a time in outward form, just as
a branch torn from the parent trunk, or a limb from
the human body, but there is no vitality in it — it has
lost all power to perform the necessary functions of
life. It is dead — though perchance it has a " name
of being alive." It cannot be said that by this appli-
20 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
cation we are stretching the figure too far ; because it
is for the very purpose of showing the mutual de-
pendence of the members of the church upon each
other that St. Paul employs the figure.*
Since, then, the church divided into independent and
hostile communities, cannot be compared to the hu-
man body; the church so divided cannot be the
church as described by St. Paul. But the Catholic
Church, bound together by the Holy Roman See,
may be so compared ; consequently the Catholic
Church answers to the church described by St. Paul.
We have thus shown that the church, as defined in
scripture, whether under the figure of a " kingdom,"
"one fold," or " one body," must necessarily have one
common centre of authority.
But further. The doctrine of the unity of the church
is admitted by Protestant churchmen, and yet this doc-
trine evidently implies a common centre of authority.
When we speak of the unity of the church, we mean
that the church is one, as taught by the Nicene creed —
" I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church." The
church which we believe, then, is one church. It is
a regularly organized society, composed not only of
private members but also of duly commissioned offi-
cers, empowered to teach, govern, &c. This may be
proved if necessary by a few passages of the New
Testament. Thus our Saviour said to his Apostles,
"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he
that believeth not shall be damned." " Whose sins
ye remit they are remitted unto them ; whose sins ye
retain they are retained." And in the Book of Acts,
(ch. ii. 42,) we are told that the multitudes that were
baptized in the day of Pentecost " continued steadfastly.
* St. Cyprian ; in his celebrated Treatise on the Unity of the
Church, makes a beautiful remark upon this point, which will serve
as a confirmation of our argument : " Scindi unitas non potest,
nee corpus unum discidio compaginis separari, divulsis laceratione
visceribus in frustra discerpi. Quicquid a matrice discesserit. seor-
sum vivere et spirare non poterit, substantiam salutis amittit."
A VISIBLE HEAD. 21
in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship? Thus they
formed one communion or society with the Apostles.
And we also read that as Paul and Timothy "went
through the cities, they delivered them the decrees
for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and
Elders which were at Jerusalem, and so were the
churches established in the faith." Acts xvi. 45.
Now these passages (to which many similar ones
might be added,) show that the Christians of the
Apostolic age, though scattered over the earth and
forming various congregations or churches, constituted
one organized society under the Apostles and other
duly commissioned ministers.
The "decrees" enacted by the Council of Apostles
and Elders were every where recognized and obeyed,
proving indubitably that Christians in the "fellow-
ship" of the Apostles formed one society, one polity,
one corporate body. Archdeacon Manning, of the An-
glican church, speaking of the testimony of scripture
respecting the nature of the church, says, "It is plain
that this refers to some one visible organized system,
having unity in plurality, and being therefore spoken
of as existing at one and the same time, in one and
many places." (Unity of the Church, p. 69.) Again :
" And this will be sufficient proof of the nature of the
church as recorded in scripture, that it was a visible
body, having an exact internal organization and sub-
jected to constituted rulers." (lb. p. 76.) Now the
question arises, could there have been such an institu-
tion without a head? Here is a community em-
bracing immense numbers — spread over various coun-
tries — having a code of laws to be interpreted and
enforced — and having a government to be adminis-
tered. Can such a community or society subsist
without a head f Does not common sense teach us
that it is utterly impossible? Does not history teach
us that such a thing never was ? Search the world
over and we cannot find a society or corporation with-
out a principal officer under some name or other as a
22 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
centre of authority. In every organized society, from
the most insignificant temperance association of a
country village up to the mightiest empire that almost
encircles our globe, we find a president, a governor,
an emperor, or some such officer, uniting and gov-
erning the whole.
Every one must perceive that some such centre of
authority is necessary to constitute a society one.
There must be one governor over the whole or it
cannot be one. If, for instance, these United States
were not every one under one and the same govern-
ment, they could not constitute one organized society
or nation. If each State were to become independent
of the rest, the Union would be dissolved, and we
should cease to be one nation. And if each and all
were not subject to one common governing and con-
trolling authority, each one would of course be inde-
pendent of the rest; and instead of being integral
parts of one nation or society, each one would be a
nation by itself. It is evident then that it is essential
to the very being of an organized society that all its
members be subject to one common authority. It has
been proved that the church is an organized society,
therelbre all the parts of the church must be subject
to one common authority. And since common au-
thority would be but a name — a nullity — unless vested
in and exercised by some officer as chief, sovereign,
emperor, president or pope ; there must not only be
such common authority but also such officer. It will
not do to say that all the members of the church are
subject to the common authority of Christ, under
whom they are united into one. Because, (as we
have already argued,) since Christ does not exercise
this authority in person, there must be some officer to
exercise it as his deputy. Besides, it is admitted that
the church is a visible society ; and if so, like every
other visible society, it must have a visible head. All
the inhabitants of our country are subject to the com-
mon authority of God ; but that does not and cannot
A VISIBLE HEAD. 23
make them one nation. Presbyterians and Protestant
Episcopalians alike acknowledge the common autho-
rity of Christ, alike profess to obey His laws and
practice His religion. And yet no one would be guilty
of the folly of calling them one society or church. If
common subjection to Christ constitutes the unity of
the church, then all those who are subject to Christ
are in the church. " Those who are subject to
Christ" must mean either those who profess to be sub-
ject to him, or only those who are really subject to
him. If it means the former, then the church is not
confined to those who have the "three orders," or
who hold all the articles of the " orthodox faith," but
embraces all who " profess and call themselves Chris-
tians" — Quakers, Unitarians and all. Which conclu-
sion a Protestant churchman cannot admit. On the
other hand, if it be confined to those who are really
subject to Christ, then since we cannot tell certainly
who are really subject to Christ we know not who
are in the church. And if we know not who are in
the church we know not where the church is. We
make it an intangible, invisible thing. Thus we
should have instead of a visible church an invisible
one. Which conclusion is also discarded by Protes-
tant churchmen. And since neither of these conclu-
sions can be admitted, then common subjection to
Christ cannot bind all together in one church. Sub-
jection to Christ cannot be the bond of unity to the
church.* And since it is not pretended that there is
any other invisible bond or head (and if it were the
theory could be disproved in the same way,) there
* It is hardly necessary to state that by the phrase "subjection
to Christ," we mean direct and immediate subjection as contradis-
tinguished from subjection to Him in the persons of His representa-
tives, and "ambassadors" — his duly authorized ministers.
St. Augustine asserts in the most positive manner, when arguing
against the Donatists, the utter insufficiency of merely acknowledg-
ing the Head — Jesus Christ. "Whoever," says he, "agree with
holy scripture touching the Head, but communicate not with the
unity of the church, are not in the church." (De Unit. Eccles..)
24 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
must be some external or visible bond of unity. What
then is this external bond of unity? Archdeacon
Manning, who may be considered as the exponent of
the " High Church" theory upon this point, says :
" Prom these passages (of scripture) it is plain that the
divinely appointed ministry of the church was the
bond which knit together the members of Christ in
one visible communion." (Unity of the Church, p. 75.)
Again: "In the second chapter that the limits of
the visible church are determined by an organized
polity ; in the last that the polity consists in the au-
thoritative oversight, of a divinely appointed ministry,
deriving its succession from the Apostles." (P. 83.)
We have no objection to this view, for properly un-
derstood it is entirely Catholic. We held it ourselves for
some time previous to our reception into the Catholic
Church, and we still hold it. And indeed every one
who pretends to be a churchman holds it and must
hold it. Here then Catholics and Protestant Episco-
palians have common ground on which to meet and
argue. We are all agreed in the great principle that
the "divinely appointed ministry" is the bond which
unites the " members of Christ in one visible commu-
nion" or "organized polity." The church is confined
to this "organized polity" under the authoritative
oversight of a divinely appointed ministry." Those
then who are not under this ministry do not belong
to this "organized polity," that is, are not of the
church. Submission to this ministry then is the bond
and test of the unity of the church. The term divinely
appointed ministry is of course used collectively for
" divinely appointed ministers." Thus then we have
the simple proposition that these "divinely appointed
ministers" bind together the members of Christ in one
"organized polity." Now it has been proved that
there cannot be an "organized polity" without one
government ; indeed, the term itself implies it. It
would be a gross contradiction to speak of an organ-
ized polity without one common government, which
A VISIBLE HEAD. 25
is the very essence of its constitution. Consequently
this polity must have a common government. But it
has also been proved that there cannot be oue com-
mon government without subjection to one common
centre of authority. If then the members of Christ
under these ministers constitute an organized polity,
there must be one government, and hence one common
centre of authority.
This is a legitimate conclusion, and there is no
way of escaping it. For if these ministers bind to-
gether the people under them, they themselves must
also be bound together in common with the people.
A bishop having charge of a flock in Philadelphia,
may bind together that flock under him; but there
must also be a bond to unite both him and his flock
to the bishop and flock of New York, London, (fee.
&c, otherwise these bishops and their respective
flocks in different parts of the world would form not
an " organized polity," but a mere system (if system
it can be called,) of " Independence" or "Congrega-
tionalism." To illustrate this, if not already suffi-
ciently clear, by a reference to our own civil polity.
Every State has its governor, who is the head of the
State and binds together the people under him. But
something more is needed to bind all our States into
one polity or nation. What is it? Every governor
and every State must be in subjection to one common
government; all must acknowledge and obey one
head — the president. This is the bond, without
which we should not be one polity or nation, but
as many nations as there are States. Now the minis-
ters or bishops of the church, scattered over the world,
as they not only teach but rule, answer to the gover-
nors of our States. And though they may serve to
unite in one body the congregation or diocess under
their charge, yet they cannot bind together in an or-
ganized polity themselves and their respective charges
throughout the world, without submitting like our
States to one common head. Now we ask Archdeacon
26 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
Manning or any one else who rejects the doctrine of
a visible head over the church, to point out the bond
which unites all these ministers and members in a
" visible body, having an exact internal organization
and subjected to constituted rules." Will he say it
consists in having " one origin V™ So have all the in-
habitants of our globe, as descendants of Adam ; yet
no one pretends that they constitute " one polity"
Will he say that it consists in having one faith?"
But articles of belief, however unanimously held, can-
not constitute a system of government, which is essen-
tial to an organized polity. Hence every sect or
church finds it necessary to have over and above a
defined creed, a system of government to bind its mem-
bers together ; besides, if it consisted in holding the
one faith, then schism would be impossible as long as
persons held this faith. Men might rebel against their
pastors, and commit all sorts of crimes, but so long as
they held the " one faith," they would be members of
this polity, and could not be separated from it ; thus
excommunication would be impossible. Suppose one
portion of a diocess, without altering the creed, were
to cast off the authority of their lawful bishop, and
place themselves under the jurisdiction of another
of their own choosing, protestant churchmen would
call that a schism, would say that they were cut off
from the " one body," notwithstanding they continue
to hold the "one faith ;" consequently the "one faith"
cannot be the tie which binds all into one polity. But
we are not dependent upon a supposed case. The
history of the Church furnishes an example in point.
In the early part of the fourth century, Csscilianus
was regularly ordained bishop for the See of Carthage,
in Africa ; but certain bishops, dissatisfied with Cseci-
lianus on the ground that one of his consecrators had
been a traditor in the Dioclesian persecution, and
* " This unity of the Church, therefore, inheres in the one origin,
the one succession, and the one college of Catholic bishops." —
Manning, p. 131.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 27
other equally insufficient grounds, undertook to elect
and consecrate a rival bishop, in the person of Majo-
rinus. Thus was formed a separate and opposing
communion (called Donatists,) which gradually spread
over Africa, and also a considerable portion of Europe.
The Donatist bishops in Africa outnumbered the
Catholic. Their orders were valid, and their faith was
orthodox.* They opposed the Catholic Church as
Protestants do now, under the pretext that it had
fallen into idolatry, and corrupted the religion of
Christ. Now what was the judgment of the Catholic
Church respecting this sect? The Catholic Church,
with one voice, declared it schismatical. In the lan-
guage of Palmer, it was " universally rejected and
condemned," "after full examination of their cause by
Councils of Bishops." (Ch. Hist. p. 27.) And Man-
ning says the Catholics "denied that they (the Dona-
tists) belonged to the one church, and that because they
had broken the bond of unity by erecting a rival suc-
cession and a rival altar in churches of apostolical
foundation. Their act of internal schism cut them
off from the unity of their own churches, and thereby
from the church universal. It must be always borne
in mind that their schism began by withdrawing from
the communion of their lawful bishops." (Unity of
the Church, p. 291.) The reader will at once per-
ceive that this is an instance exactly in point. The
validity of their orders was unquestionable, and the
orthodoxy of their faith was recognized by the Catholic
Church ; and yet they were in a state of schism — cut
off from the church universal. Since, then, we argue,
the Donatists were not* members of the "one body,"
although they held the " one faith," it is evident that
the holding of the one faith cannot be the bond which
unites the members of Christ in " an organized polity."
* Orthodox, according to the standard of Protestant Churchmen,
though, indeed, St. Augustine speaks of schismatics , who "believe
as we believe." So it is not enough for a man to profess the faith
of the primitive church, he may still be a schismatic.
28 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
But Manning says that the unity of the Church in-
heres in the " one succession." This, however, upon
examination, will be found equally inadequate.
It is a principle universally admitted by theo-
logians, that orders are indelible. The " one succes-
sion" once given, cannot be recalled. The bishop
may be deprived of jurisdiction, or of the right to exer-
cise his functions, but the office itself, the one apos-
tolical succession, no power on earth can take from
him. If, then, the succession be the tie which binds
a bishop and his diocess to his fellow bishops, and to
the Catholic Church, since the succession cannot be
taken away, the tie cannot be broken. He may reject
the orthodox faith ; he may violate any ecclesiastical
canon ; he may practice the grossest immoralities, and
his diocess under him may do the same, still he and
his diocess, upon this principle, are an integral part
of the " one catholic and apostolic church !" Thus, it
is evident, that according to this view, a bishop can
neither sever himself from the church by schismatical
conduct, nor can the church cut him off by excom-
munication, which is sufficient to show that the view
is false ; for, by universal consent, a bishop and his
diocess can commit schism, and the church has the
power of excommunication. But the absurdity of the
view may be further exposed by an appeal to the
example already cited from the History of the Church.
The Donatist bishops possessed the apostolical succes-
sion of orders, and yet they formed no part of the
"one body." They were universally condemned
by the Catholic Church as a schismatical sect ; and
justly so condemned, according to the judgment of
Palmer, Manning, and Anglican theologians generally,
if not without exception. The notion, then, that the
" one succession" unites its possessors to the " one
body," may be thus reduced to an absurdity.
The one succession unites its possessors to the " one
body." The Donatists possessed the " one succession,"
therefore the Donatists were united to the " one body."
A VISIBLE HEAD. 29
Since, then, this conclusion is contrary to an uni-
versally admitted fact, the proposition from which it lo-
gically flows must be erroneous. The only sound con-
clusion is thus reached. If the " one succession" unites
to the " one body," then the Donatists were united to
the " one body." But the Donatists were not united
to the " one body ;" consequently the " one succession"
cannot unite to the "one body." But, perhaps, it will
be said that unity does not consist in common submis-
sion to Christ, or one origin, or one faith, or one suc-
cession, taken separately, but in all combined ; that
in order that a bishop and his diocess may be an in-
tegral part of the " one body," it is sufficient that all
these conditions be fulfilled. This, too, can be easily
disproved ; for, first, since it has been shown that a
bishop and his diocess may be separated from " the one
body," although possessing any one of the above quali-
fications, of course, these qualifications combined
cannot suffice for the preservation of unity; that
which it is not in the nature of either one of these to
give, cannot be given by all combined. But, secondly,
we need not depend upon this abstract reasoning ; we
have a sufficient answer in the case of the Donatists.
They were in common subjection to Christ; they had
the " one origin" of Catholics ; they held the " one
faith," and they possessed the " one succession ;" and
notwithstanding all, they were no part of the "one
body," — they were but a schismatical sect. The con-
clusion, then, is irresistible, that since the Donatists,
though possessing all these qualifications, were not
united to the "one body," these qualifications com-
bined cannot unite men to the " one body."
While speaking of the Donatists we would sug-
gest a question — if the Donatists were not a part of
the "one body," in virtue of what are the Anglican
and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the " one
body?" are they not even more defective than the
Donatist communion, since, according to the judg-
ment of the Catholic Church, they lack even valid
30 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
orders ; and if they lack this, they lack that which,
though it cannot by itself unite to the church, is
nevertheless necessary to union with the church.
We are aware that the opinion of two Catholic
writers is sometimes cited in favor of Anglican or-
ders. And so also is the opinion of Anglican divines
frequently cited to prove the validity of Presbyterian
orders. Such testimony is no proof in either case.
The two writers referred to are Courayer and Lin-
gard. Dr. Henshaw, for instance, states that they
" have been compelled by the force of historical testi-
mony to confirm the validity of our orders." (Lee. on
Priests, &c. p. 18.) But the doctor is entirely mis-
taken with regard to Lingard, for he has never ac-
knowledged the validity of their orders. All that
Lingard admits is the historical fact that on a certain
day certain individuals performed a certain ceremony,
by which Parker is said to have been consecrated.
As to the theological question whether said ceremony
was a valid consecration, Lingard expresses no opi-
nion in his history. Courayer did indeed write a
book in defence of Anglican orders. But that book
was condemned by the Cathelic authorities of France
and by the Pope, and was immediately refuted by
various Catholic divines. And therefore his opinion
in the matter has no more weight than that of Lu-
ther. But the Catholic Church declares her convic-
tion of the nullity of Anglican orders by her practice.
She ordains unconditionally clergymen coming from
the Anglican and Protestant Episcopal Church.
This must be considered as decisive, especially when
it is remembered that she regards orders as a sacra-
ment which cannot be repeated without sacrilege.
She does not re-ordain clergymen coming from some
of the ancient sects of the East ; whose orders she ac-
knowledges although conferred in schism. Why then
does she deny the validity of Anglican orders ? Sim-
ply because she knows that they are null and void.
She has regarded them in this light from the Refor-
A VI8JBIJ: HEAD. 31
mat ion to the present moment. If they were valid,
she could have no motive to deny them. For she
would of course still regard the Anglican Church as
in a state of schism. As we have already said, she
admits the orders of the Oriental clergy. Which is a
conclusive proof that she does not deny the orders of
a church, merely because that church is separated
from her. Certainly the bare fact that the Catholic
Church has denied the validity of Anglican orders
from the very first, ought to have great weight with
every reflecting mind, and especially, too, when it is
considered that many clergymen of the Anglican and
Protestant Episcopal Church have, particularly during
the last few years, entered the Catholic Church under
a conviction of the utter insufficiency of the orders
which they had received. Of course our limits will
not allow us to set forth the arguments by which the
judgment of the Catholic Church in the case is sus-
tained. We could not do justice to them within so
small a compass. Those who wish to examine the
subject at length, will find it ably treated in a work
entitled " The Validity of Anglican Ordinations Ex-
amined," by the Rt. Rev. P. R. Kenrick, bishop of St.
Louis. But if it could be proved that the Anglican
and P. E. Churches have valid orders, what more
have they than the Donatists had ? And if they have
nothing more than the Donatists, are they- not in the
same woful predicament 1 But perhaps it will be re-
plied that their schism consisted in " separating from
their lawful bishops." This will not avail ; for, un-
fortunately, the Anglican Church did the very same
thing. The proof of this assertion, fatal as it is to
the claims of the Anglican and Protestant Episcopal
Chruch, is at hand. It is an unquestionable historical
fact. It will be sufficient to cite a passage from a
Protestant historian — a living prelate of the Anglican
communion. When Queen Elizabeth ascended the
throne, the English Church was governed by fifteen
Catholic bishops. By an " act of Parliament" all
32 REASONS IN WVOR OF
the clergy were required to take an oath conceding to
the queen the "chief power'' in matters "ecclesias-
tical" as well as* civil, and abrogating the authority of
the Pope, by whom the See of Canterbury had been
orginally founded, and whose authority had ever since
been recognized with but little interruption. This
oath was accordingly tendered under pain of depriva-
tion to the bishops who then filled the English sees.
And what was the result ? We will give it in the
language of the prelate referred to : " All the bishops,
with the exception of one only, Kitchen of Landaff*
refused so to do, and were ejected from their sees, to
the number of fourteen" — (Short's History of Church
of England, § 407.) In a note, Bishop Short even
acknowledged that " it is difficult to defend the justice
of these ejectments !" He comforts himself, however,
by the reflection, that it is equally " impossible to deny
the necessity of them !" — as if injustice could ever be
necessary ! But Bishop Short is evidently an old
fashioned establishment man, and of course he merely
means that it was necessary in order to substitute a
Parliament Church in the place of the Catholic.
" The next step (says Short) which, from its import-
ance to the church, greatly occupied the attention of
the court, was the filling up of the vacant bishoprics."
(Hist. § 409.)
Thus, it is established by unquestionable authority,
first, that by " act of Parliament" the lawful bishops
of the church were driven from their sees ; and,
secondly, that by the queen and court others were
intruded into their places. Now the illegality of this
proceeding is obvious; for, first, these bishops had
committed no crime which merited deposition — it is
* This bishop seems to have been a man of a very accommodating
conscience. For, as Dr. Heylyn remarks, " having formerly sub-
mitted to every change, he resolved to show himself no changeling
in not conforming to the pleasure of higher powers." Besides
these bishops, Short says, " 6 abbots, 12 deans, 12 arch-deacons, 15
heads of colleges, 50 prebendaries, and 80 rectors, refused to take
the oath," and who were also deprived of their livings !
A VISIBLE HEAD. 33
not even pretended that they had. They were ejected
wholly and solely because they would not acknow-
ledge a woman to be supreme over the church ; con-
sequently their expulsion was a flagrant act of in-
justice, yea, a sacrilegious crime ; and those who were
forced into their places were schismatical intruders,
and so must their successors be to this day. But,
secondly, they were not ejected by competent autho-
rity — it was not done by the church, but by "an act
of Parliament." And, thirdly, it was in violation of all
the canons of the primitive church pertaining to such
matters. Here it is unnecessary to cite particular
canons ; every one knows that it has been a universal-
ly acknowledged regulation in the church, from the
earliest period, that bishops cannot be deposed, except
by those of their own order, after a fair trial ; and also
that others cannot be elected and consecrated without
the concurrence of the lawful bishops of the province.
The members composing the parliament, and the queen
also, were under the canonical jurisdiction of these
bishops. This cannot be denied. It cannot be said
that these bishops were unlawful bishops, for it can
be historically established that they were. Besides,
they were acknowledged at that very time as the
legitimate and canonical bishops of the church, which
is evident from the fact that they sat in parliament —
that the oath of supremacy was tendered to them —
and that they were not required to leave their sees
until after their refusal to take the oath, although they
had previously declined (with one exception) to assist
at the coronation of the queen. We have, then, the
simple fact, that certain lay members of the church
rebelled against their canonical bishops, drove them
from their sees without trial by their peers, and even
without an accusation, and thrust other men into their
places. If this was not schism, then schism was
never committed. The proceedings of the Donatists
were in no material point different from these ; if any
thing, they were less culpable — for the Donatist party
34 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
were sustained by many canonical bishops ; whereas,
these proceedings were conducted by a few laymen,
headed by the queen ; and by driving their lawful
bishops from their sees, and thrusting others in, they
aggravated their sin of schism by violence and
injustice.
The bishops were not only driven from their sees,
they were also sent to prison, where several of them
endured a lingering death. The oath giving the supre-
macy to the queen was also tendered to the inferior
clergy, who were required, either to take it, or give up
their livings. (Short's Hist. § 407.) But not only were
the bishops and clergy thus driven from their stations,
or forced into submission, but similar violence was
employed to compel the compliance of the laity.
The Book of Common Prayer, which Parliament
put forth in spite of the protestation of the bishops
and the convocation of the church, was ordered to be
every where exclusively used, under pain of impri-
sonment and deprivation. And further, severe penal-
ties were imposed on those who should refuse to
resort to the parish churches to hear it. (Blunt's Hist.
ofRef. p. 279.)
An act had been passed, declaring that if any one
should say or hear mass, he should, for the first
offence, forfeit all his goods ; for the second, surfer
banishment ; and for the third, death. (Vid. Collier,
vi. p. 321.) By these sanguinary measures, before the
end of the reign of Q,ueen Elizabeth, more than one
hundred and twenty priests had suffered martyrdom
for their faith, besides a large number of the laity, both
male and female.
Such were the means by which the present protes-
tant Church of England was established. The con-
vocation of the clergy, which was in session at the
same time, presented to the House of Lords, a declara-
tion of its belief in transubstantiation, the sacrifice of
the mass, and the supremacy of the Pope ; and pro-
tested that to decide on the doctrines or discipline of
A VISIBLE HEAD. 35
the church belonged not to a lay assembly, but only to
the lawful pastors of the church. (Vid. Wilk. Con.
iv. 179; and also Short's Hist. § 406.) And this
declaration was signed by both universities.
In the face of all these facts, recorded by Protestant
historians, Palmer has the temerity to make the fol-
lowing assertion: "The clergy, generally, approved
of the return to pure religion." (Ch. Hist. ed. by Bp.
Whittingham, p. 163.) It is true, indeed, that a large
majority of the inferior clergy conformed to the mea-
sures of Parliament. But surely no value can be at-
tached to this approval, if it can be called such, for
they had either to conform or give up their livings
and go to prison. This fact Palmer is careful to with-
hold from his readers, and also the important fact,
already proved by citations from Church of England
men, (Short and Blunt,) that the church protested
against the alterations made by Parliament, through
her bishops, through her convocations, and through
her universities. It is in this way, by a partial sup-
pression of the truth, that many intelligent persons
are kept in the dark. But Palmer has evidently a
very pliant conscience in such matters; for, in this same
history, he has actually corrupted a passage from one
of the Fathers by interpolation, in order that it might
not teach a doctrine at variance with his own views.
Thus, he cites a passage from St. Justin Martyr, in
which that father says that the primitive Christians
believed the Eucharist to be the " flesh and blood" of
Jesus Christ ; and instead of giving it as it is in the
original, he inserts the word "spiritually." (p. 29.)
And this is done, too, with the sanction of Dr. Whit-
tingham. This, we suppose, is one of those ugly
things commonly called " pious frauds," so often
charged (but never proved) upon the Catholics.
That Mr. Palmer's statements, in matters of contro-
versy, are utterly unworthy of reliance, is fully proved
in a little pamphlet, entitled " The Character of the
Rev. W. Palmer as a Controversialist," which has
36 REASONS IN FAVOR. OP
very ably exposed many of the errors contained in his
"Treatise on the Church," and in his "Letters to
Dr. Wiseman." But to return.
Now the proper and only representatives of the
church were the bishops, the convocation, and the
universities. All these, we have seen, adhered to the
authority of the Pope, and refused to consent to the
innovations of the queen and others ; consequently,
the changes which were effected, were made, not by
the church, as many seem to think, but against the
voice of the church, speaking through all her legiti-
mate organs. The whole proceedings, therefore, were
rebellious and schismatical. It was not a reformation
of the old church, but the institution of a new
church — a parliament church — a creature of the
state. The old church was manifestly confined to
those who held the old doctrines — the supremacy of
the Pope, the sacrifice of the mass, &c. — which is
now the body of Christians, in England, in commu-
nion with the Apostolic See, and still retaining, by
common consent of Protestants, their old legitimate
title of "Catholic," notwithstanding so many efforts
to filch it from them.
It is a universally admitted principle, that in such
cases the old original body is to be found among
those who adhere to the previousl y established doc-
trinal standards. Those who depart from these
standards are the dissentients and separatists. Now,
since the Parliament, and those who acted with it,
abolished the doctrines, discipline, liturgy, (fee, which
had been previously established for the space of nine
hundred years, i. e. ever since the founding of the
See of Canterbury, it is plain that they were the
separatists, and consequently involved themselves
in schism ; while, on the other hand, those who
retained the ancient system were plainly the old
church — the Catholic body. Thus, in two important
respects, the proceedings of the English Reformation
(as it is falsely called) were much more unjustifiable
A VISIBLE HEAD. 37
than those of the Donatists ; for, besides the most in-
human cruelty and injustice, there was also a depar-
ture from the doctrine, discipline, and ritual of the
previous ages. But, waiving these considerations, it
is still plainly manifest, that if the Donatists were
guilty of schism, so was that party by which these
changes were made ; that party which has ever since
been called the " Church of England as by law estab-
lished" — for that party acted in defiance of the pro-
testations of the convocation, the universities, and the
bishops; for the schism of the Donatists, according to
Archdeacon Manning, " began by withdrawing from
the communion of their lawful bishops." Anglicans
withdrew from their lawful bishops, by forcing them
from their sees, and intruding other men into their
places; consequently, if the Donatists were guilty of
schism, so were the Anglicans. And since the men
who wereintruded into these sees were guilty of schism,
by usurping the sees of their lawful bishops, all their
successors, and the whole communion which they
formed, and which is now the Established Church,
are involved in the same woful predicament. And
further, since the Protestant Episcopal Church has
descended from the same schismatical communion,
and even boasts of being one with her, she too is in
a state of schism. Thus it can be demonstrated, that
even leaving the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman
See out of the question, the Anglican Church and
Protestant Episcopal Church are cut off from the
one body.
It is very common to set up a plea of independence
in behalf of the early British Church. But it avails
nothing ; for, first, it is overthrown by the course of
reasoning just employed ; and secondly, the English
Church cannot with certainty connect herself by suc-
cession with the early British Church. She traces
her succession through Augustine, the missionary
by whom Pope Gregory founded the English Church,
and through other bishops on the continent, and
36 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
not through the British bishops. So that whether
the early British Church was independent of the Ro-
man See or not, is a question of no importance in the
present dispute ; for the Church of England derives
no more authority from the ancient British Church
than if that church had never existed.
The author of the little work, entitled " True Ca-
tholic no Romanist," devotes a whole chapter to prove
that the present Church of England has descended
from the early British Church ; and the reader will be
surprised to learn, that instead of furnishing a list of
British bishops, through whom the succession is alleged
to have come down, supported by unquestionable his-
torical evidence, he merely tells us that " Dr. Hook,
chaplain to Queen Victoria, Mr. Palmer, and sundry
other members of the modern " Church of England,"
have said so. There is not in the whole chapter a
single appeal to any disinterested witness, nor to any
ancient authority whatever; consequently the posi-
tion is merely affirmed, not proved.
Here we feel called upon to state that the alleged
answer of Dinoothto Augustine, so confidently appealed
to by the same author, in his " Origin and Compilation
of the Prayer Book," (p. 58,) is, without doubt, a forged
document. He refers to Fuller's History, for the ori-
ginal of the document. Fuller does, indeed, give the
document, and seems very anxious to have it received
as genuine ; but in spite of himself, he is forced to
acknowledge that it is doubtful. » "Let it shift as it
can" says he, "for its authenticates s /" But it is
time to return from this digression.
But, perhaps, some will maintain that it is by the
authority of a general council that the " one body"
is bound together. But, surely, a general council
cannot perform the functions of a head. If a head be
necessary at one time, it is necessary always. But a
general council can meet but very seldom. Accord-
ing to the opinion of protestant churchmen, there has
been no general council since the year 680 ; thus the
A VISIBLE HEAD. 39
church has been without a head for nearly 1200
years. But is it said that the authority of the general
councils, held during 1 the first six centuries, is ac-
knowledged ? In point of fact this is not true ; for
several of these councils recognized the supremacy of
the Pope, (as we will show hereafter,) which protestant
churchmen deny. And again, the canon, framed at
the Council of Neocaesarea, A. D. 315, forbidding
presbyters to marry under pain of deposition, was
afterwards confirmed by the fourth general council,
A. D. 451. (Hammond's Collec. pp. 148, 158.) And
yet protestant churches have set it at naught.* Other
instances could be adduced, but this one is sufficient
for our purpose. Now, since no general council has
ever repealed the canon cited above, forbidding pres-
byters to marry, it of course remains in force ; con-
sequently, if the authority of a general council be the
common authority which binds all the members into
"one body," those who disobey that authority are
necessasily guilty of schism ; and therefore, since the
Protestant Churches disobey that authority, they are
guilty of schism. Thus, whatever plea they set up ;
whatever ground they take, their unfortunate position
remains the same. Besides, a general council, when
assembled, is but a legislature; whereas, what the
church needs is an executive — an officer to see to the
execution of the laws, which the church, by her repre-
sentatives, enacts. It will not do to say that each
bishop in his own diocess suffices for this purpose ;
for who is to decide when difficulties arise between
a bishop and his diocess, or between bishops, or
between national churches? A general council
* Percival, in his work entitled " Roman Schism," is forced to
acknowledge that the Protestant Church has violated the canons of
the early church on this point. And what defence does he make ? He
resorts to " private judgment," and to the theory of the independence
of national churches. Thus he virtually abandons both the authority
and unity of the " one body" — doctrines which on other occasions
he zealously maintains. Such, alas, are the straits and inconsis-
tencies to which a protestant churchman is reduced.
40 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
could not perform these duties even if it were in
session all the time, which of course would be im-
possible. Besides, as the bishops compose a general
council, they are the legislators of the church ; and
if you give them also the right of executing the laws
as well as of making them, without being responsible
to a distinct and superior officer, such as a president
or pope, you make the church the most execrable
system of despotism ever endured amongst men. Thus
it is evident, that a pope over the whole is necessary,
not only to the maintenance of government, but also
to guard the people from injustice and tyranny. Some
of the reformers did, indeed, make an appeal (as some
protestant churchmen now do) to a future general
council ; but, as we have shown, they refused to obey
the canons of general councils already held; and
hence there was no security that they would obey a
future one — nor did they ; for they (as also their fol-
lowers since) refused to submit to the decisions of the
Council of Trent, assembled for the purpose of settling
the controversies to which the reformation gave rise.
Much has been said to invalidate its claims to the
authority of a general council ; and so has much been
said against the first general councils by those who
were unwilling to submit to them. It is not to be
expected that protestants will think belter of the
Council of Trent while they allow themselves to be
imposed upon by the false history of Father Paul — a
notorious hypocrite, who wore the habit of a friar, in
order to serve the interests of protestants. That such
was the character of Father Paul is admitted, not only
by catholics, but also by eminent protestants. And as
to his pretended history of the Council of Trent, it is
said to contain nearly four hundred errors, which have
been fully exposed in the genuine history of Palla-
vicini.
Leopold Ranke, in his criticism on Father Paul's
history, shows clearly that its statements are unworthy
of confidence. (History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 290,
A VISIBLE HEAD. 41
et seq. Am. ed.) We ought also to say that his notice
of Pallavicini is not altogether favorable, but perhaps
it as much so as could be expected from a protestant.
But we have a third witness, whose testimony no
protestant can object to. Hallam has pronounced
upon the Council of Trent an eulogium of the highest
character. " No general council," says he, " ever con-
tained so many persons of eminent learning and
ability as that of the Council of Trent ; nor is there
ground for believing that any other ever investigated
the questions before it with so much patience, acute-
ness, temper, and desire of truth." (Lit. of Europe, vol.
ii. p. 62, note.) Hallam also positively denies the oft-
repeated accusation that the Council of Trent " made
important innovations in the previously established
doctrines of the western church."
Now whose testimony should have most weight in
this matter, that of interested and prejudiced contro-
versialists, or that of an historian who could have had
no motive to misrepresent the facts of the case ?
Protestant churchmen also very frequently object
that the Council of Trent was u composed chiefly of
Italian bishops and doctors." But an objection more
frivolous can scarcely be imagined. For, in the first
place, it has always been the case, as far as we remem-
ber, (and ?mist, of course, be the case,) that a general
council has been composed chiefly of bishops from
that region of country in which the council was held,
as those who are near find it more convenient to at-
tend than those at a remote distance. And, secondly,
although most of the representatives were from one
portion of the church, yet there was an ample num-
ber from other parts also ; and, indeed, all the bishops
of Christendom were invited. And, thirdly, there is
another reply which of itself completely overthrows
the objection. Protestant churchmen all admit that
the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, was a general
council ; and yet it is an undeniable fact, that although
that council was attended by a larger number of
o
42 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
bishops than any council before or since, yet all those
bishops, except only four, were eastern bishops;
although the west embraced nearly one-half of the
whole church, yet only four representatives from the
west attended the Council of Chalcedon. It is said
that over six hundred bishops attended this council ;
and yet of this immense number, all were oriental
bishops but two Roman legates, and two Africans.
Out of the eight hundred episcopal sees in the west,
there were but four representatives at that council.
Again. The second general council, A, D. 381,
was composed entirely of eastern bishops. It was
attended by 150 oriental bishops, but not a single one
from the west. (Vid. Labb. Con. Gen. — Hammond's
Def. — Percival's " Roman Schism.") Thus all of its
representatives came from one portion of the church ;
and yet protestant churchmen, who do not pretend to
deny the oecumenical character of these councils,
nevertheless object to the Council of Trent because
most of the representatives came from one portion of
the church. It will not do to reply that their decisions
afterwards received the sanction of the church univer-
sally ; for even if this were true, it is no more than is
true of the Council of Trent, since its decrees on points
of faith were afterwards received by all those churches
which had any just claim to catholic communion.
But it is not true that the decisions of the Council of
Chalcedon were received by all the churches ; for the
churches of Kgypt refused to acknowledge its autho-
rity, and what is more, proceeded to nickname those
who received its decisions, by calling them Chalce-
donians and Synodites ; just as protestant churchmen
now treat those who acknowledge the authority of
the Council of Trent.
It is also objected against that venerable council
that its acts were dictated by the Pope or his legates.
Now even if this were true, the same objection could
be urged against the council of Chalcedon ; for every
one acquainted with the proceedings of that council
A VISIHLK HKAI).
43
knows very well that St. Leo, who was then Pope,
drew u p and prescribed the very confession of faith
which that council adopted, after much opposition on
the part of many of the representatives. Whatever
amount of influence the Pope exercised over the
Council of Trent, one thing is certain, that it could
not have been greater than that which St. Leo exer-
cised at Chalcedon. Thus it can be shown, that all
the objections usually urged against the Council of
Trent can be urged with even greater force against
the Council of Chalcedon ; and yet protestant church-
men admit the authority of the latter, and deny the
authority of the former.
But why do they make so " much ado" about the
" decrees of Trent ?" It was not those decrees that
caused a certain party to secede from the Catholic
Church, and set up a schismatical "establishment"
under the protection of the civil power ; for every one
knows that that schism occurred long before the meet-
ing of that council. And neither did that council
decree any doctrine which had not been previously
receceived by the universal church.
Of course our limits will not allow us to treat fully
upon these incidental points, but we could not forbear
to attempt a brief refutation of the objections which
have been considered. It is now time to return to
our argument. We were speaking of the appeal
which some make to a future general council. The
folly of so appealing must be apparent upon a little
reflection ; for if such a council were to assemble to-
morrow, with all the protestant and eastern churches
duly represented, it could not but come to the same re-
sults as the Council of Trent ; for the bishops of the Ca-
tholic Church are much more numerous than all the
other bishops of Christendom, and having a large ma-
jority, every question would of course be decided ac-
cording to their belief. But to return from this slight
digression. It has been proved that the unity of the
" one body" cannot consist merely in common subjec-
44 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
i
tion to the authority of Christ in a direct way, nor in the
" one origin," nor in holding the "one faith," nor in hav-
ing the " one succession," nor in the acknowledgment
of the authority of general councils ; that it does not
consist merely in any one or all of these combined.
Now, since protestant churchmen do not pretend that
it consists in any thing else than one or more of these,
it follows either that the unity of the church is a
mere figment, or that there is something else in which
it does consist. But, by universal consent, the unity
of the church is not a mere figment, but an unques-
tionable truth ; consequently, there must be something
else in which it consists. Hence we have doubly
proved, that our own theory — that there is one cen-
tral authority or head governing and uniting the
" one body" — is true ; for we have proved, first, that
all other theories are utterly inadequate ; and, second,
that our own must be the true one ; since a visible
head is necessary in order to bind all the members
of Christ into "one body," or "organized polity."
Let it not be said that this is all theory ; for though
we are discussing theories, yet we are dealing in solid
arguments — and arguments, too, of a common sense
and matter of fact nature.
Much more, however, can be added to corroborate the
reasoning which we have employed. By a more par-
ticular examination and application of these theories
our conclusion will be established beyond the possi-
bility of a doubt.
Let it be remembered, then, that we are all agreed
in the fundamental doctrine that the church is one
body with an " organized polity ;" and that we are
likewise agreed that " this polity consists in the autho-
ritative oversight of a divinely appointed ministry,
deriving its succession from the apostles." Thus far
we are agreed ; but, unfortunately, when we come to
analyze or apply this definition, we find ourselves wide
apart from each other. Though, indeed, we may
pretty well agree as long as we confine our atttention
A VISIBLE HEAD. 45
to a single congregation, or a single diocess, or even
a national church, considered by itself; but when we
coine to consider " the holy church throughout the
world," in its corporate character, then we differ, and
differ essentially ; for though we agree that all the
members are united together, by being subject to the
"divinely appointed ministry," yet we differ as to
what is the bond which unites the ministry together.
We ask protestant churchmen to point out this bond.
Every one must perceive that this is a matter of the
greatest importance. For since we can be joined to the
" one body" only by being under " a divinely appointed
ministry," we must be able to know where that ministry
is. For there may be ministers, as all admit, who have
the one succession, one faith, &c, (as the old Dona-
tists had,) who do not belong to the "one body."
We cannot know where that ministry is, or who com-
pose that ministry, unless we know what is the bond
which unites them into "one body." It is hence
apparent that to every man this is a question of the
greatest practical importance. For every man wishes
to know whether the minister which he is under be-
longs to the " one body" spread over the earth. And
how is he to know this ? He cannot know it unless he
knows what the tie is which unites all the ministers
of the church together, with their respective charges,
into "one body." Now when Protestant churchmen
come to answer this question, they find themselves
involved in inextricable difficulties and glaring incon-
sistencies. They are compelled either to abandon
virtually the doctrine of the unity of the church, or
maintain that although the church once enjoyed that
great blessing, yet that it has been forfeited. They
virtually abandon the unity of the church by adopting
the theory of the independence of diocesan and na-
tional churches — a theory which is utterly destructive
of unity. This is the theory most commonly prevail-
ing among Protestant churchmen. This is the the-
ory upon which they endeavor to vindicate their
46 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
separation from the Catholic church. This is the
theory upon which all their claims are based. We have
already shown that this theory is inconsistent with
the language which holy scripture employs to desig-
nate the church. And we have also briefly argued
that it is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of the
unity of the church. Upon the latter point we wish
to make a few more observations. Let us remember
then what the unity of the church universal is. And
here we will accept the definitions of Archdeacon
Manning already cited. He recognizes the church of
the Apostles as " one visible organized system."
Again, " It was a visible body having an exact inter-
nal organization." Now we have already argued that
there cannot be such an institution without one gov-
ernment and one authority, and also one chief officer
to administer that one government and exercise that
one authority. And it must be obvious that the the-
ory of diocesan independence is irreconcileable with
the existence of such an institution. If the diocess of
New York be independent of the diocess of London,
and both independent of all external authority what-
ever, it is manifest that they are not and cannot be
integral parts of "an invisible organized system."
For an "organized system" necessarily implies a mu-
tual subordination of the parts, and a common subjec-
tion of all to some uniting and controlling authority.
If a diocess or national church be independent of any
other diocess or national church, then it must be a
complete church in itself. And if one be such, so
must another be. And the result is, that we shall
have not so many parts of one church, but so many
complete churches ! And still less can there be " one
visible organized system" if every part is independent.
For in such a system the unity must be visible, appa-
rent, palpable — such as every kingdom or republic
exhibits. And certainly it is a visible unity of this
nature that our blessed Lord assigned to His church
when he said, " That they all may be one as thou,
A VISIBLE HEAD. 47
Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may
be one in us: that the world may believe that thou
hast sent me." Here we learn that the unity of His
church is to be a proof to the world of the truth of
His mission. But it could not be such a proof to the
world unless the world could behold it. And, surely,
the world could not behold it unless it were visible.
And it is equally plain that the world cannot see that
there is any unity between independent churches,
much less between churches which are not merely
independent, but actually hostile to each other and
contradictory in their creeds ! Since then the theory
of independence is inconsistent with that visible and
palpable unity which our Saviour predicated of His
church, it is obvious that that theory cannot be true.
Besides, the very phrase "independent branches" so
commonly used by Protestant churchmen, confutes
itself. The church is compared to a tree, of which,
say Protestant churchmen, one branch is in America,
another in England, another in Spain, and so on.
But it is strange that it never occurred to them to in-
quire where the trunk of this tree is. And no less
strange that they should overlook the obvious fact
that a " branch" cannot be independent, since it de-
pends upon the trunk for its very existence. Thus
it is manifest that not only the metaphors of scripture,
but even this of their own choosing, are wholly inap-
plicable to the church divided as they say into inde-
pendent communities. On the other hand the meta-
phor is beautifully appropriate to the church as
Catholics understand it ; since all the branches which
they recognize are by a true and visible unity joined
to the main trunk — the Holy Roman See — which,
nearly sixteen centuries ago, St. Cyprian called " the
root and matrix of the Catholic Church." (Epist. 45,
Ad. Corn.)
We would further remark, that upon the principle
of diocesan independence there can be no adequate
safeguard against the disruption of a national or pro-
48 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
vincial church. If the diocesses be bound together
merely by a voluntary compact, as is the case in the
Protestant Episcopal Church, there is plainly nothing
to prevent the whole body from being split into as
many pieces as there are diocesses ; for of course the
compact can be dissolved at the will of the diocesses
which formed it. It is a union or unity of human
arrangement, and consequently possesses no divine
authority, and therefore may be broken at the option
of those who made it. A diocess in the exercise of
its inherent rights of independence, may withdraw at
any moment from the confederacy, without forfeiting
any of its powers or functions. It is plainly a mere
human contrivance and subject to human expediency,
and therefore cannot be that unity of divine institu-
tion and of divine obligation which is predicated of
the church both by holy scripture and the fathers.
For a union which men have a right to make and a
right to dissolve, as they judge to be expedient, can
be neither divine in its origin nor divine in its obli-
gations. From all which it necessarily follows that
the principle of diocesan independence is subversive
of the unity of a national or provincial church, as also
of the unity of the church universal. What security
then is there for the union of the Protestant Episcopal
Church ? There is plainly none. The ecclesiastical
confederacy, not being the result of divine institution,
may be dissolved at the pleasure of each diocess. And
those who are acquainted with the affairs of that
church, know very well that several indications of
such a dissolution have already been given. It is
maintained, for instance, that a certain diocess has a
right to extricate itself from its difficulties by throw-
ing itself back upon its inherent prerogatives of inde-
pendence. Whether it will do so time will show.
But it is evident that it has the right, upon the prin-
ciple of diocesan independence. And should it exer-
cise it, as it may do, the Protestant Episcopal Church
will inevitably share the fate of other Protestant de-
A VISIBLE HEAD. 49
nominations. But whether this difficulty prove the
occasion of its dissolution or not, it is certain that a
union formed merely upon the grounds of expediency
cannot be that union which belongs to the church of
Christ. And it is equally certain that such a union
cannot rest upon any solid base.
But the theory of the independence of a diocesan
or national church, is not only inconsistent with the
doctrine of the unity of the church, but it tends in
practice to destroy some of the most important powers
of the church, and to defeat the very end of its insti-
tution. Let it be granted, then, for the sake of test-
ing the theory, that a national church is independent
of all other churches and of all external authority
whatever. If such be the case, then a national church
cannot commit schism, for schism consists in sepa-
rating from lawful authority. But a national church
not being subject to any external authority, it could
not of course separate from any such authority. Thus
schism would be impossible. But we are all agreed
that schism is possible ; consequently the theory of
independence cannot be true. But perhaps it will be
said that it is subject to the authority of a General
Council. In reply to this plea, we would remind the
reader of what we have already said respecting the
incompetency of a General Council to perform the
functions of government. And also that in point of
fact the authority of the General Councils is not
recognized, at least practically, by the Protestant
churches. We have specified one instance in which
they continually violate a canon confirmed by a
General Council. And if they may disobey the au-
thority of a General Council in one point, they may
disobey it in another and in all. .Consequently the
authority of a General Council does not answer the
purpose alledged.
The fact that the canon above referred to is openly
broken, and indeed formally repudiated (in one of the
articles of religion,) by the Anglican and Protestant
50 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
Episcopal Church, shows clearly that they are deter-
mined to follow the primitive church just so far as
they think proper ; and that they will submit to the
authority of a General Council only to the same extent.
It shows most conclusively that the " independence"
which they claim is a total and absolute independence.
And this serves to confirm all that we have said re-
specting the utter inconsistency of their theory with
the doctrine of the unity of the church. But there is
another reason why the authority of a General Coun-
cil is inadequate for the purpose of unity and govern-
ment. Protestant churchmen maintain that the de-
crees of a council are not binding unless subsequently
acknowledged by all the churches.* We shall not
discuss the truth of this position. But certainly, un-
less received with much limitation, it might in certain
circumstances be used by a fallen and perverse church
to nullify the authority of a General Council, so far
at any rate as the purposes of government are con-
cerned. Suppose a national church, having corrupted
the faith, has been consequently condemned by a
general council as heretical and schismatical. She
thinks proper, however, to persist in her errors, and
so of course refuses to assent to the decision of a
General Council.
If, then, the principle above-mentioned be literally
true — since all churches must assent, and she being
one church has not assented — the decisions are null
and void : she is neither heretical nor schismatical —
the decisions of all other churches to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Thus it is manifest that both heresy and schism
would be impossible, if there be no other universal
authority than a general council. But perhaps it
will be said that a church under censure would not
be allowed a voice in her own case. Then you de-
* Vid. Ogilby's Lee. p. 194 ; Palmer's Ch. Hist. p. 196, and
Percival's "Roman Schism."
A VISIBLE HEAD. 51
prive her of her rights ; which is but another proof of
the impracticability of a general council answering 1
the purpose of a head to the church. What we have
supposed of one national church, we may suppose
also of any number of them, and indeed of all of
them. For Protestant churchmen deny the infalli-
bility of the church, with reservation indeed on the
part of some, but only as to the church universal.
They all maintain that any particular national church
may err even in matters of faith ; and if one may err,
so may another, and so indeed may all. Suppose,
then, a number of these " particular churches" fall
into error. A general council is convened. These
churches, of course, send their representatives. These
representatives join with those of other churches in
discussing" the points of difference. Thus we shall
have not merely the anomaly of the accused sitting as
judges in their own cause, but also of an assembly
combining in itself the powers of legislator, judge,
and executive ! A system utterly at variance with
all experience and common sense ! And yet such is
the system which some ascribe (certainly without re-
flection) to that "kingdom" founded by Infinite wis-
dom ! But suppose a majority of these churches were
on the side of error — infected for instance with Arian-
ism ? As the questions in a general council would be
decided by the vote of the majority, then we should
have Arianism taught by the authority of a general
council ! But it is replied, it would not be binding
because not afterwards sanctioned by the " unanimous
consent of all the churches." But here the question
arises, if there be no officer to act as head over the
church, who is to decide whether all consent or not?
Who is to collect the suffrages of the churches, and
make an official and authoritative announcement of
the result ? A general council cannot do it, because
it is not in session. And it is obvious that unless
there be some central authority to give a final decision
in the matter, to which all must submit on pain of
52 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
schism, the faith of the church would be involved in
utter uncertainty, and all would be dissension, con-
fusion and anarchy. But perhaps it will be said that
all the essential points of faith have been decided long
since by the first four or six general councils. If so,
why, we ask, do Protestant churchmen make an ap-
peal to a future general council ? If it be replied,
" merely to arrange matters of discipline or external
unity," we should respond that Protestant churchmen
had better first show their readiness to obey a general
council in points of discipline long since established,*
before they appeal to a future one. By violating the
laws of discipline which were passed by the early
general councils, they virtually repudiate the authori-
ty of a general council. They practically declare
that they will obey only so far as accords with their
own private judgment ; which of course is allowing
a general council no authority at all : for authority
which is not imperative — authority which leaves men
the right to obey or not, is plainly no authority at all.
The authority of a general council is either impera-
tive or it is not. If it is, then Protestant Churchesf
are guilty of schism in the violation specified. But
if it be not imperative, it cannot answer the purpose
of government; for no government can exist if the
subjects have the right to obey or not as they please.
Which alternative will they take ? But, besides, even
if these churches were not involved in this dilemma —
even if they sincerely and implicitly submitted to the
decisions of a general council — there would still re-
main the insuperable difficulties already mentioned
in the way of carrying out its designs, without some
chief executive officer.
But granting that all the essential points of faith
* For instance, the celibacy of the clergy as ruled by the canon
already mentioned.
t Here we would take occasion to observe, that by " Protestant
Churches" we mean those Protestant communities which claim to
possess the episcopal succession.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 53
have long ago been decided, and that there is no need
of a general council for this purpose, the question still
remains what is to be done when a particular church
is reported to have departed from one or more of these
points ? Every one knows how artfully the Arians
endeavored to conceal their heresy, and with consid-
erable success too. A particular church having fallen
into heresy might, without much difficulty, continue
to conceal the fact from the great majority of churches ;
indeed it would of necessity be unknown, except by
rumor, to distant churches. Mere rumor or suspicion,
or even knowledge on the part of a few adjacent
churches, would not answer in such a case. It is
evidently a matter requiring judicial investigation.
Unless judicially investigated, there could be no au-
thoritative decision as to the fact. And without such
decision, other churches would have no right to with-
hold communion with her. And, on the other hand,
if they commune with her, they must partake- of her
guilt, (if guilty ;) and thus the leprosy would gradual-
ly spread over the whole body. It is manifest, then,
that a judicial investigation would be needed. But
who, we ask, is to institute this necessary investiga-
tion ? A general council could not be assembled every
time a " particular church" falls under suspicion ; and
if it could, there would be the difficulties already
mentioned to prevent any effectual action on its part
in such a case. Thus again it is made plain, that a
chief officer is wanted at the head of the government,
if there be a government at all.
But, perhaps, we have taken unnecessary pains to
overthrow the theory respecting the authority of a
general council as a means of unity. For such a
theory, though advanced by certain Protestant church-
men, is virtually discarded by the "Church of Eng-
land" in her 2lst article, as the following extract
shows: "General councils may not be gathered to-
gether without the commandment and will of Princes.
And when they be gathered together * * * they
54 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things
pertaining unto God." According to this article, the
reader perceives that if a general council were sum-
moned to-morrow, the Church of England could not
be represented without the " commandment and will"
of her majesty. Queen Victoria. And so with all
other particular or national churches, they could not
send representatives without similar permission from
their civil rulers ! Indeed the case would be worse
than this ; for the article says, " they may not be
gathered together without the commandment" of
princes. If, then, the civil rulers do not think proper
both to give their assent and issue their commands,
no general council can be held ! Thus a few royal
laymen or women may prevent the holding of a gene-
ral council ! If this be so, then the authority of gene-
ral councils cannot suffice for the government of the
church ; because, at the very time its interposition is
most needed, these " princes" might withhold their
" commandment and will." Thus it is obvious that
the article, by placing even the assembling of a gen-
eral council at the caprice of civil rulers, virtually
rejects its authority for the purposes of government.*
But the article not only lays down such a condition
as puts it in the power of one or more laymen to pre-
vent even the holding of a general council, but also
proceeds to make a declaration which deprives it of
all authority when assembled. For it says, "they
may err, and have erred, in things pertaining to God."
And also further adds, " that things ordained by them
as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor
authority, unless it may be declared that they are
taken out of Holy Scriptures."
* It is very true that in the early ages Christian emperors were
sometimes instrumental in assembling general councils at the in-
stance of the Pope. But it is one thing for the church to avail her-
self of their assistance, and a very different thing to give them the
exclusive tight of convoking general councils, as the 21st article
does.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 55
A general council, then, can err. If it can err, it
can either err in matters of faith, or it cannot. If it
cannot err in matters of faith, then it is infallible.
But Protestant churchmen deny its infallibility, con-
sequently it can err in matters of faith ; and if it can
err hi matters of faith, it may teach heresy for truth.
And if so, what security have we that the Nicene creed,
or any other creed set forth by a general council, is
not heretical ? The article itself evidently teaches that
its decisions are to be tested by scripture. But who is
to apply this test? — who is to say whether this or that
creed accords with scripture ? Is every individual to
decide this question for himself? If so, then their
council might have spared itself the trouble of as-
sembling : we are as well orT without, as with a coun-
cil. If every man has, after all, to decide for himself
whether this or that doctrine be heretical or not, then
a general council possesses no authority ; and we are
reduced to the ultra-protestant principle of " private
judgment." But perhaps it will be said that every na-
tional church must decide whether a creed set forth
by a general council be scriptural or heretical ; but
plainly the consequences are the same : for, if a na-
tional church has this right, a general council can
have no imperative authority over it. In the exercise
of this right, it may conclude that a creed put forth
by a general council is against scripture, and hence
reject that creed, which very thing was done by the
Arians in opposition to the Council of Nice. It cannot
be called heretical, for it only exercises its legitimate
right of deciding for itself. It cannot be excommuni-
cated on the ground of heresy ; for no competent au-
thority has decided that it is in heresy. If it has the
right to sit in judgment upon the decisions of a gene-
ral council to ascertain whether they harmonize with
scripture, then of course it has the right to reverse
these decisions in case it judges them to be contrary
to scripture ; and consequently it is not subordinate,
but superior to a general council. Its authority is
56 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
final — there is no appeal from it to a higher tribunal.
It has reversed the decisions of a general council, and
rendered them null and void ! Thus it is absolutely-
independent ! Its teaching proceeds from itself, and is
based as exclusively upon its own authority as if it
were the whole church. Now if this be true, where
is the " one body" with its one authoritative voice de-
ciding the points of faith, judging the accused, and
exscinding the incorrigible ? It is a mere chimera — it
has no real existence, and never had. Every particu-
lar church may indeed be such a body within its own
limits ; but the idea that all these particular churches,
thus independent of each other, form " one body" of
this nature, is certainly shown to be preposterous in
the extreme. It is manifest, then, that there is no
middle ground. We must either hold that each par-
ticular church is absolutely independent, and so give
up the unity of the church, or we must hold that
each and every particular church is subject to some
central and controlling authority which binds them
all into one polity.
The absurdity of the position advanced by the 21st
article, giving to individuals or national churches the
right of reversing the decisions of general councils,
may be still further exposed. For upon this princi-
ple one church may teach as truth what other churches
reject as heresy ; and there is no competent authority
to decide between them. Thus what is heterodox in
England, will be orthodox in Spain. Where then is
the " one faith ?" It is utterly lost. No one knows
where it is or what it is ; for there is no competent
authority to declare it. Now is it not utterly absurd
to suppose that such a state of things is possible in
that " one body," which St. Paul calls " the Church
of the living God — the pillar and ground of the
truth ;" and to which, as he also teaches us, God has
given " pastors and teachers for the perfection of the
saints'''' — "till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a per-
A VISIBLE HEAD. 57
feet man, unto the measure of the stature of the full-
ness of Christ ; that we be no more children tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine ? n How can the church be the "pillar and
ground of the truth," when she has utterly failed to
preserve " the truth ?" For certainly she has failed,
for all practical purposes, to preserve the truth, if one
part of the church teaches, for truth, that which
another part rejects as " damnable error !" The voice
of one part contradicts, and so destroys the voice of
the other. The members cannot believe both — for
one declares what is contrary to the teaching of the
other. They cannot believe either, for one has as
much authority and therefore as much claim to be be-
lieved as the other. Thus it is evident that upon this
principle the church, so far from being " the pillar and
ground of the truth," cannot even tell her children
what the truth is.
And amid all this contradictory teaching of these
independent and self-sufficient " parts," how is it pos-
sible for the " members" to come in " the unity of the
faith ?" The " unity of the faith" is destroyed. In-
stead of being but " one faith," there are many. Now
we are not theorizing — we are not suggesting difficul-
ties which might possibly happen ; they already exist,
that is, upon the theory of Protestant churchmen.
Catholics have nothing to do with them. For the
" one body" which they recognize as the " Church of
the living God," teaches but one and the same faith
through all her wide-spread communion. Thus she
answers to the description of the church, and fulfills
the ends of the church as laid down in Holy Writ.
Her members every where "meet in the unity of the
faith ;" and she is the " pillar and ground of the truth :"
for her members every where believe that " one faith"
upon her infallible authority, and thus are preserved
from being " tossed to and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine." Here is " one body" with
" one faith," and teaching that faith with certainty
4
58 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
and authority, as the church must teach it, if the
words of Christ be true : " He that will not hear the
church, let him be as a heathen and publican."
On the other hand let us adopt for a moment the
theory of Protestant churchmen — let us admit into
the "one body" the Church of England "as by law
established"— the P. E. Church— the Greek Church,
&c. Let us view them all as forming the Church of
Christ — and. alas ! how the scene is changed ! For
not only does the teaching of these separated commu-
nities differ fundamentally from the teaching of the
Catholic body, but also widely differs from that of
each other. For instance : the P. E. Church recog-
nizes but two creeds — the Apostles' and Nicene —
while the Church of England recognizes, in addition
to these, the Athanasian creed, which she says " ought
thoroughly to be received and believed."
And again : The Church of England concedes to
civil rulers the supreme authority in church as well as
State, which the P. E. Church does not. But the dif-
ference between these two churches and the sects of
the East, is still greater. For while the former ex-
pressly reject the doctrine of " invocation of saints"
as " repugnant to the word of God," the latter receive
it as true, and practice it to a greater extent than
Catholics. And, indeed, in nearly all the points in
which Protestants and Catholics differ, the Eastern
sects will be found on the side of Catholics.
As many Protestant churchmen seem to be under a
different impression respecting these sects, it may be
well to insert the following testimony taken from a
Protestant witness : Dr. Durbin, in his u Observations
in the East," says, "It is not to be denied, that in all
essential points of doctrine and order, the Greek, the
American, the Syrian, and the Nestorian Churches,
agree substantially with the Roman Catholics of Eu-
rope."— (Vol. 2, p. 281.)
"Nor is the worship of the Oriental Churches freer
from corruptions than that of the Roman Catholic.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 59
They worship pictures and the cross, as do the Latins,
and pay a more constant and ardent devotion than
the Catholics to the Panagia or Holy Virgin Mother
of God. Their reverence for saints is as profound,
and their invocation of them as frequent, as among
the Roman Catholics. Their puhlic services consist
almost entirely in daily matins, mass and vespers ; and
when the host (or bread and wine after consecration)
is carried among the people, they fall down and wor-
ship it with a grosser superstition than even the
Latins:'— (Ibid. p. 2S3.)
Such is the condition of those churches in the Easi
with which Protestant Episcopalians are now seeking
communion, while they shrink from the touch of
Catholics as an awful pollution ! Is not this to " strain
at a gnat and swallow a camel !" Dr. Durbin bears
testimony to the happy influence which the Catholic
Church exerts among the Orientals. He says : "Nor
is it to be denied that their intercourse with the Roman
Catholic Church tends to elevate them in the scale of
civilization." — (Ibid. p. 287.)
But to resume our argument. While the Church
of England and the P. E. Church hold the doctrine
of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the "Father
and the Son" the Eastern sects have steadfastly re-
jected it ; and indeed it was chiefly on account of
this difference that they separated from the Catholic
Church. But important as the differences between
these separated churches are, their differences with
the Catholic Church are still greater. They more
than realize all the difficulties to which we have al-
luded.
It will be sufficient, however, to specify one instance.
The Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal
Church, in their 31st Article, reject the doctrine of the
sacrifice of the mass as a "blasphemous fable and
dangerous deceit ;" while the churches in communion
with the holy Roman See, not only insist that that doc-
trine is orthodox, but that it must be believed by all
60 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
Christians, under pain of anathema.* Now if all
these churches, viz., the Church of England, the Pro-
testant Episcopal Church, the Eastern Churches, and
the Roman Catholic Churches, be, as protestant
churchmen say, parts of the "one church," then we
are reduced to this awful dilemma; in one part of the
church that is sound and orthodox, which in another
part is a " blasphemous fable ;" in one part of the
church the members are required to reject what in
another part they are required to believe ; and that,
too, with regard to fundamental doctrines. Thus, if
there be the one church, then we have the "one
church,*' teaching one doctrine as true in England,
and the opposite doctrine as true in Italy. Is it not a
dishonor to our Divine Lord to suppose that He has
given us such a church as this for our guide? Her
children cannot tell what to believe, if each part has
as much authority as the other, and yet one part
teaches a doctrine the very opposite of what the other
teaches. Will it be said that the members of each
part must believe what that part to which they belong
teaches ? But this reply will not obviate the difficulty ;
* We would take occasion to observe, that the alterations made
by the English " Reformers," with respect to the holy sacrifice of
the mass, and other Catholic doctrines, proved conclusively either
that they were utterly ignorant of the documents of the early church,
or that they were regardless of them in a most wanton degree.
The following acknowledgment, by Professor Keble of the Anglican
Church, may prove useful to those who seek to cast reproach upon
the Catholic Church, by falsely accusing her of having departed from
the primitive church. " The works of the Fathers had not yet been
critically sifted, so that in regard of almost every one of them, men
were more or less embarrassed, during the whole of that age (of
Elizabeth) with vague suspicions of interpolation." (Pref. to
Hooker's Works.) He expressly attributes the alterations which
were made in the celebration of the Eucharist to " indefinite fear of
interpolation in the early liturgies." (lb.) To this we would add,
that since the days of the Reformers, some very important docu-
ments of the primitive church have been discovered — for instance,
the shorter epistles of St. Ignatius, which contain strong testimonies
in favor of the Catholic Church. Now it is for Protestants to con-
sider whether alterations made by men in such circumstances are
worthy of the least confidence.
A VISIBLE HEAD. Gl
for, in the first place, it is impossible for them to do
so, if they at nil recognize themselves as connected
with the rest of the church ; for if ench part possesses
equal authority, they destroy the testimony of ench
other when they tench opposite doctrines ; nnd the
members cannot believe either upon the strength of
their authority. And here we must remember that
the authority of the church is the foundation of our
faith, unless we adopt the ultra-protestant principle of
" private judgment." There is no middle ground be-
tween the two. We must take one or the other.
If we believe the church, whether a national church
or the universal church, we must do so on the ground
that she has authority to decide and teach — com-
mitted to her by Almighty God. The moment we
claim the right to sit in judgment upon her teach-
ing, and to receive or reject it as our opinion prompts,
that moment we reject the church, and throw our-
selves upon the ultra protestant principle. If, then,
we repeat, the parts of the church teach opposite
doctrine, each part having equal authority, it is plain
that the members cannot believe either, for the autho-
rity of one neutralizes or nullifies the authority of the
other; consequently there is no authority left upon
which to base our belief; consequently the church is
without authority ; consequently she is without faith ;
consequently she is unchurched. She is dissolved
and reduced to ruins. " The gates of hell" have pre-
vailed, and the promise of Christ is falsified !
But, in the second place, even if it were true that
the authority of each part remains, and that the mem-
bers of each part must implicitly receive the teaching
of that part with which they are immediately con-
nected, we are still involved in a fatal dilemma. If
the church, whether national or universal, has any
authority at all, it is a divine authority ; consequently
whatever she teaches, she teaches with divine autho-
rity. If, then, these churches contradict each other
in their teaching, divine authority contradicts divine
62 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
authority. Divine authority in Italy requires the
"members" to believe as sacred truth what divine
authority in England requires the " members" to reject
as a " blasphemous fable." Now if these dissentient
churches be parts of the "one church," there is no
way of avoiding this ruinous dilemma : for if they be
parts of the one church, each empowered to judge
and teach for itself, they must do so with divine autho-
rity; and if they teach with divine authority, and yet
contradict each other in their teaching, then it plainly
follows that divine authority contradicts itself. But
since it is impossible for divine authority to contradict
itself, they cannot all teach with divine authority, and
therefore cannot all be parts of the " one body." If,
then, they cannot all be parts of the " one body," the
question arises, which parts do belong to the " one
body," and compose it. They may all be divided into
two classes, one class embracing the Church of Eng-
land, the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the Greek
Church, and some of the eastern sects, differing though
from one another very materially; the other class
embracing all the churches acknowledging the autho-
rity of the apostolic Roman See, agreeing with each
other with perfect unanimity. Now in which of
these classes do we find the "one church," for it
cannot embrace both ; for we have shown that they
contradict each other in matters of faith, and there-
fore cannot subsist together as " one church." It can-
not consist of the churches named in the first class,
for they contradict each other in their teaching, besides
being destitute of any outward unity ; and indeed it
is not pretended that it is found in them alone. It
cannot consist of either one of these churches singly;
for, in the first place, neither one of them even pre-
tends to be the whole church ; and in the second
place,, it cannot be the whole church, because lacking
at least one essential mark of the church universality.
This mark was strenuously insisted on by the
early church in controversy with the sects. St.
A VISIBLE HEAD.
63
Augustine, addressing certain schismatics, says : "If
your church is Catholic, show me that it spreads
its branches throughout the world : for such is the
meaning of the word catholic." (Contra Gaudent. 1.
ii. c. 1.) It is only that body in communion with the
Holy See that can endure this test. The same emi-
nent father makes another remark, which is no less
applicable now. "All heretics," says he, "wish to be
called Catholic, yet if any stranger ask, where do the
Catholics hold their assembly, no heretic dare point
to his own church or chapel" St. Cyril, in his Cate-
chetical Lectures, says the church " is called Catholic
because it is throughout the whole world, from one
end cf the earth to the other" Hence he gives the
following direction for avoiding the assemblies of
schismatics : " And if ever thou art sojourning in any
city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is,
nor merely where the church is, but where is the
Catholic Church ?" Let our separated brethren only
follow this simple direction, and they will soon find
the way home. But to resume our argument
Since, then, the " one church" cannot be found in
one or all of the churches in the first named class, it
must either have failed, or it must be found among
the second class. But it is admitted by all, that it has
not failed consequently it must be found only in the
second class ; and which we find has all the marks of
the true church — all those marks by which it has
been customary, from the earliest period, to distinguish
the Catholic Church from schismatical and heretical
sects. And besides all this, it has that attribute which
we have found to be necessary, not only to the unity
of the church, but also to the unity of the faith, viz.,
common subjection of all the branches to one central
authority — lodged not in a general council, which we
have proved to be inadequate, but in some divinely
appointed officer.
Here we would take occasion to notice an ob-
jection sometimes urged against the authority of
64 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
one chief officer, as a means of maintaining the
unity of the church. It is said that if it be necessary
to be in communion with the Pope, then the Pope
must be infallible, otherwise he may do something
which would make a separation justifiable.* To
this we reply in the first place, that we admit the in-
fallibility of the Pope, when deciding a point of faith
ex cathedra ; and, in the second place, if his infal-
libility were not admitted, and such a contingency
were to arise, the question of his error would have to
be decided by some competent authority — by a general
council, or by the consent of the churches ; and, if so
decided, there would be no need of a separation — the
Pope must either retract or resign his office. And, in
the third place, we reply, that the argument is unques-
tionably false, because it proves too much. Protestant
churchmen maintain that it is necessary that the
members of a diocess should adhere to the communion
of their bishop on pain of schism. Hence we might
frame a similar argument. If it be necessary for the
members of a diocess to adhere to the communion of
their bishop, then that bishop must be infallible,
otherwise he may do something which would justify
a separation. Thus the argument urged against the
authority of the Pope, in the reasoning above men-
tioned, is plainly shown to be a fallacy. It proves
nothing, because, if it prove any thing, it proves too
much ; it proves that every bishop at the head of a
diocess must be infallible.
It is also very commonly objected against the doc-
trine of a chief bishop over the whole church, that it
lessens the episcopal dignity, as it places bishop over
bishop.f To this we reply, in the first place, that the
same argument might be urged with equal force
against the hierarchy of the Anglican Church, in
which there is an archbishop having jurisdiction over
* New York " Churchman."
t Thus Dr. Henshaw, Protestant Bishop of Rhode Island, calls it
" a degrading vassalage." ("Lee. on Priest," &c. p. 45.)
A VISIBLE HEAD. 65
other bishops ; and also against the established regu-
lations of the primitive church, by which bishop was
placed over bishop in several gradations, lo say no-
thing of the Pope. Thus there were bishops, .Metro-
politans, and Patriarchs, or Archbishops. (Sue I lenry's
Chris. Antiq. p. 35, et seq. — Hammond's "Definitions
of Faith," passim.) It is very natural, indeed, for the
pride of the human heart to revolt at the idea of sub-
jection. But "order is Heaven's first law." And
"order" cannot be maintained without subordination
and obedience ; and though obedience has its limits,
so also has independence. A subordination among
officers is necessary under every government. And
subordination among bishops is equally necessary in
the church, unless we abandon the unity of the church,
and adopt the extravagant theory of diocesan indepen-
dence — a theory at variance with the ivhole eccle-
siastical system of primitive times. Were not
Timothy and Titus bishops ? Yet they were subject
to St. Paul. But as to the necessity of an official
inequality among bishops, let us hear the testimony
of a great favorite among protestant churchmen — the
" judicious Hooker." He says, " They which dream
that, if civil authority had not given such pre-eminence
unto one city more than another, there had never
grown an inequality amongst bishops, are deceived]
superiority of one bishop over another would be re-
quisite in the church, although that civil distinction
were abolished." (Eccl. Pol. B. VII. ch. viii. 8.)
Thus, then, according to Hooker, a superiority of
bishop over bishop is not the result of civil regula-
tions, but a thing " requisite in the church." And this
being granted, there is not only a way opened for a
Pope, but a Pope becomes requisite ; for why is a
superiority of one- bishop over another requisite?"
plainly for the maintenance of order, unity, and go-
vernment. " The ancient church," says Calvin, "ap-
pointed patriarchs and primates in the different pro-
vinceSj that by this means the bishops might be
4
rip<tfl«5
66 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
more closely bound together." — (Apud Hooker, vol. ii.
p. 167.) But if there must be one bishop over another
for the accomplishment of this purpose, in any part
of the church — for instance in England — it is manifest
that the subjection of all the parts to one bishop or
head is equally necessary, if all the parts form one
church. But this point we have already argued,
though we are, of course, happy to find our reasoning
sustained by the opinion of the "judicious Hooker."
The undisputed fact, then, that there was bishop
over bishop, in the primitive church, furnishes a suffi-
cient reply to those who, in reference to the papacy,
cry out, "vassalage," "usurpation," "despotism," &c.
And more than that, it furnishes, upon the ground
just mentioned, strong presumptive evidence that there
was a Pope in the primitive church ; for if there was
bishop over bishop, for the maintenance of unity and
government, in particular districts, for the same pur-
pose there must have been a bishop over all. To all
which, we might add, that the protection which such
an officer must afford to the bishops generally, would
more than compensate for any sacrifice which can
possibly be involved in subordination. Without such
an officer, to whom a final appeal can be had, what is
to preserve an innocent bishop from unjust censures,
growing out of local prejudices and excitements,
whether on the part of the members of his own dio-
cess, or on the part of his fellow bishops ? Suppose,
in a time when party spirit, growing out of theological
differences, is rife in the church, a bishop is accused
and brought before a court of his peers for trial. How
easy it would be for those of an opposite school,
should they happen to be in the majority, to crush an
innocent man, who has rendered himself obnoxious to
them by his sentiments or course of action in eccle-
siastical affairs. I say how easy it would be to do
this, if there be no higher officer, before whose tribunal
his case may be reheard, apart from local influences
and party prejudices. We cannot but think it far
A VISIBLE HEAD. 67
safer to be subject to a Pope, than to be subject to a
majority under such circumstances. Our readers
know that we are not supposing a case which is
barely possible.*
Some, indeed, manifest great repugnance to the
acknowledgment of a foreign bishop ; and yet it
is obvious that in such a case as we have sup-
posed, the fact of his being at a distance would be
an important advantage, as he is free from the in-
fluence of local prejudices which, indeed, may have
been the sole cause of the trial and condemnation in
our supposed case. And we cannot but add, that the
hostility generally entertained amongst protestant
churchmen to the authority of & foreign bishop, seems
to us to be the result of very contracted views. It is
unquestionably true, that among the nations of the
earth, one's own country should be first, best, and
dearest ; and especially ought this to be true of the
citizens of our own happy republic. But cannot one's
heart beat with the most ardent affection for his own
beloved country without being steeled against the
virtuous, pure and holy, of other lands ? Has not an in-
spired apostle reminded us that God " has made of
one blood all nations of men ?" Are we not all one
family, descended from one common ancestor? And
* Who does not see here the finger of God? The Anglican
Church rejects the authority of the Pope on the plea of liberty and
independence. But from the period of the Reformation down to
the present moment, she has been the creature and vassal of the
sovereign and Parliament. She rejects the patriarch of the west,
and receives in exchange as a head, first, that monster of iniquity
and barbarity, Henry VIII.; next a boy, and then a woman. Thus
does Almighty God make sin bring its own punishment. And the
condition of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country is but
little better — disipline is scarcely more than a name ; and neither
bishops nor clergy have any appellate tribunal to which injured and
oppressed innocence can resort for an impartial trial. So much for
setting aside the ordinance of God. (See a Sermon preached by Dr.
Hopkins, at the consecration of Dr. Potter ; and a pamphlet, entitled
" The Novelties which disturb our Unity;" by a " Presbyter of the
Diocess of Pennsylvania." And also a sermon preached by Dr.
Ogilby, before the Convention of the Diocess of New Jersey, 1843.)
68 • REASONS IN FAVOR OF
are we not taught, in various parts of Holy Scripture,
that one design of the gospel was to do away the
national prejudices, and the national exclusiveness
of Judaism — that all of every tribe and tongue might
be knit together in one bond of fellowship ? What is
it but Judaizing, when we talk of an independent
national church, and isolate ourselves from the rest
of Christendom? And when we thus rail against
foreign spiritual jurisdiction, is it possible for us to
have any worthy conception of the unity and catho-
licity of the church? If the church be both catholic
and one, there is certainly no incongruity in being
subject to a head resident at Rome, or any other dis-
tant point ; because, if she be one and catholic, the
fidelity or obedience of her members is not to be deter-
mined by the civil divisions of the globe, which are
of human arrangement, and which, too, are ever
shifting their limits, but by divine appointment. This
is a matter in which distance is annihilated and un-
known. Part is joined as compactly to part, part
sympathizes as fervently with part, and part is as
truly subordinate to part, as the body to the head in
the human frame, no matter what oceans, or mountains,
or deserts may intervene. Unless unity and catho-
licity be a mere figment of the imagination, it is
a gross misnomer to speak of a foreign bishop.
The word foreign has no place in the vocabulary of
genuine catholicity. It is perfectly consistent, indeed,
for those without the church to use such language ;
but by those within, it cannot be recognized. If the
church be one and catholic, those within her fold, no
matter what part of the earth they inhabit, are "no
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with
the saints, and of the household of God." (Eph.
ii. 13.) " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female :
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 28.)
We may further add, that Protestants, in objecting
to fore ign jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters in re-
A VISIBLE HEAD. 69
ference to the Pope, are guilty of a most glaring in-
consistency, inasmuch as they themselves continually
recognize the principle and act upon it. Are not the
Protestant missionaries in Africa, Greece, China,
India, and other foreign countries, with their native
converts, teachers, &c. — are they not subject to the
ecclesiastical authority of the various bodies of Chrw-
tians to which they respectively belong, both in this
country and in England? What is this but submis-
sion on the part of these missionaries, teachers, and
converts, to foreign jurisdiction ? Now if it be right
for Protestant Churches in distant countries to be sub-
ject to the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury,
or of the general convention of the P. E. Church, surely
the mere fact that the Bishop of Rome is a resident
of a distant country cannot make it wrong for Catho-
lics in this country or any other country to be sub-
ject to his authority ; for the authority in both cases
is perfectly similar, being purely ecclesiastical and
spiritual.
It can scarcely be necessary to notice a very com-
mon objection based upon political grounds ; for as
we have just intimated, it is of course a centre of
unity only in ecclesiastical matters that we are treat-
ing of. Subjection to a civil government and subjec-
tion to an ecclesiastical government, are two distinct
things. There is no necessary collision between them.
They may co-exist in harmony and peace. Every
denomination in the country has an ecclesiastical gov-
ernment to which its members are subject. But no
one pretends that that subjection is inconsistent with
due allegiance to the State in things temporal. The
fact that the head of the ecclesiastical government has
its seat in a distant land cannot affect the point. If
a spiritual head may be acknowledged and obeyed, as
all admit, consistently with due loyalty to the civil
government, it matters not where that head is. A
spiritual head within a State or nation, has as much
power to interfere with the loyal obedience of the
70 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
people to the civil government as a spiritual head
abroad, and indeed it has more, from the very fact of
its presence.
On the other hand, subjection to a foreign spiritual
head may in some cases prove instrumental in con-
ferring an incalculable benefit upon a nation. If we
♦stake not, this will be verified in the welfare of our
own happy republic. It is well known that the divi-
sions which have occurred among some of the largest
denominations in this country, into Northern and
Southern sections, are regarded by our most sagacious
statesmen as having a necessary tendency to weaken
and sever the Federal Union. Now among the Ca-
tholic body in this country such divisions are impos-
sible, because they are bound together by a tie which
they recognize as of divine obligation. And the fact
that the authority which binds them together is lodged
in a distant See, removes all occasion for a separation
on account of the local causes which severed the de-
nominations alluded to. These two advantages which
the Catholic Church in this country has over all other
denominations, point her out as the conservative body
of this country — as the only body that furnishes a
guarantee that so far as her influence extends our Na-
tional Union shall be preserved.
Having replied to several objections often urged
against the doctrine of a visible head over the whole
church, we will now add a few more remarks relat-
ing to the unity of the church. While some Protes-
tant churchmen maintain that the various dissentient
churches, Catholic and Protestant, which have been
mentioned, are so many integral parts of the one
church, there are others who, although still holding
that in some way or other each one of these " inde-
pendent" churches is a part of the Church Catholic,
are nevertheless forced by their dissensions to make an
acknowledgment of a most startling nature; it is no
less than this — that the unity of the church is lost !
Archdeacon Manning concludes his Treatise on the
A VISIBLE HEAD. 71
Unity of the Church in the following lugubrious
strain: "Although for our sins the church be now
miserably divided, it may yet be once more united.
Let us only believe that it still retains the powers of re-
covery : we are divided because we have so little faith in
the grace of unity. Let us steadfastly trust that our
long-lost heir-loom will once more be found," &c. So
also Mr. Palmer : " And while we lament the disunion
of the Christian Church," &c— (Eccl. Hist. p. 227.)
So also Mr. Southgate, Protestant Episcopal mission-
ary bishop: "May we not with brighter confidence
look forward to the day when strifes shall be healed,
and when the mystical body of our Blessed Saviour,
now rent, distracted, torn, shall be a^ain united in all
its parts."— (" Visit to the Syrian Church," pp. 9, 10.)
The same acknowledgment, coupled with the same
hope, is made by Dr. Ogilby : " The last result I shall
name, is one yet future and contingent; but still [
trust to be hereafter realized : I mean the restoration
of visible unity to Christ's Church on earth" — (" Lec-
tures on the Church," p. 203.) Now we are not sur-
prised at these acknowledgments. They are forced
to make them so long as they consider the Protestant
and the Catholic Churches, although at variance with
each other both in doctrine and outward organization,
as parts of the " one body." But to our mind these ac-
knowledgments afford very strong evidence not only
against the whole theory of "independent branches,"
but against the claims of each and every one of the
Protestant Churches. We cannot admit that the unity
of the church is lost. We have proved in a former
part of this work that the unity of the church is ne-
cessary to the unity of the faith, and to the wavy being
of the church. Destroy the unity of the church and
you destroy the church itself. The latter is impossi-
ble, and therefore the former must be equally impos-
sible. But we are not led to this conclusion simply
by our own reasoning. We are sustained also by the
consent of the Fathers of the early church ; and in-
72 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
deed one of the writers just cited has made statements
respecting the unity of the church which lead to the
same conclusion. Archdeacon Manning says that
Almighty God ordained the unity of the church as a
means of promoting "His own glory," by "restoring
a right knowledge of Himself to the world." — (Unity
of Church, p. 157.) Again: "The unity of the
church is a means of the restoration of man to the
image of God." And again : " The unity of the
church is a means in the moral probation of man."
Such, according to Manning, were the designs of God
in ordaining the unity of the church. But plainly, if
unity be lost, it follows that the purposes of God are
defeated. His Church cannot accomplish them— it
has virtually failed ! for it is not pretended that there
has been any other means instituted for these pur-
poses. The unity of the church is confessedly the
only means which can accomplish them. And we
repeat it, if that unity be lost, all is lost — the church
has failed, and we have no means of regaining the
image and knowledge of God ! If the unity of the
church be lost, this conclusion is inevitable. But
this conclusion cannot be entertained for a moment.
Therefore we must believe that the unity of the
church is not lost. It must still be perpetuated ; it
must still, somewhere or other, continue to promote
the gracious ends for which God ordained it. It
cannot be found in an imaginary union of two or
more of the various dissentient churches which have
been named. It must therefore be found in only one
of them. We are consequently compelled to decide
between them. We must choose one or the other as
the body and spouse of Jesus Christ, as the only means
of restoring us to the image and knowledge of God.
But we observed that the testimony of the early
church sustains us in the position that the unity of
the church is as indefectible as the church itself.
Everyone will allow that the early church will afford
no better witness upon the doctrine of the unity of
A VISIBLE HEAD. 73
the church than St. Cyprian. Let us then hear what
lie says as to this point : " When the twelve tribes of
Israel were divided." says he, "the Prophet Ahijah
icnt his garment. But because Christ's people can-
not be rent. His coat being woven and conjoined
throughout, was not divided by its owners. Indivisi-
ble, conjoined, connected, it shows the inseparable
concord of us, the people, who put on Christ." — (Uni-
ty of the Church.) " Who, then," he afterwards adds,
"is the criminal and traitor, who so mad and reckless
a schismatic as either to credit the practicability, or
venture on the attempt of putting asunder what God
has made one — the garment of the Lord — the Church
of Christ." And towards the end of this admirable
treatise, we find the decisive passage already cited in
the original : " There is one God, there is one Christ,
one Church which is His, one faith, one people, con-
joined by the bond of concord in the solid unity of
one body. The unity cannot be sundered ; the one
body cannot be separated by the dissolution of its
joints, or be torn in pieces by the rending of its scat-
tered elements. Whatsoever has departed from the
matrix* cannot live and breathe by itself — it loses the
essence of existence." Surely it will not be denied
that these passages unquestionably prove that in the
judgment of the early church, unity was an attribute
which the church could never forfeit. And yet we
are told by those ivko yrofess to follow the early
church, that the church is " miserably divided" — that
the " mystical Body of our Blessed Saviour is now
rent, distracted, torn !" Surely " they know not what
they do," when they thus dishonor our Redeemer by
representing His divine Spouse as rent into pieces —
* It is worthy of remark, that this is the very term by which St.
Cyprian, in one of his epistles, designates the Holy Roman See —
!* the root and matrix," says he, "of the Catholic Church." Prov-
ing conclusively that he looked upon that See as the womb of the
church — the source of life to all the branches. But we shall have
occasion to refer to it again.
74 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
that Holy Spouse which, in the language of St. Cyp-
rian, "the Holy Spirit hath in the Song of Songs de-
signated and declared, my dove, my spotless one, is
but one : she is the only one of her mother, elect of
her that bore her."
But to avoid misconception upon this point, it may
be necessary to show that in maintaining that the
church can never forfeit her unity, we are perfectly
consistent with the acknowledged fact that divisions
have occurred and may occur. The two positions are
easily reconciled. Divisions may occur, but they are
not divisions of the church, but from the church.
Any particular diocess may separate or be separated,
but it thenceforth ceases to be a part of the church ;
and the integrity of the main stock remains unim-
paired. Thus divisions may take place, while unity
is retained in all its original beauty and vigor. As in
the case of a tree, many of its branches may be lop-
ped off, but still there remains the one tree ; the ex-
scinded branches cease to be parts of it, and lose their
vitality. And as the separation of certain branches
of a tree, though causing a diminution of outward
size, may so far from being an evil, greatly promote
its vigor, growth and fruitful ness, so also the separa-
tion of certain portions of the church from the main
body may prove the means of promoting its compact-
ness, strength, and extension. And thus while the
separation causes death to the separated portions, it
brings additional life to the "one body" in which the
principle of vitality and unity inseparably inheres.
And whether or not persons will admit that the Holy
Roman See be that centre in the church, they cannot
deny the remarkable fact, that such a process has been
going on in reference to it in all ages of the church ;
and In no period has this fact been more fully exem-
plified than since the Reformation. For although large
portions in England and on the continent were cut off
from that See, the loss was in a short time more than
supplied by immense additions in Asia, in North and
A VISIBLE HEAD 75
South America, and in the islands of the sea. And
at this moment, whether we consider its vigor, its
fruit fulness, or its extension, it unquestionably far
surpasses its condition at any former period. And
while that See now possesses greater strength and
more extensive sway than ever before, some of the
portions which separated at the time of the Reforma-
tion have fallen into Socinianism and infidelity; and
the rest, according to the admissions of their own
members, are reduced to a wretched and forlorn con-
dition. Who that considers this fact can avoid look-
ing upon that See as endowed with superhuman
qualities? Who can fail to recognize in it a strong
presumptive evidence that it is the seat of the church's
life and power? But we are anticipating. This point
already rendered probable, by an amount of evidence
which, by itself, is sufficient to determine any one not
already biased in favor of some opposing system, will
be presently abundantly established by scriptural and
historical proof of the clearest and most unquestionable
nature.
We were showing how divisions may occur while
the unity of the church remains unimpaired ; and we
trust we have succeeded in rendering it sufficiently
obvious.' Individuals or communities may secede
from the church, but they lose, as St. Cyprian says,
the substance or essence of life. " The branch can-
not bear fruit," says the Saviour, except it abide in
the vine. 11 They, indeed, fall into schism, and so incur
its guilt, and, sooner or later, its awful punishment.
But the unity of the church is inalienable — her very
life is bound up in it. We cannot, then, concur with
Protestant churchmen when they speak of the church
as "divided," "rent and torn." It is only a ghost of
their own imagination — conjured up by their persist-
ing in regarding as integral parts of the one church,
communities which long ago fell into schism, and
thereby lost all right and title to membership in the
"mystical body" of the Son of God.
76 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
But there is another aspect in which this opinion
may be viewed. In affirming that the unity of the
church is lost, as they have done in the passages cited,
they at the same time admit that the church was once
united. This is an important fact — and it is some-
thing to have it admitted by Protestants ; for when
it is maintained that the church is one in outward
organization and government, they sometimes reply
that such a unity was never known in the church.
But if such a unity was never known, in what sense
was the church one 1 Will they say it was one in
faith, and charity, and brotherly intercourse ? Then
we reply that they cannot admit this without admit-
ting what renders it almost certain that there was such
a unity as we speak of— a unity of government, sub-
ject to a common centre of authority ; for we have
proved that it is only by such a unity that unity of
faith can be maintained. If, then, the early church
preserved the unity of faith, it must have had unity
of government — just such a government and polity as
we have been advocating. And it is equally evident
that there must have been such a government, if she
ever maintained an intercommunion, or, as Manning
terms it, " subjective unity," among the branches —
unless, indeed, that unity was of momentary duration ;
for there can be no permanent communion between
churches without a common government and judiciary;
for, in the course of time, difficulties must arise be-
tween them, and an umpire, or central authority, or
a tribunal, whose decision is final and imperative
throughout the whole church, will be found indis-
pensable.
But let us admit for a moment that the church is
divided, as they say, into independent churches, dif-
fering from each other in points of the greatest impor-
tance — one teaching as divine and essential truth (as
the sacrifice of the mass) what another denounces as a
" blasphemous fable." I say, let it be admitted for the
sake of argument, that these dissentient churches are
#
A VISIBLE HEAD. 77
integral parts of the "one church," and that though
that church was once one in doctrine, charity, and
fraternal intercourse, yet that these blessings have been
lost. If such be the case, then it necessarily follows
that the church was destitute of such a polity as it re-
quired ; for if the church has failed to preserve its
parts in outward unity, and also to preserve them from
teaching opposite doctrines, then it is plain that it
must have been a very defective system — a mere abor-
tion — falsifying its claims to be divine, and proving
itself utterly unworthy of the confidence of men. But
it is not for a moment to be supposed that He, who is
infinite wisdom, would have instituted a system so
essentially defective. When we remember that He
instituted his church for the very purpose of teaching-
all nations, even to the end of time ; when we remem-
ber that men are commanded to receive her teaching,
under pain of damnation ;* and when we remember
that by His own appointment she was to be visibly
one, as a proof to the world of the divine mission of
our Redeemer, we cannot believe that He would have
furnished her with a system (if system it can be called)
which would prove inadequate for the accomplish-
ment of the most important ends of its institution.
Who could look upon a church rent into contending-
sections, one part denouncing as heresy and idolatry
what another part imposes upon her members as
sacred truth, without disgust % Who could look upon
such a church without feeling conscious that her
structure must have been destitute of those elements
of unity and permanency which the most ordinary
intelligence would have perceived to be necessary?
Now if we maintain that the church is divided into
independent and opposing communities, we must
allow that Almighty God furnished her with a system
which was essentially defective. But we cannot
allow that Almighty God furnished her with such
* " He that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16.
78 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
a system ; consequently we are forced to deny that
the church is thus divided. Wherever the church
is, it must be one — one, as a kingdom or a republic is
one. The Protestant Episcopal Church, or the Church
of England, is either the whole church, or it is no part
of the church. On the other hand, the Catholic
Church is not a " sister church," but either the whole
church or no part of the church.
It is a remarkable instance of inconsistency, that
although Protestant Episcopalians, when wishing to
make good their claim to be a part of the universal
church, are very willing to acknowledge a relationship
with the church in communion with the Roman See ;
thus they call it a "sister" church. Yet whenever
one of their number attaches himself to this "sister"
church, all relationship and sisterhood are immediately
annihilated, the change is denounced in language
which would only suit if he had become a Mahometan.
Thus it is called " apostacy," " perversion," " awful
sin," &c. But their conduct in this respect is only
one of the many proofs that catholicity among them
•s but a name — the reality is unknown. They pro-
fess, indeed, to " believe in the Holy Catholic Church,"
jut, alas, they do not perceive that such a profession
is wholly at variance, not only with their ecclesiastical
position, but also with all their actions in the premises.
Of course, we are well aware of a plausible but falla-
cious distinction by which some endeavor to rebut
the charge of inconsistency, i. e. that those in com-
munion with the Pope are schismatics in this country,
though very good Catholics in Italy. This distinction
they base upon the fact that they had two or three
bishops in this country before the Catholics.
We cannot, to be sure, do any thing like justice to
this point within the little space we can spare, but
we cannot entirely overlook it. We reply then, first,
that their bishops, Drs. Seabury, and White, and Pro-
voost, had not been duly consecrated. Secondly, that
they had no canonical jurisdiction here ; for the Eng-
A VISIBLK HEAD. 79
lish bishops could not give them jurisdiction, as they
had none even in England ; and if they had, that
would not have entitled them to give men jurisdiction
over another country. The people who elected them
could not have given them jurisdiction ; for, waiving
the question as to their inherent power for conferring
such a gift, they were elected only by a small portion
of the people. And, lastly, even if the above reasons
were unfounded, the argument which they build upon
the fact of priority, is rather a fatal remedy, for it will
kill more than it will save. The three bishops named
were elected for Pennsylvania, New York, and Con-
necticut. // was only over these states that they
even claimed jurisdiction ; consequently all the other
States were unoccupied and free, upon their principle,
to any bishop. Now about this time a Catholic Arch-
bishop was consecrated for the See of Baltimore — and
some time before there was a Protestant bishop in any
State south of Pennsylvania. As bishop his jurisdic-
tion extended over Maryland, and as Archbishop over
the whole country; consequently, since Protestant
Episcopalians set up rival bishoprics within his juris-
diction, they thereby became schismatics. Thus,
reasoning upon their own principles, whatever they
may claim for themselves in Pennsylvania, they must
acknowledge themselves schismatics in Maryland, to
say nothing of southern and western States, over
which also the Archbishop of Baltimore had jurisdic-
tion long before any other bishop appeared in them.
Thus it is proved that the argument, if it could de-
fend one diocess, would be suicidal to another. But
to return.
Our argument, then, upon this point, may be sum-
med up thus : if it be admitted that the church was
once one, we contend that it must have possessed an
organized polity, subject to a common centre of unity
and authority, because it is only such a polity that can
render the church one. And on the other hand, if it
be said that the blessing of unity is lost, we reply
80 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
first, that if such be the^case, then it only confirms
our position that the church needs an organized polity
under a visible head. ' And secondly, that it cannot
be true that unity is lost, otherwise it would follow
that Infinite Wisdom failed to provide the church with
such a polity as it needed in order to perform its pecu-
liar functions.
Viewing the subject in any aspect of which it is
capable, it is manifest that those who affirm that " the
church was once one but is now divided," do but in-
volve themselves in inextricable difficulties. And
what is more, such an admission cannot fail to awaken
suspicion against their claims in the mind of every
reflecting person who has any worthy conceptions of
the unity of the church as taught both in the sacred
scriptures and in the writings of the Fathers. Con-
scious that they are separated from all other churches,
they seek to hide the sin of schism under the mon-
strous assumption that the unity of the church is lost !
If we ask the members of the P. E. Church or of the
Anglican Church whether their church is the Catho-
lic Church, they reply, " it is not the Catholic Church,
but it is a part of the Catholic Church." But, we
ask, how can it be a part of the Catholic Church
when it is " independent" of the rest % If all the
other churches of Christendom were annihilated, the
P. E. Church would be just as much of a church as
she is now. Consequently, if she is a branchy she
must be the main branch — the trunk — the seat and
centre of life to all other churches — otherwise the
death of all other churches would be her death too.
But no one pretends that she is the main branch, or
seat of life to the rest. Hence it legitimately follows
that she cannot be what she claims to be — an " inde-
pendent branch" of the Catholic Church. It is plain
that with her the alternative is, the whole or nothing.
She does not presume to call herself the whole, con-
sequently she is nothing. Again, if she is a part, she
ought at least to be in communion with the rest of
A VISIBLE HEAD. 81
Christendom. But so far from this being the case,
she is in a state of actual hostility* towards all other
churches in the world, if we except the Church of
England, which is in precisely the same predicament.
Now it is obvious that if one thing be a part of another,
it must be at least intimately connected with it, to say
nothing of subordination ; and especially must this
be the case when the object is some such thing as a
" kingdom," a " body," &c. But the P. E. Church
and the Anglican Church are not connected with the
rest of Christendom, but, on the contrary, at variance
with it ; consequently they cannot be a part of the
Catholic Church. But perhaps it will be said that, al-
though they are outwardly at variance, yet in internal
structure and in the possession of the "one episco-
pate" they are connected with the rest. But this
cannot be sustained. For first, it is denied that they
have the " one episcopate" — denied, too, by nearly all
the rest of the church,t if not quite all the rest ; for
the Eastern sects cannot be supposed to be capable of
forming a judgment upon such a point. And, sec-
ondly, if they had the " one episcopate," it would not
be sufficient to connect them with the rest of the
church, as we have already proved by the example of
the Donatists. And besides all this, there is also the
undeniable fact that they are not at any rate in com-
munion with the rest of the church, but isolated and
confined to a particular spot. Now this fact alone
conclusively proves that they are in a state of schism,
if we are to abide, as they themselves admit, by the
judgment of the early church. For it was by such a
fact that that illustrious doctor of antiquity, St. Au-
gustine, confuted the old Donatist sect. Writing
against that numerous and powerful community, he
* We say "hostility ," for she protests against all others as cor-
rupt, and teachers of error if not of heresy.
t Here it must be borne in mind by the reader, that in speaking
of the " rest of the church" in this and similar connections, we are of
course merely arguing upon the assumption of Protestant church-
men, that they are a part of the Catholic Church.
5
82 REASONS IN FAVOR OP
makes use of this argument in the most decisive tone :
" Whoever," said he, " believe indeed that Christ Jesus
came in the flesh, as has been said, and rose again in
the same flesh in which He was born and suffered,
and is Himself the Son of God, God with God, and
one with the Father, the incommunicable word of the
Father, by whom all things were made, but yet so
dissent from His body, which is the Church, that
they do not communicate with it as it is every where
spread abroad, and are found separated in so?ne
particular spot, it is manifest that they are not in
the Catholic Church"— (Do, Unit. Eccl. c. iv.)* Now
if St. Augustine had been endeavoring to frame an
argument on purpose to overthrow the claims of the
P. E. Church, he could not have fallen upon one
more to the point. For that church does not even
pretend to communicate with the church "as it is
every where spread abroad," but on the contrary af-
fects to shrink from the least connection with that
church as corrupt and depraved, precisely as the Do-
natist sect did. There is but one church in this
country, or in any other country, which communi-
cates with the church " as it is every where spread
abroad," and that is the church which acknowledges
the authority of the Holy Roman See. Consequently,
according to the rule of St. Augustine, it is in that
church and that only that we can find the commu-
nion of the Catholic Church. If men would only
follow the simple rules by which the members of
Christ have been guided from the earliest period, there
would be but little need of a protracted course of ar-
gumentation. But alas ! they "have sought out many
inventions." They have devised new theories about
unity and catholicity, for which they erroneously
claim the authority of the early Fathers. By this
* As this is a passage of more than ordinary importance, it may-
be well to say that those who have not access to the writings of
this father, will find the passage cited in Manning's "Unity of the
Church," p. 48.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 83
means they perplex and bewilder the candid and
anxious inquirers after truth, and beguile themselves
With the pleasing dream that they are a part of the
Catholic Church ! But, thank God ! many have dis-
covered the delusion, and escaped to the bosom of
their true mother. And it is remarkable, that among
those whom God has thus favored are to be found the
very individuals who, if not actually the authors of
these specious but fallacious theories, were neverthe-
less for a long time particularly zealous in maintain-
ing them. This fact alone throws serious suspicion
upon these theories, and ought surely to lead those
who are still clinging to them to sift them thoroughly.
But the passage just cited from St. Augustine is
not only decisive against the claim of the P. E. Church
to be a part of the M one church," but also against the
whole notion that the church is divided into separate
and independent sections. For he expressly asserts
that those " who are found separated in some particu-
lar spot, are not in the Catholic Church." Were St.
Augustine to become again an inhabitant of our earth,
it is plain that he could not join the Protestant Epis-
copal Church without violating all the principles and
rules by which he formerly guided himself and others
in questions of this nature. And on the other hand,
it is equally plain that there is but one church which
he could join consistently with those principles and
rules, and that is the church which acknowledges the
authority of the Holy Roman See — that See which,
as we shall presently show, it was also his delight to
venerate and obey.
We have already called the attention of our readers
to the undisputed fact, that in the primitive church
there was bishop over bishop. But it is a fact too im-
portant to be passed over with the cursory notice
which we then gave it. We have seen that Hooker
admits that it was not caused by a "preeminence of
one city" over another, but the result of necessity. If,
then, such an arrangement was necessary, it was
84 REASONS IN FAVOR OF
either ordained in the church by divine appointment
or it was not. If it be said that it was not of divine
but of ecclesiastical appointment, then it follows that
there must have been some common authority in the
church to impose it and make it binding. What, then,
was that authority? Will it be said that it was a gene-
ral council ? This is not true ; for the first general
council ever held confirmed this arrangement, by its
sixth canon, as an " ancient" arrangement ; conse-
quently it was established in the church long before
the meeting of any general council. The question
then again reCurs, what was the common authority by
which it was instituted? Was it by a provincial
council 1 This cannot be ; for it is not mentioned by
any such council until after the first general council.
The Council of Antioch, A. D. 341, passed a canon,
not for the purpose of making, but of confirming the
arrangement which it speaks of as " received from our
fathers." (Hammond, p. 171.) What, then, again we
ask, was the authority which placed bishop over
bishop in the primitive church ? It was not a general
nor a provincial council ; consequently it must have
been done either by some such officer as a Pope, or
else it must be traced up to the apostles. If it was
done by a Pope, then there was a Pope in the primi-
tive church. But if it was not done by a Pope, it
must have been done by the apostles ; and if it was
done by the apostles, it was, of course, of divine ap-
pointment ; and if it was of divine appointment, then
the theory of diocesan independence is completely
annihilated — for it is found to be contrary, not merely
to ecclesiastical arrangement, but also to divine ap-
pointment. We are sure that it can be established by
historical proof, that this arrangement of the primitive
church was of divine origin ; but our limits forbid our
quoting further from the documents of antiquity. It
can be proved, however, by a very simple process of
reasoning, especially in connection with the fact, that
the historical proof furnishes at least a strong pre-
A VISIBLE HEAD. 85
sumption in its favor. It is admitted, then, that it
existed id the primitive church prior to the Nicene
Council. Now one of the most eminent fathers, St.
Augustine, lays down this axiom, that what is held
by the whole church, without having been instituted
by councils, is to be believed to have been derived
from the apostles.* Now since the arrangement in
question universally prevailed, and yet was not estab-
lished by any council, it follows that it must have
been instituted by the apostles. Besides, it is admit-
ted by Hooker, that it was " requisite in the church ;"
and if it was " requisite," it is pretty certain that it was
instituted by the apostles — for it is not to be supposed
that the apostles, who, in framing the constitution of
the church, enjoyed the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
would have omitted what is so obviously " requisite."
And when to all this we add the fact already men-
tioned, that Timothy and Titus, although bishops,
were nevertheless under the jurisdiction of St Paul,
the conclusion is irresistible that the arrangement of
bishop over bishop is apostolical and divine ; and if
it was apostolical and divine, then the favorite theory
of Protestant churchmen is utterly destroyed — for they
maintain that every bishop at the head of a diocess is
independent of all other bishops. This is the ground
upon which they rest their claims. They do, indeed,
allow that when diocesses have entered into a con-
federacy, as in the Protestant Episcopal Church, each
bishop is in some degree subject to his fellow bishops.
But this they admit is only a voluntary thing. Now,
we argue, that if the apostles placed bishop over
bishop, the theory of diocesan independence is mani-
festly erroneous, because at variance with the insti-
tution of the apostles. But perhaps they will not
allow that the arrangement of bishop over bishop is
of divine origin. Then they must reject all the evi-
dence which is usually allowed to determine questions
* L. 4 Contra Donat. Cap. 24.
86 REASONS IN PAVOR OP
of this sort. One thing they are forced to allow, and
that is, that the arrangement was established long be-
fore the Council of Nice, by which it was confirmed ;*
consequently it prevailed in the early church, besides
being confirmed by a decree of the first general council.
Hence, since their theory of diocesan independence
is opposed to this arrangement, it is of course opposed
to the regulations of the early church, which is enough
to destroy its claims; unless, indeed, they take the
ultra-protestant ground that the apostles were scarcely
removed from the world before the church was revo-
lutionized — and even if they were to take this ground
they would find the case of Timothy and Titus in
their way. But the undeniable fact, that in the early
church there was bishop over bishop, not only over-
throws the theory of diocesan independence, but also
furnishes a strong argument in favor of a Pope ; for
it refutes the strongest objections against the doc-
trine of a Pope, on the ground that it places bishop
over bishop. And it also makes room for a Pope, and
at the same time strongly argues that there was one.
There are, indeed, but two theories for which divine
authority is claimed, viz., that of diocesan indepen-
dence, and that of the papacy. The former theory
has been proved to be erroneous ; consequently we
must either choose the latter, or else we must reduce
the church to a mere voluntary association.
But it is time to draw this part of our treatise to a
close. Let the arguments which have been presented
be combined together, and in their collective capacity
weighed with seriousness and candor, and the con-
clusion is irresistible, that if the Church of Christ be
what the Inspired Volume and what the Holy Fathers
represent it to be, it must have a centre of unity and
authority. Indeed, the necessity of a Pope is so ob-
vious, so sensibly felt by those who are conversant with
* The reader will find a full account of this arrangement in Bing-
ham's Antiquities, B. II. ch. 17 — a work of great authority in the
Anglican Church.
A VISIBLE HEAD. 87
ecclesiastical affairs, that it has been openly acknow-
ledged by some of the most eminent Protestants. Thus
the celebrated Melancthon admitted that a Pope was
necessary to preserve unity of faith. And the learned
Grotius, when asked how it happened that Catholics are
enabled to compose their differences and Protestants
not, replied that it was owing to the 'primacy of the
Bishop of Rome. He is also said to have written to
Rivet in the following terms : "All who are acquainted
with Grotius, know how earnestly he has wished to
see Christians united together in one body. This he
once thought might have been accomplished by a
union among Protestants, but afterwards he saw that
this is impossible ; because, not to mention the aver-
sion of Calvinists to every sort of union, Protestants
are not bound by any ecclesiastical government ; so
that they can neither be united at present, nor pre-
vented from splitting into fresh divisions. Therefore
Grotius now is fully convinced, as many others are
also, that Protestants never can be united among
themselves, unless they join those who adhere to the
Roman See ; without which there never can be any
general church government. Hence he wishes that
the revolt and the causes of it might be removed —
among which causes the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome was not one, as Melancthon confessed, who
also thought that primacy necessary to restore
union" And the ^judicious Hooker" also must have
felt the necessity of at least something more than a
system of " diocesan independence," when he acknow-
ledged that " superiority of one bishop over another
is requisite in the church."
We are persuaded that the candid reader is now
ready to agree with us, that if there be on the face of the
earth a church that is worthy to be called o?ie, that
is worthy of the confidence and obedience of mankind,
that is worthy of that Divine Being, who is represented
as its author, that Church must have a visible head
as a centre of unity and authority. Let us now
88 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
proceed to examine the Sacred Scriptures, that we
may see whether that which is obviously so necessary
has not been expressly appointed, instituted, and or-
dained therein.
CHAPTER II.
That Jesus Christ instituted a Head or centre of unity and authority
in His Chnrch in the person of St. Peter.— Proofs drawn from
Holy Scripture, interpreted by the Early Fathers, and from the
Statements of Ancient Authors.
In entering upon an examination of the question
now before us, it would be unjust to the subject not
to bear in mind the course of reasoning which has
been already employed. We started with the assump-
tion (so generally admitted by Protestant churchmen)
that the Church of Christ is one visible body or polity,
authorized by Almighty God, to teach, guide, and
govern mankind in matters pertaining to salvation.
We proved by all the evidence that can be reasonably
required in such a case, that a society of this descrip-
tion must necessarily have a chief officer over the
whole as a centre of unity and authority. This point
already established should be borne in mind, we say,
in the prosecution of the discussion ; for the necessity
of such an officer having been proved, it is manifest
that a mere intimation in Scripture of such an officer
ought to be sufficient to satisfy any honest mind. Let
it not be said that this is forming a theory in the ab-
stract, and then seeking its confirmation in Scripture,
for such is not the case. We are arguing according
to the soundest principles of logical deduction ; and
the point from which we argue is not a mere theory,
but an admitted truth — and, moreover, a scriptural
truth ; for it is granted that the Scriptures contain the
doctrine that the church is such a body as we have
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 89
just mentioned ; and as it is proved that such a body-
requires a visible head, we are naturally led to expect
that Scripture contains some intimation of such a
head. When one doctrine is clearly proved from
Scripture, it requires but little Scriptural evidence to
lead us to admit another doctrine growing out of that
doctrine, if, indeed, it requires any at all. It is re-
quisite, of course, that Scripture does not contradict
it. But if Scripture does not contradict it, and it be
clearly established that it results from a doctrine
plainly taught in Scripture, we are surely bound to
receive it, even though Scripture does not expressly
mention it. But fortunately we are not thus thrown
upon our own reasoning with respect to the doctrine
in question ; for it, as well as the doctrine out of which
it grows, is taught in Scripture; and that, too, not
merely by way of obscure intimation, but in the most
explicit and positive terms. We are all agreed that
while our blessed Lord abode on earth, He himself
presided over his church. But this was only of short
duration. Soon after the accomplishment of our re-
demption on the cross, He returned to the bosom of
the Father. Let us, then, inquire whether Holy
Scripture does not teach us that an officer was ap-
pointed by our Lord to act as his Vicar in the vacancy
thus created.
No one who considers the nature of the work which
our blessed Lord assigned to the twelve apostles, can
fail to perceive that it was necessary that among these
twelve one should occupy the place of primate or
chief. What was this work I They were sent forth
to convert the world. Judaism, Paganism, and
Heathenism, were all to be overcome by their efforts.
The various religions of all the nations of the earth,
though firmly established in the affections of the peo-
ple, and upheld by the civil power, were to be openly
assailed and destroyed ; and all the inhabitants of our
globe were to be brought under subjection to one
system of doctrines and morals. Their work may,
5*
90 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
perhaps, be aptly compared to that of the -armies of
Alexander or Napoleon, as they went forth to sub-
jugate the world to their sway. Now, of course, in a
work so momentous in design, and so extensive in
operation, there must have been some unity in plan,
and concert in action ; and in order to this, there must
have been a commander to give proper direction to the
mighty energies which were employed in the vast
enterprize. Did ever soldiers go forth to conquer
even one nation without a general 1 Surely, never
with success. The apostles had not only to convert,
but also to combine their converts into one society and
polity. To us it seems utterly preposterous to sup-
pose that such a design would have been entered upon
without the previous appointment of a chief officer.
But we will not press this point. The reader may
either admit or deny the antecedent probability which
is thus created in favor of such an officer ; the fact
can be clearly established by the records of Holy
Scripture ; and to them we appeal, in perfect confidence
that the evidence will satisfy the candid reader.
Before proceeding to do this, however, it is due to
our subject to avail ourselves of the testimony of some
distinguished Protestants with regard to it. In all
controversies, the parties concerned should first ascer-
tain how far they agree ; by so doing the discussion
may be greatly shortened, and much confusion avoided.
It is certain that Protestant divines would not yield
any more than truth requires them to yield ; conse-
quently, so far as they agree with Catholics, as to the
primacy of St. Peter, so far the point may be con-
sidered as settled. Here we may be permitted to ob-
serve, that although this essay is somewhat contro-
versial in its character, yet that it is designed chiefly
for the use of the sincere and candid inquirer after
truth. If the reader is willing to be convinced, pro-
vided the evidence prove satisfactory, we have no
fears for the issue ; but if he is merely reading to cavil,
having determined beforehand that the doctrine under
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 91
discussion is false, and cannot be true, we do not, of
course, expect to be able to satisfy him. Unbelievers
frequently read even the Sacred Scriptures in this
way, and still remain unbelievers; yea, become more
infidel than before. They find much, they think, to
cavil at, and much to confirm them in their infidelity.
However conclusive the proof may be, it is, of course,
impossible to convince those whose minds are too much
prejudiced against the subject, to give it a candid
examination. But even such persons will hardly
have the temerity to deny what has been unhesitat-
ingly conceded by some of the ablest divines of the
Anglican Church, i. e. that in the apostolic college
St. Peter enjoyed some kind of a superiority or pri-
macy. Even Barrow, a learned doctor of the Anglican
Church, and the author of, perhaps, the ablest work
ever written against the "Supremacy of the Pope,"
has been forced, by the stress of evidence, to ac-
knowledge that St. Peter was in some sense a leader
and chief among the apostles and first Christians.
But he shall speak for himself. He allows that Peter
enjoyed three kinds of primacy: 1. A " primacy of
worth or personal excellency." 2. A "primacy of
repute," which he says is signified by "those eulogies
of the fathers styling him the chief prince, head of
the apostles ;" and that this may be inferred from his
being " constantly ranked in the first place before the
rest of the brethren." 3. A " primacy of order," to
maintain concord, and to exclude that ambition or
affectation to be foremost which is natural to men."
Here he quotes that striking passage of St. Jerome :
"Among the twelve (apostfes) one is chosen, that a
head being constituted, the occasion of schism might
be removed." And several similar passages from St.
Augustine, St. Cyprian, and others, which we shall
have occasion to spread before our readers presently.
"It is, indeed, observable," says Barrow, "that upon
all occasions our Lord signified a particular respect
to him (St. Peter) before the rest of his colleagues."
92 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
" In special manner recommending to him the pastoral
care of his church ; by which manner of proceeding 1
our Lord may seem to have constituted St. Peter the
first in order among the apostles, or sufficiently to
have hinted his mind for their direction, admonishing
them by his example to render unto him a special
deference." (Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, pp.
55, 56, 58, 59.) It will, doubtless, be a matter of sur-
prise to some of our readers, that any one who admits
so much should undertake to write against the
authority of the Holy See. But Barrow, in the course
of his investigations, was compelled, in spite of his
prejudices, by the overwhelming force of evidence,
to make these concessions, hoping, we presume, that
by granting a part, he would avoid the necessity of
granting the whole. He ingeniously labors to draw
a distinction between a " primacy of order, to main-
tain concord," and a primacy of jurisdiction. The
former he is forced to allow, the latter he pertina-
ciously denies — choosing rather to be inconsistent
with his own admissions, and with the very authorities
he quotes, than to acknowledge himself wholly van-
quished. We have read this work again and again ;
and we can truly say, that there is no other work
which exerted so much influence in leading us to the
Catholic Church, unless, indeed, it be that of Dr. Hop-
kins, of Vermont, upon the same subject. To those
who have determined beforehand not to yield the
opinions in which they have been educated, under the
absurd impression that they cannot be erroneous,
these two works may possibly prove in some degree
satisfactory. But to the anxious and candid inquirer
after truth ; the man who is resolved to search for it
with diligence, and receive and profess it when found,
whatever temporal sacrifices it may cost, and who
withal will not allow himself to be deceived by ima-
ginary distinctions, garbled extracts, and an ingenious
contortion of proof-texts, to such a man we would re-
commend these two works; from them he will learn
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 93
the utter weakness of the argument against the autho-
rity of the Holy See, which even the most learned
and accomplished Protestant divines have been able
to frame. And if he be unable to examine for him-
self the writings of the fathers, these works will also
be serviceable to him, by confirming the accuracy of
many of the citations from the fathers on the Catholic
side of the question, which these works also quote in
part, for the purpose of explaining them away.
Hut to proceed with our Protestant testimony.
Archdeacon Manning, another eminent divine of the
Anglican Church, has been likewise compelled to
allow that St. Peter enjoyed some kind of a primacy.
He says, "St. Peter had a precedence among the
apostles by the implied disposition of our Lord. No
one who has examined Holy Scripture, and the
fathers of the church, can doubt of this ; but the real
question is not whether or no he had a precedence,
which all well instructed divines admit, but in what
that precedence consisted." (Unity of the Church,
p. 128, note 2.) In another place he says, " There-
fore in the apostolic college He instituted the seminal
principle of Catholic unity, namely, a precedence
among equals." (lb. p. 223.) Thus Manning, and
also, as he says, " all well instructed divines, admit"
that our blessed Lord conferred upon St. Peter a
precedence among the apostles, though still maintain-
ing that the other apostles were his equals. We shall
not stop here to expose this inconsistency. It is too
glaring to escape the notice of the intelligent reader.
It is another of the nice distinctions and ingenious
devices of this school of Protestants. But we shall
refer to it again. In the extract just furnished, Man-
ning further states that this " precedency" of St. Peter
was the " seminal principle of Catholic unity? Here,
surely, we have admitted something more than a vague,
undefined primacy. We have, judging by the ob-
vious meaning of the terms, the very point which we
have undertaken to establish, or at any rate something
94 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
very much like it, something approximating very
nearly to it. If it be granted that the " seminal prin-
ciple of Catholic unity" was lodged in St. Peter, we
do not see how it can be denied that St. Peter was
the centre of unity and authority ; for if the expres-
sions be not exactly synonymous, the one is certainly
implied by the other, the latter necessarily follows
from the former. It certainly requires a very fine
imagination to perceive any material difference be-
tween them. The mind must be strongly biased to
some particular theory at stake, if it admit one and
deny the other.
Archbishop Potter, another standard writer of the
Anglican Church, makes a similar acknowledgment
with regard to St. Peter's primacy. Having related
the various acts of St. Peter, after the ascension of our
Lord, he concludes thus : " From these and other ex-
amples which occur in the Scriptures, it is evident
that St. Peter acted as chief of the college of apostles,
and so he is constantly described by the primitive
writers of the church, who call him the Head, the
President, the Prolocutor, the Chief, the Foreman of
the apostles, with several other titles of distinction."
(" Church Government," pp. 72, 74.*) So also an-
other standard divine of the Anglican Church, Arch-
bishop Bramhall : " That St. Peter," he says, " had a
primacy of order among the apostles, is the unanimous
voice of the primitive church, not to be contradicted
by me." (Bramhall's Works, p. 628, cited in British
Critic for October, 1842.)
It would be easy to show that other equally cele-
brated Protestant divines have made similar acknow-
ledgments respecting the primacy of St. Peter, but it
is unnecessary to specify more ; these are sufficient,
especially since Manning candidly states that "all
well instructed divines admit" it. Now since we are
all agreed, Protestants and Catholics, that St. Peter
* This work is a text-book in the Theological Seminaries of the
Protestant Episcopal Church.
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 95
enjoyed a primacy among the apostles, the only ques-
tion between us relates to the nature of that primacy.
And this question must, of course, be decided by Holy
Scripture, interpreted by the fathers ; though at the
same time, in examining the passages of Scripture upon
the point, the fact of the primacy, as admitted by
Barrow, Manning, and " all well instructed divines,"
will also be established.
Before we proceed to adduce the testimony of Holy
Scripture in favor of the primacy of St. Peter, we will
examine those passages which are generally brought
forward by Protestants in opposition to it; for, of
course, it is with this truth, as it is with every other,
Scripture is brought forward to disprove it. The
Unitarian appeals to certain passages which he con-
siders as clear and decisive against the deity of our
blessed Lord. And the Presbyterian appeals to cer-
tain passages which he considers equally clear and
decisive against episcopacy. And those who are ac-
quainted with these controversies, know very well
that the passages to which they appeal are very plau-
sible, and calculated to perplex and embarrass for
some time the anxious inquirer after truth. There-
fore it should not be a matter of surprise if those who
deny the primacy of St. Peter, are likewise able to
point to a few passages, which, considered by them-
selves, seem to militate against the doctrine.
The sincere and candid inquirer will of course
carefully consider the passages adduced by both par-
ties, and decide according to the obvious teaching of
scripture as a whole. Of all the passages brought
forward by Protestants, perhaps the most plausible is
that contained in the 22d chapter of St. Luke, which
reads thus in the Protestant version : " And there was
also a strife among them which of them should be
accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, the
Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ;
and they that exercise authority upon them, are called
benefactors. But ye shall not be so ; but he that is
96 SEPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
greatest among you, let him be as the younger ; and
he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether
is greater, he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth ?
Is not he that sitteth at meat ? But I am among you
as he that serveth." Similar passages are recorded
by St. Matthew and St. Mark, but it is generally
agreed that they refer to the same occurrence. But
be that as it may, they are precisely the same in sig-
nification, and consequently an explanation of one
will answer for the others. St. Luke does not relate
the origin of the "strife" among the Apostles which
he has recorded in this passage. But according to
the account of St. Matthew and St. Mark, it was
caused by the ambitious request which the "mother
of Zebedee's children" presented to our Saviour in
behalf of James and John, viz: that they might "sit
the one on the right hand and the other on the left"
in His Kingdom. Now this circumstance, coupled
with our Lord's reply, shows very clearly that this
little "strife" among the Apostles grew out of their
Jewish notions as to a temporal reign of our Saviour,
in the dignity, honor, and grandeur of which they
were expecting to participate. They were obviously
under the influence of a vain, worldly ambition, ut-
terly at variance with the spirit of Christ's religion,
and with the character of His Kingdom. And it is
no less obvious that our Saviour designed to show
them the impropriety of such ambition. And how-
does he proceed? Not by plainly telling them at once
that there should be no distinction among them, as
He certainly would have done if He had designed to
convey such information, but he says to them — " You
aspire each of you to be the greatest by filling the
highest station or office. Such indeed is the case
among the Gentiles, i. e. in the kingdoms of this
world— those are accounted the greatest who exercise
lordship and authority. But it shall not be so among
you in My Kingdom. On the contrary, the greatest
shall be as he that doth serve. In the kingdoms of
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 97
this world the greatest wield the sceptre of power for
their own honor and pleasure, But in My Kingdom
tlit- greatest, whatever may be their station, perform
the functions of a servant for the good of their brethren.
And this I have tanght you not only by precept, but
by my own example ; for I, your guide and leader, am
among you in the capacity of a servant." This pa-
raphrase, we think, contains the full import of the
passage. Our Blessed Lord does not say that no one
of them should be the greatest in official station, but
only that the greatest should be "as he that doth
serve." For He says expressly, "he that is chief" let
him be "as he that doth serve;" which plainly im-
plies that one of them was or would be chief. He
assures them that whoever the chief might be, he was
but a servant — that it was a station not for the grati-
fication of wordly ambition, such as the throne of an
earthly kingdom, but one in which humility was to
be exercised by acts of condescension and servitude.
We are happy to find our interpretation confirmed
by the opinions' of most eminent Protestant commen-
tators : "It seems (says Campbell) to be our Lord's
view in these instructions, not only to check in His
Apostles all ambition of power, every thing which
savored of a desire of superiority and dominion over
their brethren, but also to restrain that species of vani-
ty which is near akin to it — the affectation of distinc-
tion from titles of respect and dignity. Against this
vice particularly the clause under consideration seems
to be leveled. The reflection naturally suggested by
it is, how little are the most pompous epithets which,
men can bestow worthy the regard of a good man
who observes how vilely, through servility and flat-
tery, they are sometimes prostituted on the most unde-
serving." — (Bloomfield's Crit. Digest, vol. 2, p. 510.)
And on the parallel passage in St. Matthew, he gives
the following interpretation by Rosenmuller and Kui-
noel : " He who would hold dignity in my kingdom
must study to exceed others in modesty, courtesy, and
98 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
a readiness to serve them, postponing his own private
convenience to the general advantage." — (lb. vol. 1, p.
278.) Our Blessed Lord wished not merely to cen-
sure that pernicious spirit of rivalry and ambition
which had crept in among them, but to suppress and
extirpate it — He wished to root out the evil disposi-
tion. If He had told them that this or that one should
enjoy the distinction of chief officer, it would proba-
bly only have awakened in the minds of the rest a
still worse evil — a spirit of jealousy and dissatisfac-
tion ; for at that time they were evidently in no con-
dition to receive such a declaration. Our Blessed
Lord, with equal tenderness and wisdom, adopted a
far more effectual method. He tells them that the ex-
cellency and merit of even the greatest among them
would consist, not in the enjoyment of worldly digni-
ties, but in humbly serving his brethren. Thus He
lays the axe at the root of the tree. He endeavors to
suppress that vain ambition which had taken posses-
sion of their minds by inculcating the opposite virtue
of humility and condescension. That this, and nothing
more, was His meaning, is conclusively proved by the
circumstance that He enforces the truth which He
taught them by an appeal to His own example. No
one will deny that our Blessed Lord was supreme
over His Apostles. And yet He proposes His own
case as an example : " I am among you," He says, " as
he that serveth" Consequently it could not have been
His intention to exclude the idea of official superiori-
ty, but merely to inculcate the disposition of self-
abasement in the service of others. This is still more
apparent from the language employed in the parallel
passage of St. Matthew, where it reads thus : " Who-
soever will be great among you, let him be your min-
ister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let
him be your servant: even as the Son of Man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give
His life a ransom for many." — Matt. xx. 26, 28.) It
is evident, then, that in this passage our Saviour did
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 99
not teach that one of them should not he chief, but on
the contrary rather implied the reverse. But it may
be said that the Apostles could not have known that
any one of them had been appointed as chief, other-
wise the "strife" would hardly have occurred. To
this we reply, that the primacy of St. Peter had not
then been actually instituted by our Lord. 'Phis
was not done until after His resurrection. And it is
also uncertain whether St. Peter had then received
even the promise of the primacy contained in those
words of our Saviour : u On this rock I will build my
church," (fee. It is true, indeed, that these words are
recorded by St. Matthew before the passage under con-
sideration ; but that is no proof that they are prior in
point of time. For every one familiar with the writ-
tings of the Evangelists, knows very well that in
many instances they have not followed the order of
time in their relation of events. In the " Harmony
of the Gospels," by Le Clerc and Newcome, these two
transactions are both assigned to the same year of
our Saviour's ministry ; so that one could not have
occurred long before the other ; and which occurred
first, it is impossible to tell with certainty : conse-
quently no sound argument can be built by Protes-
tants upon the supposed circumstance of priority.
Besides, even if our Saviour had previously given
this celebrated promise to St. Peter, no argument could
be drawn from the ignorance of the Apostles of his pri-
macy ; for it is very reasonable to suppose that they
might not then have comprehended the full meaning
of our Saviour. It remained to be fully exhibited by
future acts and declarations on the part of our Saviour
towards St. Peter. Every one knows that, although
our Saviour had repeatedly foretold in the plainest
manner His passion and death, yet they did not com-
prehend the import of his words until the very mo-
ment of their fulfillment. It is but reasonable to sup-
pose, then, that they might not have fully understood
the words of our Saviour to St. Peter, especially when
100 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
we remember that his language on the occasion was
highly figurative. For these reasons it is evident that
the passage under consideration cannot be fairly ad-
duced in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of St.
Peter's primacy. And to these we may add another
which is conclusive by itself. The passage cannot be
interpreted so as to exclude the idea of any distinction
among the Apostles, because, if so interpreted, it mili-
tates with equal force against the primacy of St. Peter,
as admitted by Dr. Barrow, and "all well instructed
divines." Barrow allows that St. Peter received a
" primacy of order to maintain concord, and to ex-
clude that ambition or affectation to be foremost, which
is natural to men." Now since St. Peter enjoyed such
a primacy, he was consequently the " greatest" among
the Apostles in official station. And therefore our
Saviour could not have intended to teach in the pas-
sage under consideration that there should be no dis-
tinction among them in point of official station.
This admission on the part of Barrow and others,
serves also to furnish another answer to the objection
that the Apostles, at the time of this ambitious " strife,"
were apparently ignorant that any one of their num-
ber had been elevated to a station of superiority. The
objection is obviously futile ; for if it avail against the
Catholic doctrine, it equally avails against what Bar-
row and others admit. Barrow says expressly, that
the very design of this primacy was to exclude am-
bition ; and yet the " strife" among the Apostles was
the result of ambition. It can of course be explained
very satisfactorily by supposing that the promise of
the primacy had not then been given to St. Peter, or
if given, had not been fully comprehended ; or if ful-
ly comprehended, had been forgotten or disregarded
amid their mutual jealousies and worldy aspirations.
And if such an explanation may be resorted to, in
order to reconcile the occurrence with the doctrine of
St. Peter's primacy, as admitted by Barrow, it may of
course with equal propriety be resorted to in order to
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 101
reconcile the occurrence with the doctrine of St. Pe-
ter's primacy as held by Catholics. There is no way
more effectual of refuting an objection urged against
a doctrine than by showing that it may be equally
urged against what is admitted by both parties to be
true. This we have done with regard to the objec-
tion under consideration, and this is enough.
We would further remark that the words of our
Saviour in question, so far as they concern the suc-
cessors of the Apostles, cannot be understood as teach-
ing a perfect equality, because if so understood they
would militate against the Anglican hierarchy, and
also against that of the early church in which there
were bishops over bishops, and which the "judicious
Hooker" has justified on the ground that it is a thing
" requisite in the church."
Another passage of scripture adduced by Dr. Hop-
kins against the primacy of St. Peter, is found in the
23d chapter of St. Matthew, which he introduces
thus — " warning His Apostles against the love of supe-
rior station, He saith, ' Be ye not called Rabbi : for
one is your master, and all you are brethren.' "
Now if the reader will take the pains to refer to this
portion of St. Matthew, he will discover that Dr. Hop-
kins has not dealt altogether fairly in thus quoting it
as a proof text against the primacy of St. Peter. For
the context expressly informs us that our Blessed Lord
was not then addressing His Apostles, or at least not
His Apostles only. In the opening verse we read
thus : " Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to
his diciples, saying," &c. Now surely no one will
pretend that our Saviour intended to teach this pro-
miscuous audience that no one of them should fill a
higher station or exercise greater authority than the
rest. For if so interpreted, it must overthrow the
order of bishops, and indeed all ecclesiastical au-
thority.
But even if this admonition of our Lord had been
addressed exclusively to the Apostles, (which it cer-
102 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
tainly was not,) it would not furnish an argument
against the primacy of St. Peter, when correctly in-
terpreted. Perhaps there is no commentator of more
authority among Protestant Episcopalians than Dr.
Bioomfield, as his Commentary on the New Testa-
ment is a text -book in their theological seminaries.
Let us then take his interpretation. " This passage,"
he says, "cannot be supposed to forbid Christian
teachers bearing such accustomed appellations as ap-
pertain to superiority of office, of station, or of talent,
but only admonishes not to use them as the scribes
did, for the purposes of pride and ostentation," &c. —
(Greek Testament, in locum.) It is unnecessary to
add any thing more. Indeed the passage is so mani-
festly irrelevant, that it scarcely deserves a notice at
all. We are sure that the candid reader will agree
with us that Dr. Hopkins must have been greatly
straitened for proof-texts when he attempted to press
this into his service. He also brings forward a pas-
sage from the 11th chapter of Acts : " And when
Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of
the circumcision contended with him." But this also
is utterly irrelevant. St. Peter had just received cer-
tain Gentiles into the Christian Church, and for so
doing he was censured by certain persons of Judaiz-
ing views. Now these persons were not Apostles,
but evidently either laymen or inferior ministers.
And St. Peter, even as an Apostle, was their superior
in station and authority ; consequently their " contend-
ing" with him is no more a proof against his primacy
than it is against his superiority as an Apostle.
But there is another passage brought forward by Dr.
Hopkins, which seems to require some notice. It is
contained in the 2d chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to
the Galatians : " But when Peter was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed." Now the argument which Dr. Hopkins and
other Protestants seek to deduce from this passage is
simply this : St. Paul rebuked and opposed St. Peter,
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 103
therefore St. Peter could not have been St. Paul's su-
perior in office ! But the unsoundness of the argu-
ment is apparent upon its very face. St, Peter, in his
eagerness to avoid giving offence to the Jewish con-
verts, withdrew himself on a certain occasion from the
table of the Gentitles. For this fault St. Paul thinks
he is " to be blamed," and so " withstands him to the
face." St. Peter seems to have been placed in a posi-
tion in which he was compelled to give offence either
to one party or the other ; so that it was merely a
point of expediency. And if he erred at all, it must
be admitted that it was but a mere fault. A due re-
gard for his Apostleship requires us to understand it
in this light.* However, it matters not, so far as the
present question is concerned, whether he erred or
not, or whether the fault was great or small . That
he erred, whether more or less, no more disproves his
primacy or supremacy than it disproves his authority
and inspiration as an Apostle ; and that St. Paul re-
proved him, is no argument against his superiority.
We read that on a certain occasion St. Peter "re-
buked" even our Lord. Would it not be absurd to
infer therefore that our Lord was not his superior?!
But let us remember that this opposition of St. Paul
to St. Peter was not of an authoritative nature. For
no one will deny that St. Peter was at least equal to
St. Paul. Though indeed a more minute examination
of St. Paul's account of this matter will show that he
scarcely undertook to rebuke at all. He tells us that
he "withstood him to the face." According to Bloom-
field, the phrase " to the face" has the same sense as
* Tertullian says, " Paul reproved Peter for no other reason,
however, than the change of his mode of living, which he varied
according to the class of persons with whom he associated, not for
any corruption of divine truth." — (L. v. contra Marcion, c. iii.)
t It is worthy of remark, that while Protestants allow that St.
Peter erred in this matter, though still infallible as an inspired
teacher of the church, they refuse to allow the infallibility of his
successors because they have occasionally erred in matters of a
similar nature.
104 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
the phrase " before all" in verse 14th. And in saying
that he withstood him before all, he of course only-
means that he opposed his conduct in this particular
matter. But St. Paul himself tells us what he means.
In the verse just referred to he gives us the very-
words which he employed towards St. Peter on this
occasion — " I said unto Peter before them all, if thou,
being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles and
not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles
to live as do the Jews ?" Now there is no evidence
that St. Paul said any thing more to St. Peter than
this. And this plainly amounts to no more than a
respectful remonstrance. There is nothing in the
whole account which should require us to suppose
that St. Paul went further than this. Consequently
to represent him as doing more, is to exaggerate
what our regard for the dignity and inspiration of the
Apostles should lead us rather to extenuate. And,
surely, no one is so unreasonable as to deny that an
inferior may remonstrate with a superior who has
committed an act of imprudence or impropriety. It
is no more than is done every day. How often have
presbyters remonstrated with their bishops? And,
indeed, how often in the Protestant Episcopal Church,
within the memory of every one, have presbyters even
opposed, censured and rebuked their bishop in the
most violent terms, and that too not merely in matters
of expediency but even in matters of doctrine and dis-
cipline % Now suppose persons in other countries on
hearing of the conduct of those who have thus " with-
stood" their bishop were to infer therefrom that there
was no distinction in the Protestant Episcopal Church
between bishop and presbyter in point of official au-
thority, would they not commit an egregious mistake?
But it is unnecessary to multiply words upon a point
so plain. Every one knows that in numberless in-
stances and in every department of life, men have
" withstood" their official superiors, in some cases with
propriety and in other cases with impropriety. There-
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 105
fore it is wrong to infer that St. Paul was equal in
station to St. Peter merely because he " withstood"
him ; especially when there is every reason to believe
that St. Paul did not go beyond a respectful remon-
strance. An extract from the writings of St. Cyp-
rian will show that in the mind ot that eminent
father the conduct of St. Paul does not militate against
the primacy of St. Peter. " For Peter," says he,
"whom the Lord chose the first, and upon whom he
built his church, when Paul disputed with him on
the subject of circumcision, did not defend himself
proudly or arrogantly assume any thing, that he
should say that he held the primacy, and that it was
fit that Paul should comply with him." (Epist. ad
Quint.) Here he draws a lesson from the conde-
scension of St. Peter in receiving the suggestions of
Paul, instead of haughtily rejecting them on the
ground of his primacy.
But there is another answer to the objection drawn
from St. Paul's withstanding St. Peter, which is by
itself sufficient. It is simply this ; the objection can-
not be valid, because it would operate with equal force
against the primacy of St. Peter, as admitted by Bar-
row, Manning, Potter, Archbishop Bramhall, and
"all well informed divines." That primacy, says
Barrow, was a " primacy of order, to maintain con-
cord, and to exclude ambition ;" and that our Saviour
" admonished his apostles by his own example to ren-
der to St. Peter a special deference." How, then, did
St. Paul venture to withstand his primate, to whom he
owed a "special deference?" It is obvious that either
there is no difficulty at all in the matter, or if there be
any difficulty, Anglican divines, who admit his pri-
macy, are as much bound to clear it up as Catholic
divines ; and the explanation which will obviate the
difficulty in favor of one class will serve also to ob-
viate it in favor of the other.
But we have proof in this very epistle that St. Paul
was not wanting in deference to the Chief of the
6
106 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
Apostles. Giving an account of his acts after his con-
version, he tells us, " Then, after three years, I went
up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him
fifteen days." (Chap. i. v. 18.) The verb employed
here in the original translated "to see," says Bloom-
field, "usually implies an expectation of seeing some-
thing more than ordinary" (In locum.)
And St. Chrysostom expressly declares that it was
on account of St. Peter's official superiority that St.
Paul made him this visit. " Peter," he says, "was the
organ and prince of the apostles : whereupon Paul
went up to see him in preference to the rest." (Horn,
lxxxviii. al. Ixxxvii. in Joan.) And again : " He
goes up to him as to a superior and elder, and he had
no other motive for the visit but merely to see Peter."
(In. c. i. ep. ad. Gal.) It is but fair to state that in this
same connection St. Chrysostom pronounces the
highest eulogiumupon St. Paul, whom he considered
as fully equal to St. Peter in personal qualities and
merits. The distinction between them was only
an official distinction. Every one knows that the
highest officer maybe far inferior in point of personal
excellency to many who are under him.' Hence we
might even allow that in this respect St. Paul was the
superior, without derogating from the official supe-
riority of St. Peter. It is thus that we understand the
words of St. Paul, "For I suppose I was not a whit
behind the very chiefest apostles," (2 Cor. xi. 5,)
when he is speaking of his qualifications as an apos-
tolical teacher. Of course, in all the essential powers
of the apostleship, there was a perfect equality among
the apostles ; but over and above these St. Peter was
entrusted with certain peculiar prerogatives for the
maintenance of unity and government in the church.
As we progress, the reader will perceive that this state-
ment accords entirely with the whole testimony of
Scripture and the fathers upon the subject. Catholics
do not maintain that St. Peter was endowed with a
despotic and unlimited power over the other apostles.
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 107
We maintain what is admitted by Dr. Barrow, that it
was a " primacy of order to maintain concord, and to
exclude ambition ;" but we hold at the same time that
that primacy involved a certain degree of authority
and jurisdiction. This we hold, first, because it is
expressly taught in Scripture and the writings of the
fathers ; and, secondly, because a primacy without
some degree of authority and jurisdiction would be
a mere nullity, as it would not suffice to answer the
ends for which it was instituted. Every one knows
that order, concord, and unity, cannot be maintained
among a numerous body without the exercise of autho-
rity and jurisdiction. If it be asked what was the
degree or measure of that authority and jurisdiction,
we can only reply that it was just so much as the
circumstances of the church required ; and it was
al«o exercised in such a way as the occasion demanded.
The authority of St. Peter in the church was very
much like that of our Chief Magistrate ; indeed, as
Potter says, one of the titles which the fathers were
accustomed to give him was that of " President ;" and
such, too, is the authority which his successors now
enjoy. It is the mild sway of a father over his chil-
dren, deriving its influence more from love than fear.
In a family of well regulated children the authority
of a father is, indeed, continually recognized with
most conscientious regard, but at the same time its
exercise is never seen, except when the spirit of insub-
ordination appears. So also in the " household of
God" — the Catholic Church — in every department the
authority of our "Holy Father," is conscientiously re-
cognized with equal veneration and affection, but never
felt, except by those who have the misfortune to be
seduced from the path of filial duty.
But we pass on to another passage of Scripture fre-
quently adduced in opposition to the primacy of St.
Peter. It is that in which St. Peter calls himself an
" elder :" " The elders which are among you I exhort,
who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings
108 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall
be revealed." (I Pet. v. 1.) That this passage does
not imply that he was not superior to those whom he
addressed is easily made evident; for he obviously
addresses them as their superior, which every one
will see by looking at the context. And, indeed, the
whole epistle, which was addressed to the churches
generally, is written in the tone of more than ordinary
authority. This is so obvious, that that able Protes-
tant commentator, Dr. Bloomfield, has been forced to
acknowledge it in the following language : " It is ex-
pressed with peculiar dignity, energy, and authority
of manner, occasionally rising to the sublime, and
never sinking below what might be expected from the
chief of the apostles" (1 Pet. Introductory remarks.)
No one will deny that St. Peter, even as an apostle,
was the superior of these " elders," whom he so autho-
ritatively admonishes.* If, then, his styling himself
an " elder" does not disprove his superiority as an
apostle, it surely cannot disprove his primacy in the
apostleship. This passage cannot be made available
against Catholics except by proving that St. Peter was
not officially superior to these elders. But Protestant
churchmen do not even pretend that he was not their
superior ; consequently this passage cannot he fairly
urged against us. It proves nothing, because if it
prove any thing, it proves too much ; besides all this,
we have the answer which has been used in reply to
the other passages. St. Peter's primacy is admitted
by Barrow and other Anglican divines ; consequently
he must have been superior to the elders whom he
addressed, even if those elders were bishops ; and,
indeed, the admitted fact of St. Peter's primacy will
furnish a sufficient refutation of all the objections
* " It follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the
apostles were distinguished from the elders, because they were
superior to them in ministerial power and rights." " We repeat,
therefore, that the ' apostles and elders' were of distinct orders."
(" Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," by Dr. Onderdonk.)
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 109
which Protestants draw from passages of the sacred
Sriptures.
We shall now proceed to exhibit briefly some of the
passages of Scripture which tench the primacy of St.
Peter, though, indeed, it is almost superfluous, since
it is admitted by the most eminent Protestant divines.
As to the nice distinction which they have drawn be-
tween a primacy of " order to maintain concord," and
a primacy of authority and jurisdiction ; it is too sub-
tle and too suspicious to have weight with the intel-
ligent and candid inquirer. It is plainly mere quib-
bling sophistry. Let it be once granted (as it is) that
our Lord conferred on St. Peter, a primacy of order to
maintain concord, and to exclude ambition, and as
" the seminal principle of unity," and no difference
remains worth contending about. His successors
claim no more power than is necessary for the accom-
plishment of the purposes for which that primacy was
granted. The bishops of the Catholic Church, and
also the laity, enjoy as much liberty under the juris-
diction of the Pope, as is consistent with the unity
and orderly government of the church ; and, indeed,
they enjoy as much true liberty as those of the Angli-
can Church, or of the Protestant Episcopal Church ;
yea, more — for the bishops of the Anglican Church
are fettered and trammeled by the civil government,
and the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church
by their " Conventions," &c. Those who find them-
selves separated from the Holy See, and who are un-
willing to make the necessary sacrifices for reunion,
may, indeed, be able to pacify in some degree their
consciences, by means of this imaginary distinction ;
but he who searches for the truth with a sincere de-
sire to embrace it at all temporal hazards, will not be
long embarrassed by a difficulty so purely fictitious ;
and that the distinction is not only one of no practical
importance, but also utterly inconsistent with the fact
of the case, will be fully made apparent as we pro-
gress with our Scriptural and historical evidence.
110 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
As we shall consider the Scriptural proofs somewhat
in the order in which they occur in the New Tes-
tament, we shall begin with that contained in the
second verse of the tenth chapter of St. Matthew:
" Now the names of the twelve apostles are these, the
first, Simon, who is called Peter," &c. This evi-
dently means that St. Peter was the first in rank or
station — the chief of the apostles.* And this mean-
ing is confirmed by the fact that both St. Mark and
St. Luke, in giving the names of the apostles, likewise
place that of St. Peter first. This cannot be mere
accident, for the names of some of the others are placed
in various orders. We know, it is said by Protestants,
that he is called "the first," because he was first called
to the apostleship. Hut as we are at a loss to conceive
what merit there could have been in that trifling cir-
cumstance, we cannot recognize in it sufficient reason,
even if it were true, that he was called first. But it
is not true. In the 18th verse of the 4th chapter of
St. Matthew, and in the 16th verse of the 1st chapter
of St. Mark, they seem to be represented as called at
the same time. But if either of them was called be-
fore the other, it must have been St. Andrew ; for in
the 1st chapter of St. John, we read that he first be-
came acquainted with the Messiah, and afterwards
conducted his brother Simon to him. "It was his
happiness," says Dr. Doane, "to introduce his more
illustrious brother, the apostle Peter, to the knowledge
of Jesus: hence he is sometimes called, in reference to
Peter's emblematic name, ' the rock before the rock.' "
(Notes on the "Christian Year," p. 225.) He also
quotes Bishop Sparrow, as saying, " It was he (St.
Andrew) who first came to Christ, and followed him
before any of the other apostles.^ (lb.) Archbishop
Potter also expressly and positively asserts that "An-
drew was first called." (Church Government, p. 74.)
* The word rendered "first" is ^taj, -which, according to Don-
negan, signifies " first in place, rank, or eminence" "the most illus-
trious — the principal."
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. Ill
It is not true, then, that St. Peter was called first, but,
according to the admission of Protestant authorities,
the honor belongs to his brother Andrew. We must
believe, then, that St. Peter is called "the first" and
also always named first in the lists of the apostles, be-
cause he was superior in station ; and this inference
is corroborated by the fact, that in many other in-
stances he is named in connection with the other apos-
tles in such a manner as intimates his preeminence,
thus: " Simon, and they that were with him." (Mark
i. 36.) " Peter, and they that were with him." (Luke
ix. 32.) " Peter standing up with the eleven." (Acts
ii. 14.) " Peter and the* apostles answered and said,"
&c. (Acts v. 29.) Now these instances, considered
separately, may appear very insignificant, but when
combined together, they certainly possess some weight ;
and this is evident from the fact, that a similar argu-
ment cannot be made out in favor of any other apos-
tle. But we are happy to find our reasoning upon
this point confirmed by the admission of Dr. Barrow,
whom we have already frequently cited. "Con-
stantly," says he, "in all the catalogues of the apostles
St. Peter's name is set in the front, and when actions
are reported, in which he was concerned jointly with
others, he is usually mentioned first, which seemeth
not done without careful design or special reason.
Upon such grounds it may be reasonable to allow
St. Peter a primacy of order •." ("Pope's Supremacy."
Sup. 1.)
But there is a passage of Scripture far more decisive
than this. It is contained in the 16th chapter of St.
Matthew. " When Jesus came into the coasts of
Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who
do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? And they
said, some say that thou art John the Baptist : some,
Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am ? And
* Here the Protestant translation has foisted in the word "other."
112 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and
said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in Heaven. 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 1 will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven,:'' (V. 13—19, Prot. Trans.) The Catholic
interpretation of this passage is well known to our
readers. When our Lord said to Peter, "upon this
rock I will build my church," he meant Peter him-
self That this is the true interpretation is a matter
easily proved. In the first place the reader must re-
collect that our Lord himself gave to Simon the sur
name of Peter. This fact is recorded in the first
chapter of St. John : " And he brought him to Jesus.
And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon
the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which
is by interpretation, Peter."* Our Lord, then, gives to
Simon a new name. That name is Cephas or Peter.
What is the signification of this name ? Cephas is a
Syro-Chaldaic term, and signifies " rock." (Vide Robin-
son's Greek Lex.) Peter is the corresponding name in
the Greek language, and also signifies "rock." (Vid.
Donnegan's Greek Lex.) It is true Ttsr^o? (Peter)
sometimes signifies " stone." But as the meaning of
Cephas is "rock," we are compelled to give 7tzie,o$
(petros) the same signification, in order that it may cor-
respond. But in doing this we practice no violence,
for the Greek word nst^os (Peter) signifies both " rock,"
and " stone," (as also does " 7tst%a") which the reader
will find stated in the Lexicon just referred to. More-
* Here, instead of " Peter," the Protestant version reads " a
stone." There is no material difference — one is the name, the other
its signification.
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 113
over, in all that we have said, with regard to the sig-
nifications of these terms, we are supported by that
eminent Protestant commentator, Dr. Bloomfield :
says he, " Peter, or rather Cephas, (for Jtsr^os is only
the name Grecized,) means not stone, as some affirm,
but rock, as Cephas often does, and 7ttf£o$ not unfre-
quently in the classical writers." (Matt. xvi. 18.)* It
is evident, then, that in the Scriptures Cephas and
Peter are synonymous terms, and that they both sig-
nify " rock" And this is the term by which our
Lord surnamed Simon, at the first interview they had,
as related by St. John, and, doubtless, in reference to
his future destiny. The meaning of the term rtst^o^
(Peter) being established, we are prepared to take up
the celebrated passage already cited from St. Matthew ;
and instead of setting forth our own exposition of the
passage, we prefer to give the interpretation of those
whose authority in such matters is acknowledged
among Protestant Episcopalians.
The first question is what did our Saviour mean
when he says to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build
my church. n Did he mean himself, as a few Pro-
testants say, or did he mean the confession of faith
which St. Peter had just made, as other Protestants
say, or did he mean Peter himself as Catholics main-
tain 1 That the n last is the true interpretation is fully
proved by Bloomfield and other Protestant commen-
tators. With regard to the question as to what our
Saviour meant "by the phrase " upon this rock,"
Bloomfield says, "Now that depends upon the re-
ference, which some suppose to be the confession of
faith just made by Peter, while others (and indeed
* Here we may add the testimony of Ronsenmuller, an eminent
German commentator : "The rock," says he, " is neither the confes-
sion of Peter nor Christ but Peter himself. The Lord,
speaking in Syriac, used no diversity of name, but in both places
said Cephas, as the French word jjierre, is said both of a proper and
appellative noun." (Scholia in Novum Test. Tom. i. 336.) The
French version alone fully expresses the import of the passage :
" Tu es Pierre, et sur cetto pierre je batirai mon eglise."
6*
114 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
almost every modern expositor of any note,) refer it
to Peter himself : and with reason ; for certainly, as
is observed by Bishop Marsh, (Comp. View, App. p.
27,) " it would be a desperate undertaking to prove
that Christ meant any other person than Peter. In
fact, they can indicate no other consistently with the
rules of correct exegesis" " In short," says Bloom-
field again, " The sense is : ' Thou art by name
Rock, (i. e. thy name means Rock,) and suitably to
that will be thy work and office ; for upon thee (i. e.
upon thy preaching as upon a rock,*) shall the foun-
dation of the church be laid.' It may indeed seem
strange, that so natural and well ibunded an interpre-
tation should have been passed over by any. But
that may be attributed partly to the causeless fears
into which Protestants have been betrayed, lest by ad-
mitting it, they should give a countenance to the
papal claim of supremacy; and partly to an idea that
such a sense would be contrary to what is elsewhere
said in scripture, namely, that Christ is the only foun-
dation. (See 1 Cor. iii. 2.) But as to the first the fear
is groundless ; it being, as Bishop Middleton observes,
difficult to see what advantage could be gained, un-
less we could evade the meaning of ' I will give unto
thee the keys.' which follows. And as to the latter
fear, it is equally without foundation, since the two
expressions are employed in two very different senses.
In St. Peter's case, it was very applicable ; for he was
the first who preached the gospel to the Jews, and
also the first who preached it to the Gentiles." (In
* There is certainly nothing in the passage itself to warrant this
parenthetical remark. It is a mere supposition of Bloomfield's,
evidently thrown in to diminish the force of the fact which he is
compelled to acknowledge, i. e. that the rock was Peter himself.
What our Lord meant when he said " upon thee" must be settled
by evidence and not mere assertion. Peter's preaching was doubt-
less one means by which he performed the high office to which he
was appointed. But to limit the signification of the promise to this,
(though it is probable that Bloomfield did not intend to do so,) would
be unwarranted by the passage itself and by other portions of scrip-
ture. But this question will come up presently.
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER 115
locum.) Thus the reader perceives that Dr. Bloom-
field maintains in the most decisive manner that it
was upon St. Peter himself and not upon his faith
that our Lord promised to build his church. And in
favor of this he not only adduces the testimony of
Bishop Marsh and Bishop Middleton, but also asserts
that the passage is thus interpreted by " almost every
modem expositor of any ?iote." He further acknow-
ledges that this interpretation has been rejected by
some Protestants partly to avoid giving- " counte-
nance to the papal claim, of supremacy." A very
significant, acknowledgement, coming from a Pro-
testant ! And lastly, he affirms that this interpretation
does not contradict the passage in 1 Cor. iii. 11 —
" other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ' , — "since the two expressions
are employed in different senses." Our Lord is in-
deed in a peculiar and higher sense the "Rock" and
the " Foundation." But he was pleased to constitute
St. Peter the rock and the foundation of his church,
in a subordinate and vicarious capacity. Our Lord is
also called in scripture the Bishop of our souls, and
yet it is allowed that he has appointed men to act in
the same capacity. Besides, St. Paul speaks of the
"foundation of the Apostles and Prophets." (Eph.
iii. 20.) Consequently it cannot be contrary to scrip-
ture to call St. Peter the " foundation" of the church.
In an inferior sense every apostle may be called a
"foundation." But in a special and higher sense it
belongs to St. Peter. He is, as Bloomfield admits,
" the first foundation."
But that St. Peter himself was the " rock" upon
which our Lord promised to build His Church, is
maintained by other celebrated Protestant commenta-
tors. Bishop Pearson, a standard divine of the An-
glican Church, speaking of the conversion of 3,000
persons on the day of Pentecost, says, "there was
then a church, and that built upon Peter, according
to our Saviour's promise." — (Creed, Art. ix.) Dr.
116 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
Whitby, another eminent commentator of the Angli-
can Church, thus paraphrases the passage : " As a
suitable return for thy confession, I say also unto thee
that thou art by name Peter, that is a rock ; and upon
thee, who art this rock, I will build my church."
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my
church^ — (In Matt. xvi. 16.) And again, in his com-
ments on the 18th verse, Dr. Whitby says, " That
Christ here promised to build his church upon St.
Peter seems farther evident : because these words
contain a manifest allusion to the name of St. Peter
and to that Syriac name of Cephas which our Lord had
given him, both of which do signify a rock or stone"
" Now the whole grace of the allusion is entirely
lost unless we do expound this passage of St. Peter's
person and not of his confession or the object of it."
So also Dr. Hammond, another high authority with
Protestant Episcopalians, "Seeing thou hast so freely
confessed me before men, I will also confess thee.
Thou art, &c, that is, the name by which thou art
styled and known by me is that which signifies a
stone or rock, and such shalt thou be in the building
of the church, which accordingly shall be so built on
thee, founded in thee, that the powers of death or the
grave shall never get victory over it." (Ham. New
Test, in loc.) So again Bishop Tomline, of the An-
glican church, after stating that many remarkable
circumstances recorded concerning Peter in the gos-
pels and acts seem to "point him out as the chief of
the twelve Apostles," he adds, " our Saviour said to
him in explanation of the name which he himself had
given him : thou art Peter and upon this rock will I
build my church." And again he informs us that by
being the first who preached to the Jews and after-
wards to the Gentiles, " Peter maybe said to have
founded the Universal church ; which is supposed to
have been the meaning of our Lord's words, ' upon
this rock will I build my church.'" (Elements of
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 117
Christ. Theol, port 2. ch. 25.) So also another emi-
nent Protestant, Dr. Gerard, after having laid down
the rule tli.it in interpreting scripture, "the most obvi-
ous and natural sense is to be set aside only when it
is absolutely contradictory to something plainly taught
in scripture," he remarks that " the opposite way has
been taken by all sects" in expounding the passage in
question. He then candidly acknowledges that "the
connection shows that Peter is here plainly meant."
("Inst, of Bib. Crit." chap. viii. sec. 6.) It would be
easy to adduce similar testimonies from other distin-
guished Protestant divines. But it is unnecessary to
specify more, especially since Dr. Bloomfield, who is
well versed in such matters, expressly asserts that the
same interpretation is held by " almost every modern
expositor of any note." We may conclude then that
if there is any passage of scripture, with regard to the
meaning of which Protestant and Catholic expositors
are agreed, it is this. And yet the author of the little
work called " True Catholic, No Romanist," says,
" The Romanist supposes that Christ meant St. Peter
when he said 'upon this rock.'" (p. 84.) And again,
" The text above quoted, does not bear upon the face
of it any such notion of supremacy to St. Peter, since
the rock on which Christ built his church, was the
declaration of St. Peter, ' thou art the Christ, the son
of the living God,' and this not only because the ori-
ginal Greek favors it, but because other foundation
can no man lay than that which is laid which is
Jesus Christ !" (p. 95.) The reader will decide whether
the authorities which have been cited do not place the
Catholic interpretation beyond doubt, viz. Bishops
Marsh, Middleton, Tomline and Pearson, and Doctors
Bloomfield, Whitby, Hammond, Gerard, and "almost
every modern expositor of any note."
The assertion of the same author that St. Paul
preached the gospel and founded the church in
Britain, is scarcely less reckless. Whether true or
false, however, it cannot materially affect the Pope's
118 SEPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
supremacy. We cannot here enter into a discussion
of the question. But we would make two or three
observations which may perhaps lead those who have
been misled by the assertion to examine the other side
of the question. First: some of the most eminent
writers, even of the Church of England, have not
been willing (as the author admits,) to make the asser-
tion, " such are Drs. Hales, Fuller, Southey, Cheval-
lier, Blunt, Bloomfield, Burton," &c. (p. 20,) to which
we may add Dr. Ogilby of this country. (Lee. on the
Ch. p. 79.) Secondly: Gildas, the oldest British his-
torian, who flourished about A. D. 530, does not say
that St. Paul was ever in Britain. And thirdly, Bede,
the "venerable Bede" who about two centuries later
wrote a history of the British church, does not men-
tion it either ; but on the contrary he attributes the
founding of the British church to Pope Eleutherius,
who he says sent over teachers, A. D. 156, at the re-
quest of King Lucius. (Eccl. Hist. ch. iv.) Bede has
a place in the calendar of the Church of England,
and we would commend his history to the perusal of
Protestant Episcopalians ; they will there learn that
what is vulgarly called " popish corruption," was not
unknown in the early British church, from which
they are so anxious to prove their descent. Chapter
after chapter is but little more than a record of mira-
cles wrought by holy water, relics, &c. We would
especially commend to the readers of the little book
referred to, that passage of Bede's history in which
he states that Pope Gregory " made our nation, till
then given up to idols, the church of God" and
" bore the pontifical power over all the world ;" and
also that in which he states that the British bishops
(who occupied another part of the island,) " did several
things which were against the unity of the church."*
* Among these was the error of celebrating Easter according to
the Jewish computation. Augustine demanded that they should
renounce this error, but they refused, and consequently rendered
themselves schismatics, according to the decisions of the General
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 119
And likewise that in which he informs us that Au-
gustine miraculously opened the eyes of a blind man
to convince the British Christians of their error and
to prove his own mission.
It is indeed painful to point out in this public man-
ner the errors of one whose friendship we have al-
ways esteemed it a pleasure to enjoy. But truth and
justice require it. The errors specified will serve to
show how little it is to be relied on in the points
which it discusses. It must not be supposed, how-
ever, that we accuse this writer of having wilfully
deceived his readers. He has committed these mis-
takes by deciding points without sufficient examina-
tion, and by having made use of so much second-hand
knowledge. But as it was written some years ago,
we doubt not that he has already lived to discover
many of its errors. And we would fain indulge the
hope that by the mercy of God he may yet live, and
have the grace and magnanimity, like a distinguished
author across the water, to acknowledge and retract
the erroneous statements and harsh epithets which he
has unfortunately made use of to his own detriment.*
The erroneous statements into which he has been
Council of Nice and of other councils. (Vide Hammond's " Defini-
tics," p. 28, who also refers for authority to Bingham, b. xx. c. 5.)
Surely it would be no honor to claim such an ancestry.
* Among the many serious errors of this little work is the follow-
ing. The author charges Bellarmine, a celebrated doctor of the Catho-
lic church, with having stated in one of his works that " if the Pope
should err by commanding sin or forbidding virtue, yet the church
is bound to believe that the vices are good and the virtues evil, un-
less she would sin against her own conscience." (p. 80.) But if any
one will examine Bellarmine he will discover that the passage is
most grossly garbled. It is a mere hypothetical argument in favor
of the infallibility of the Pope. He argues that tudess the infallibi-
lity be admitted, it will follow that the " church is bound to be-
lieve," &c. It is by such misrepresentations (of which the number
is infinite,) that many excellent Protestants are led to regard the
Catholic church with so much horror. We would here take occa-
sion to observe that the infallibility of the Pope has never been de-
termined by the church, consequently it is not an article of faith ;
and therefore no one is required to believe it.
120 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
betrayed may find some palliation in his want of more
thorough knowledge, in his strong prejudices, and in
his party zeal ; but we must acknowledge that we can
see nothing to justify the harsh epithets with which
he incessantly reviles God's " chosen people :" for in-
stance — " the hypocritical respect which the Romish
sect pretends to pay to the early Fathers !" As to the
charge that the Catholic Church is wanting in defer-
ence to the early Fathers, nothing could be more
false and calumnious, though a very common opinion
among some Protestant churchmen. Those who are
best versed in the writings of the early Fathers, know
very well that they are decidedly in favor of the doc-
trines, discipline, &c, of the present Catholic Church.
It would be an easy matter to prove this not only by
citations from these Fathers, but also by the admis-
sions of many learned writers of the Anglican Church.*
With the view of sustaining 1 the charge alluded to, it
has been very currently and falsely stated in the jour-
nals of the Protestant Episcopal Church, that Mr.
Newman, in his late work on " Developement," has
admitted its truth. No matter what Mr. Newman may
have said in this work upon this and other topics, it
cannot be used to the disparagement of the Catholic
Church any more than the assertion of his earlier
works, since it was written while he was a Protes-
tant ; but, in point of fact, Mr. Newman has not made
any such admission. On the contrary, he adduces
from the early Fathers many most decisive testimonies
in behalf of doctrines vulgarly called " Romish."t
But to return to the proof-text which we were con-
* Every one knows that one of the most striking features in the
late " Oxford movement" which has led so many into the Catholic
Church, was the study and publication of the writings of the Fathers !
Does this fact favor the notion that the Fathers are against the
Catholic Church of the present age ?
j It is a significant fact that a communication, couched in the
most unexceptionable language, sent to one of those journals with
a view of correcting its misrepresentation of Mr. Newman's work
as to this point, was "respectfully declined!"
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 121
sidering. It has been proved to the satisfaction of the
candid redder, that when our Lord said "upon this
rock I will build my church," He meant that He
would build it upon St. Peter. If there be any in-
terpretation of scripture established upon the sound-
est principles of correct exegesis, (Protestant exposi-
tors being judges,) it is this. Such being the case, it
is almost a work of supererogation to cite the remarks
of the Fathers upon it. But since it has been assert-
ed that the Fathers interpreted it differently, it be-
hooves us to allow them to give their testimony.
First, however, let us remark, that there is an antece-
dent probability amounting almost to a moral certainty
that the Fathers interpreted this passage precisely as
Catholics now do, for the simple reason that by the
consent of "almost every modern expositor of any
note," Protestant as well as Catholic, it is the only le-
gitimate interpretation. It is admitted by all that the
Fathers were at least as well qualified to understand
the Holy Scriptures as "modern expositors." If so,
it is not for a moment to be supposed that they put
upon it a construction different from that which has
been so clearly proved to be the true one. Surely he
who affirms that they did, pronounces either upon
them or upon the most distinguished expositors of
modern times an accusation which tends to deprive
them of all authority in the interpretations of Holy
Writ. But a few citations from some of the early and
principal Fathers will show that they entirely agree
with modern expositors. We shall begin with St.
Justin Martyr, who flourished A. D. 150.
The author of the little book just noticed, says that
this Father "expressly asserts that the rock was St.
Peter's confession of the divinity of Christ." — (lb. p.
96.) But if he had quoted the passage of St. Justin
to which he merely refers, his readers would have
seen his mistake. What St. Justin says is this : "And
one of His disciples, who was before called Simon, he
surnamed Peter, because he, by revelation from the
122 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
Father, acknowledged Him to be the Christ — the Son
of God."* Now if the reader will carefully consider
this passage, he will perceive that so far from being:
opposed to our interpretation, it is decidely in its favor.
For first, he assigns only as a reason for Simon's
name being changed, that he " acknoivledged Him to
be the Christ," which no Catholic disputes* And sec-
ondly, St. Justin plainly allows that Peter was the
rock ; for he expressly states that our Lord " sur-
named him Peter, which means rock. If he was
called Peter or rock, on account of his confession,
then unquestionably he was the rock. To deny this,
would be as absurd as to deny that Peter was Peter.
Another early writer is Tertuilian, a priest of Car-
thage, who flourished about A. D. 194. Arguing
against the Gnostics, he asks, " Was any thing con-
cealed from Peter, who was styled the rock on which
the church was to be built, who received the keys of
the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing
and binding in Heaven and on earth?" — (De Prsescr.
§ xxii.) And again, in another work he says : " On
thee" he says, " I will build my church, and to thee
I will give the keys, not to the church." (L. de Pu-
dicitia, c. 21.) Dr. Hopkins acknowledges that Ter-
tuilian "admits the application of the term rock to
Peter." — (Church of Rome, p. 88.) Origen, a cotem-
porary of Tertuilian, and one of the most learned
writers of that age, has left similar testimony. He is
cited by Eusebius as saying, <: Peter, on whom the
Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of
hell shall not prevail, left one epistle generally ad-
mitted." — Eccl. Hist. 1. vi. c. xxv.) Other similar
passages might be cited from this writer, but we have
not space. We therefore pass on to an eminent Fa-
ther who flourished a little later — St. Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage. We have already cited one passage
from this writer in illustrating another point, which
shows that he understood the text under considera-
*Dial. cum Try ph.
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 123
tion just as Catholics now do : " Peter, whom tho
Lord chose the first, and on whom he buili I lis church"
&c. In another epistle he says . " For the Lord in
the first place gave to Peter, on whom he built His
church, and whence he instituted and showed the
origin of unity, the power that what he loosed on
earth should be loosed in Heaven." — (Epist. 73 ad
Jub.) And again : " There is one baptism and one
Holy Spirit, and one church founded by Christ the.
Lord upon Peter, as the origin and ground of unity." —
(Epist. 70 ad Jan.) Again: "Peter, on whom the
church was built by the Lord, speaking for all," &c. —
(Epist. 5o, ad Cornel.) The writings of this Father
abound with such passages, but it is unnecessary to
give more. St. Basil the Great,* archbishop of Cesa-
rea, gives the same opinion. He says that Peter, " on
account of the excellency of his faith, received on
himself the building- of the church." This passage
is cited by Bishop Pearson to confirm his own asser-
tion that Christ " built His church upon Peter." —
(Creed, Art. ix., p. 488, note.)
We have another witness in St. Gregory, of Na-
zianzum, a cotemporary and friend of St. Basil, and
for some time bishop of Constantinople. He says,
" Do you see that among the disciples of Christ, all
of whom were sublime and worthy of their election,
one is called a rock, and is intrusted with the foun-
dations of the church, another is loved more," &c. —
(Orat. xxxii.) We might easily furnish passages of a
similar import from other Fathers, but as we shall have
occasion to do so in another part of this work, we
shall only here give references to a few of them — St.
Chrysostom, (Horn. 83, in Matt. ;) St. James, of Nisi-
bis, (Ser. vii. p. 243;) St. Gregory, of jSyssa, (Orat. ii.
De St. Stephano.) So also St. Epephanius, St. Am-
brose, St. Cyril, of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Jerome,
* So called for his admirable eloquence and profound erudition.
He flourished A. D. 369.
124 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
and St. Augustine, whom we shall presently cite more
particularly.
Thus we have shown that the most eminent fathers
of the early church affirm that it was upon St. Peter
that our Lord built his church. And yet the author
of the little book referred to tells his readers that this
interpretation is contradicted by the fathers ; although
he does not venture to cite a single passage from one
of them to sustain the sweeping assertion which he
makes. We are well aware that there are passages
in some of these fathers which, viewed apart from the
context, and by those who are unacquainted with their
writings generally and with their peculiar mode of
expounding scripture, may seem to favor the pro-
testant side ; just as certain passages of holy scrip-
ture, when viewed in a similar way, may seem to
teach the very reverse of scripture doctrine. The fa-
thers, besides assigning to a passage of scripture its
literal and obvious meaning, gave it also a mystical
interpretation — a kind of secondary sense. In this
way they made of it such a moral application as
seemed to them to be most instructive. Sometimes
this practice was carried to excess. By the exercise
of a fertile fancy some of their secondary senses were
ratner strained and unnatural, or at least altogether
different from the primary and literal signification.
Thus some of the fathers understood the " five
loaves" to mean the five books of Moses, and others
understood them to mean the five senses. And yet
surely no one will deny that they also understood
them in a natural sense. And yet this causes no in-
superable difficulty in correctly understanding them,
except in the case of those who are but superficially
acquainted with them, although it makes it very easy
for persons to use them in an improper manner. It
was, doubtless, (as one of the fathers just cited ex-
pressly states) on account of the faith or confession
of St. Peter that our Lord conferred upon him this
great honor. And hence it was very natural for some
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 125
of the fathers in their sermons and homilies on the
passage to give particular prominence to this confes-
sion, and sometimes to speak of it as the " rock"
itself in a rather loose or secondary sense. But it
would be very unfair to deny that they therefore
did not hold also the primary and literal sense of
the passage. We have shown that they did hold
the literal sense, that is, that St. Peter was the
11 rock." No one will question the accuracy of our
citations, and many more could be and indeed will
be added in the course of the work. Consequently
it is unquestionably true that the fathers under-
stood the " rock" of St. Peter. If then it be shown
that this or that father, or any number of them, un-
derstood it as his "confession of faith" what then?
This does not overthrow the fact that they held the
former interpretation. Neither does it follow that
they contradict themselves. The apparent discre-
pancy is easily reconciled by the peculiarity in their
mode of expounding scripture, to which we have
just alluded. The fathers did not generally pay much
attention in their expository lectures to the natural
sense of passages of an historical or matter-of-fact
nature. The natural sense being obvious and well
known, and besides not much calculated to edify their
hearers spiritually, they were led to dwell upon its
moral or mystical sense ; and in evolving this sense
they often exercised no little freedom. In confirma-
tion of this remark we will cite the opinion of a dis-
tinguished Protestant critic, whose testimony has
already been adduced upon another point. Dr. Ge-
rard, speaking of the style of the fathers, says, " In
their homilies, when they stick to the literal sense,
they study not so much to determine it with accuracy
as to accommodate the most obvious meaning to their
subject, or to apply it to practical purposes in a rheto-
rical manner." (Inst, of Bib. Crit. chap. viii. sec. 6.)
The same father expounds the passage in question in
both ways. But he does not thereby contradict him-
126 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
self; for the two are perfectly compatible with one
another. In one case he gives the strict, literal sense,
and in the other a loose, secondary or mystical sense.
And unless one is really resolved to make the fathers
contradict one another and even themselves, he must
allow some such explanation as this. Consequently
to cite this or that father as interpreting the rock of
Peter's confession, is not relevant to the point. For
that the fathers generally held that Peter was the
rock cannot be denied. And of course in this matter
Peter cannot be severed from his confession of faith.
The rock was Peter confessing his faith. Hence one
may hold, as Catholics now do, that in a less strict or
secondary sense the confession was the rock, while he
at the same time also strenuously maintains that in
strict and primary sense Peter himself, though in-
cluding of course his faith, was the "rock."
It now remains to inquire what is meant by St.
Peter's being called a " rock," and the promise that the
Church should be built upon him. Every one knows
that a rock is the emblem of firmness, permanence,
durability, security, &c. Every one also knows that
when we speak of building upon a rock, we mean an
impregnable foundation; and that our Saviour meant
the same thing: is evident from the words which he
immediately adds, " and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." We may conclude, then, that
the name and promise which our Lord gave to Peter,
meant nothing less than this, that he had appointed
St. Peter as an impregnable foundation upon which
he would erect the structure of his church. He places
Peter as " the foundation" from which the entire
building should derive, under him, its compactness,
strength and durability. The words which our Lord
employs, and the interpretations cited from the fathers,
prove conclusively that such was his meaning ; and
although in another or inferior sense Scripture speaks
of the " foundation of the apostles and prophets," yet
this cannot detract from the peculiar office of St.
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 127
Peter. Peter is called "this rock" on which the
church is to be built. In a strict and peculiar sense
he, under Christ, is the rock upon which the super-
structure rests, and in which office no other apostle
shared, although in another sense every npostle may
he termed a "foundation" stone, as having- been the
principal agents in the erection of the structure. That
Peter alone had this honor in a strict sense, is evident
both from the phraseology of the passage, and from the
fact that the fathers constantly describe St. Peter as
the one " on whom the church is built,'* and which
they would not have done if the other apostles had
participated in the same office. Besides, Anglican
divines allow that the promise to Peter did at least
signify what afterwards happened, i. e. that he should
first found the church among both Jews and Gentiles.
(Vide Bloomfield, in loc.) Hence it is evident that
the passage applies to St. Peter in a sense in which
it appliesjo no other apostle, Protestants themselves
being judges. But that our blessed Lord designed to
confer upon St. Peter some high and peculiar office
is made further evident by the additional promise
which he immediately added. Having promised to
build his church upon him, he makes prospectively a
further grant, in language no less significant of extra-
ordinary power : " And I will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven" Every one knows that
the phrase " kingdom of heaven" signifies the church.*
Our Lord, while speaking of the founding of his
chuch upon Peter, very naturally represents it under
the figure of a building ; but as he further unfolds
his great designs with regard to St. Peter, he speaks
of it under the figure of a "kingdom," by which (as
* On another occasion our Lord said to his apostles, " I appoint
unto you a kingdom." He here promises a "kingdom" to the apos-
tles, but the keys of that kingdom he had promised to St. Peter, and
to St. Peter only. Each and every apostle had a share in the admin-
istration of that kingdom within certain limits, but St. Peter alone
was intrusted with supreme and universal jurisdiction as Christ's
Vicar.
128 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
we mentioned in a former part of this treastise) it is
often represented in holy Scripture. But what does
he mean by conferring upon St. Peter "the keys" of
his kingdom? Or what is implied by the figure of the
keys ? Here we are perfectly willing to accept the ex-
planation furnished by Protestant authorities. Ac-
cording to Home, keys are the emblem of " power and
authority." (Introd. vol. iv. p. 499.) Here he cites
as an instance, besides the text under consideration,
Rev. i. 18, "I . . . have the keys of hell and of death."
And so also Bloomfeld, " As to the expression, ' the
keys,' it may also refer to the power and authority
for the said work; especially as a key was anciently
an usual symbol of authority, (See Is. xxii. 22,)
and presenting with a key was a common form of
investing with authority, insomuch that it was after-
wards worn as a badge of office." (Gr. Test, in loc.)
And so likewise Dr. Whitby, in the passage already
cited, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, the power of making laics to
govern my church" But the explanation of Dr.
Hammond is still more full : " What is here meant by
the keys," says he, " is best understood by Is. xxii. 22,
(And the key of the house of David will I lay upon
his shoulder ; so he shall open, and none shall shut ;
and he shall shut, and none shall open.) Where they
signify ruling the whole family, or the house of the
king, and this being by Christ accommodated to the
church, denotes the power of governing in it" (In
locum.) Surely no Catholic could set forth an expo-
sition more favorable to St. Peter's supremacy, and
at the same time more fair and just.
It cannot be necessary after such testimony to un-
dertake ourselves a critical exegesis of the expression.
If Protestants dispute what is conceded by their own
best authorities, we shall only be involved in a vain
and interminable controversy. Our Lord not only
constitutes St. Peter a rock for the foundation of His
church, but also invests him with " the keys" of His
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 129
Kingdom ; and thereby, according to the authorities
just cited, gives him "power and authority" to "gov-
ern His church" and to " rule His whole family."
This certainly proves all that Catholics desire. As
" the rock," he is the source, through Christ, of
strength and durability to the whole church, which
he "first found among both Jews and Gentiles ;" and
as the possessor of " the keys," he is ruler and su-
preme governor (as the vicar of Christ) over the
whole kingdom or household. And in the still fur-
ther promise which our Lord gives him — " And what-
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in Heaven," he receives an assurance
that the exercise of this supreme authority shall be
ratified by Almighty God. No one can deny this
without a reckless disregard of the soundest princi-
ples of scriptural hermeneutics. Our divine and Al-
mighty Saviour, in placing in the hands of His chosen
vessel, fitted for the office by special revelation from
the Father, the keys of His kingdom, plainly put the
whole house or church under his jurisdiction. If
any monarch were to say to one of his subjects,
"Here are the keys of my kingdom, I give them to
you," departing himself into another country, would
not every one understand that that individual was
henceforth invested with the government of that
kingdom ? Or if the master of a house were to say
to one of his servants, " Here are the keys of my house,
I give them to you," would not that servant thence-
forth become the manager, master, and ruler of that
house 1 Surely nothing can be plainer, nothing more
conclusive. But our Lord not only constitutes St.
Peter the foundation rock of the church and commits
to his custody the keys thereof, but adds yet more :
" And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in Heaven." " It should seem,"
says Dr. Bloomfield, " that the image taken from the
7
130 SEPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
keys is not continued here, but that they are a fuller
development of the ideas of trust and power of which
keys form a symbol ; and that the power here meant
la more extended kind." "There is little doubt
the view taken by Lightfoot, Selden, Hamm,
r, Kuin, and most recent commentators, is the
i one." " The sense will then be : Whatsoever
thou shalt forbid to be done, or whatsoever thou shalt
declare lawful, and constitute in the church, shall be
ratified .and hold good with God ; including all the
measures necessary for the establishment and govern-
ment of the church." Thus, Protestants being judges,
it is a grant of additional power, with an assurance
that its exercise should be ratified in Heaven.
Now if our Lord had promised the keys to all the
Apostles, the case would be very different ; but it is
said only to Peter, " I will give to thee" he says, " the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." And although He
gives to the other Apostles in an equal degree the
power of " remitting and retaining sins," yet he never
gave " the keys" to any but to St. Peter. The power
of the keys is distinct from the ordinary authority to
forgive and retain sins, or to receive and to excommu-
nicate, for this may be done by an inferior officer.
But the " keys" imply, as we have proved, supreme
jurisdiction over the kingdom or house.
Our Lord on a subsequent occasion, when speaking
with reference to one who should neglect to hear the
church, said to His " disciples" generally, " whatso-
ever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,"
<fcc. But this does not give them equal power with
St. Peter ; for first, he did not give them " the keys"
the emblem of universal and supreme authority. And
secondly, these words in this connection imply less
than the same words in the passage under considera-
tion, as Dr. Bloomfield admits. The sense he says
" must not be here taken in the same extent as there,
but {as the best commentators are agreed) be limited
by the connection," &c. — (Gr. Test, in Matt, xviii. 18.)
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER- 131
It is merely a general assurance given to them collec-
tively, as Bloomfield goes on to say, that their acts of
discipline should be ratified in Heaven. Besides, our
Lord did not make any particular grant of power to
them at that time — "whatsoever ye shall bind," he
says ; and even if we understand it as implying juris-
diction, it must be a limited and subordinate juris-
diction, because He had previously promised superior
jurisdiction to Peter. And, moreover, if understood
of jurisdiction at all, that jurisdiction must have been
conveyed through St. Peter, as we shall presently
prove. But the first reply alone is sufficient — Christ
promised " the keys" to no one but St. Peter.
The whole passage evidently implies some special,
peculiar, and superior grant to St. Peter ; for if, as
some Protestants say, without the shadow of evidence,
the same grant was afterwards made to all the apostles,
then it is plain that Peter gains nothing by his more
excellent faith ; for the trifling circumstance of receiv-
ing the grant first would not seem to have been any
very special favor. And yet all agree that this pro-
mise was given to him on account of his surpassing
faith. Protestant divines admit it, and the fathers
also constantly affirm it. This reasoning is corrobo-
rated by all the circumstances of the case. Let us
remember, first, that our blessed Lord previously gave
to St. Peter a surname, signifying rock, according to
the custom of the age, of giving an additional name
significant of some peculiar quality or office, and ob-
viously by way of anticipation or preparation for some
grand and specific object which he had in view with
reference to him. Let us remember, in the second place,
that this noble confession, which Peter alone of all the
apostles made, did not proceed from his natural bold-
ness or natural perception, but from a special revela-
tion from the Father : " Blessed art thou," our Lord
said to him, " Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which
is in heaven ;" and then follow the remarkable words
132 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
under consideration : " Thou art a rock, and upon
this rock," &c. Now why was this significant name
and this special revelation given to Peter, and to
Peter in preference to the rest 7 There is plainly no
apparent reason for it, except that Peter was to re-
ceive some special and superior grant. And that that
grant was a grant of supreme jurisdiction is clearly
implied by the figure of " the keys," as we have already
proved. In making these observations we are sus-
tained by the interpretation of Origen, one of the most
learned writers of the early church. " And truly,"
says he, " if the words of the gospel be attentively
considered, we shall there find that the last words
(" whatsoever ye shall bind," &c.) were common to
Peter and the others ; but that the former, (" I will give
unto thee the keys," &c.) spoken to Peter, imported
a great distinction and superiority " (Com. in Matt.
T. xiii. 31.) The other apostles did, indeed, receive
also in some measure, and within certain limits, the
power of jurisdiction, but they received it through
JSt. Peter, who alone received a plenitude or univer-
sality of jurisdiction. This, we think, is evident from
what has been already said ; but it is also confirmed
by the testimonies of the early fathers. Thus Ter-
tullian, in the passage already cited : " Was anything,"
he indignantly asked the Gnostics, " concealed from
Peter, who was styled the rock on which the church
was to be built, who received the keys of the king-
dom of heaven, and the power of loosing and binding
in heaven and on earth ?" Now there would be no
force in this exclamation of Tertullian, if the same
prerogative had been equally given by our Lord him-
self to the other apostles also. But Tertullian shows
more clearly in another passage that this was his
view : " If thou thinkest," says he, " heaven is still
closed, recollect that the Lord left the keys thereof to
Peter, and through him to the church" (Scirp. c. 10.)
So also St. Cyril of Jerusalem, comparing the apostles
with the prophets, he points out Peter's distinguishing
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 133
office : " For Elias," says he, " was taken up into
heaven, but Peter has the keys of the kingdom of
heaven." (Cat. xiv. 26.) And again : speaking of the
-overthrow of Simon Magus, at Rome, by Peter and
Paul, he says, "Let it not appear wonderful, however
wonderful it be in itself, for Peter was he who carried
around the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Cat.
vi. 15.) He also denominates him " the key-bearer of
the kingdom of heaven" (Cat. xvii. 27.) So also
St. Optatus, an eloquent and illustrious prelate of
Africa. He expressly affirms that Peter alone received
the keys: " So that all heretics," says he, "neither
have the ' keys' which Peter alone received, nor the
ring with which the fountain is sealed." (De Sch.
Donat. L. i.) And again, near the conclusion of the
same work, St. Optatus says : " blessed Peter, to whom
pardon after his denial might have sufficed, was
thought worthy, for the promotion of unity, to be
preferred to the other apostles : and he alone received
the keys, to be communicated to the rest." (Lib. vii.)
It would be easy to cite any number of similar pas-
sages ; but every one acquainted with the writings of
the ancient church knows that St. Peter is constantly
designated as the possessor of the keys, which would
be utterly without meaning had it not been his own
peculiar prerogative.
But our limits will not allow us to dwell longer
upon this extraordinary passage, though we have said
enough, we think, to prove to the satisfaction of the
candid reader that it gives to St. Peter, not merely a
futile precedency of honor, but a primacy of juris-
diction among the apostles and first Christians — a su-
preme and universal authority over the whole church
as the Vicar of Christ. If this be denied, then there
is no hope of settling the interpretation of Scripture,
no, not even with the combined aid of fathers and doc-
tors of antiquity, and of Protestant divines and expo-
sitors of modern times ; for, of course, Protestants:
will not allow the tradition of the church in the case.
134
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
We will now present another proof text of Holy-
Scripture, not by any means, it is true, so clear and
strong as that just considered, but nevertheless worthy
of weight in the controversy. And here we would
remind our readers that we do not build this claim
upon any single passage of Scripture by itself,
(although we think the one just considered would
alone sustain it,) but upon the combined evidence
derived from numerous and various passages, just as
Protestant divines, in proving from Scripture the doc-
trine of the Trinity, do not rest the doctrine upon one
passage, but upon a number of passages combined.
Every one versed in such matters, knows that the full
force of the evidence can be seen and felt only by
viewing all the proof texts combined. It is by over-
looking this obvious and reasonable condition that
some persons are led to reject the evidence in favor of
St. Peter's supremacy, just as others reject that in
favor of the Trinity. With the combined assistance
of ingenuity and prejudice they explain aivay the
proof texts one of 'ter another, and finally conclude that
the evidence is inadequate. We are firmly persuaded,
that among all the texts adduced by Protestants to
support the doctrine of the Trinity, there is not one
which is so clear and decisive as that which we have
just been using to prove St. Peter's supremacy. But
still, if a man set to work, in the way just mentioned,
to demolish the evidence, he will be very apt to suc-
ceed, at least with some degree of satisfaction to him-
self; for by such a proceeding there are no words in
our language which could not be easily evaded ; and
yet more, there is no doctrine founded upon Scripture
which could not be overthrown, and no fact recorded
in history which could not be set aside. But the sin-
cere reader, who really desires to ascertain the truth,
will not hazard his salvation by so criminal a course;
having carefully examined each proof, he will then
consider them all together, and finally, after mature
reflection upon their combined force, draw his con-
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 135
elusion accordingly. With these remarks we submit
the other proof text alluded to ; we think the candid
reader will allow that it is at least confirmation of the
more decided proof already furnished. Our blessed
Lord, speaking of the dangers to which his apostles
would be exposed at the time of his approaching be-
trayal and crucifixion, says to Peter, " Simon, Simon,
behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren." (Luke xxii. 31, 32.) Here
we must first observe, what the mere English reader
is apt to overlook, that our Saviour does not refer to
St. Peter only when he says " Satan hath desired to
have you." He does, indeed, address himself to St.
Peter, but he refers also to the other apostles. The
pronoun "you" has here its plural signification,
which is easily overlooked, since our Saviour is ad-
dressing but one person, and since it is often used in
a singular sense ; and although the distinction is pre-
served in the English version, yet the fact may not be
known, or at least remembered by all our readers. In
Greek, the pronoun is plural, vfias (you) not <xs (thee).
So the sense of the passage is, " Satan hath desired to
have you, (apostles) that he may sift you as wheat,"
which Bloomfield renders thus : " Satan desires to get
you into his power" that he may " try your fidelity
and constancy." (In loc.) Then follow the words of
our Lord with reference to Peter only: "But I have
prayed for Mee, that thy faith fail not, and when thou
art converted, strengthen thy brethren?' Now the
question naturally arises, why is Peter thus singled
out by our Lord, and made the special subject of his
all-prevailing prayer?
The passage itself teaches us that it was not Peter
only, but all the Apostles, that Satan desired to get
into his power and overthrow. Why then does our
Lord manifest this particular solicitude in behalf of
Peter in preference to all the rest ? It could not have
136 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
been on account of any peculiar weakness in his faith
or in his natural courage ; for, as to his faith, we have
seen in the passage already considered that it was of
a most extraordinary nature — far surpassing that of
his brethren. And as to his natural courage or bold-
ness, every reader of the Gospel history knows very
well that in this respect also he took the lead of his
brethren. The truth of this latter remark is not at
all affected by the circumstance that Peter, when our
Lord was arraigned, disavowed his knowledge of Him.
For the other Apostles displayed still less courage,
inasmuch as they "forsook Him and fled." — (Mark
xiv. 50;) whereas Peter "followed Him afar off, even
into the palace of the high priest' 9 And although
in that trying hour he was overcome for a moment by
his fears, yet he still clung to his Divine Master with
peculiar attachment and steadfastness. Had the other
Apostles exhibited the same devotion in adhering to
the person of our Lord, who shall say that they would
not have done even worse than Peter 1 But whatever
may be thought of this, it surely will not be denied
that in thus following our Saviour into the very midst
of His wicked and powerful enemies, he showed more
affection, constancy and courage, than the rest. But
we must note that it was on behalf of Peter's faith
that our Lord offered up special prayer. " But I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." But why in
behalf of his faith more than of that of the others 1
We have seen that his faith was not weaker, but
rather stronger than that of the rest ; and that it con-
tinued so, is clear from the command which our Lord
gave him to " strengthen" his brethren : for it is ob-
vious that he could not " strengthen" them unless he
was stronger than they. Why, then, we ask again,
does our Lord pray that Peter's faith fail not in prefer-
ence to that of the rest? Now, since it could not
have been on account of the weakness of his faith,
we must seek some other reason. But there is but
one other assignable cause, and that was this : that
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 137
on some account or other it was more important that
Peter be preserved steadfast in the faith. But why-
was it more important that Peter's faith should be
kept steadfast 1 We can perceive but one reasonable
explanation of this extraordinary fact, and that is this :
that Peter was the leader and chief of the Apostles,
appointed by our Lord to direct and superintend their
conduct and to govern His whole church. Accept
this explanation, and our Lord's particular solicitude
in behalf of St. Peter's faith is obvious and natural;
but reject it, and it is involved in inextricable obscu-
rity and perplexity. The reader must observe that
Peter's supremacy* is here argued not from the sole
fact that our Lord plainly attaches so much import-
ance to the steadfastness of his faith, but also by the
remarkable injunction which he gave to Peter in re-
ference to the other Apostles, when He said, "And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
The phrase " when thou art converted," refers of course
to Peter's denial and repentance. It would be more
properly rendered (as Bloomfield allows) by the phrase
" having recovered thyself." It may be worth re-
marking, that Peter's "denial" or disavowal cannot
be understood as involving a failure of his faith, be-
cause our Lord had offered a special prayer for its
preservation ; and His language altogether in refer-
ence to the matter, evidently implies that His prayer
would be effectual. Peter was so overcome for a mo-
ment by shame and fear as to deny his acquaintance
with the Saviour ; and was thus guilty of prevarica-
tion and falsehood. But that there was any failure
of his faith, is contrary to all the evidence of the
case. But this, however, is not material to our argu-
ment. We were going to remark upon the com-
mand which our Lord gave to Peter : " And thou
having recovered thyself, strengthen thy brethren"
* We would here take occasion to remark, that by the term " su-
premacy" we mean a primacy of jtcrisdictionover the whole churchy
as distinguished from an empty and useless primacy of honor.
138 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
We say that this command, taken in connection with
the fact that our Lord attached so much importance
to the preservation of Petefs faith, furnishes a strong
argument in favor of Peters supremacy. Now why
is the office of strengthening the other Apostles as-
signed to Peter ? Will it be said " because he was
stronger, and therefore capable of doing it?" But
this does not meet our argument. For the question
then arises, how or why was Peter stronger ? And
the answer to this has been already given — because
our Lord prayed for him. He received special and
extraordinary assistance from above, which is the very
fact that argues his superiority. If the Apostles were
all to be equal in official dignity, we would naturally
expect that they would all have been strengthened
alike and in the same way. But instead of doing
this, He strengthens Peter only, and then assigns to
Peter the office of strengthening the others. Now we
see no way of accounting for this singular proceeding
but upon the theory that Peter was the chief of the
Apostles and Christ's vicar, by whom he designed to
perfect his ministers, and govern his entire flock.*
Instead of conveying strength to the other Apostles,
in order to qualify them for their vast work in a direct
way, He imparts it to them through Peter, thereby
plainly teaching them to look up to Peter as their head
and director, just as the subordinate generals in an
army look up to their commander-in-chief. That it
means nothing less than this is fully apparent, when
all the facts which have been mentioned are unitedly
considered. First, Christ constitutes Peter a " rock ;"
secondly, He builds His church upon him ; thirdly,
He gives him " the keys''' of His kingdom ; fourthly,
He secures by His prayer the constancy of Peter's
* In our view of this passage, we are evidently sustained by the
testimony of St. Chrysostom. Speaking of the leading part which
Peter took in the election to supply the place of Judas, he says :
" He is the first to proceed in this matter, because all have been de-
livered over into his hands ; for to him Christ said, ' When thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren.' " — (Horn. iii. in 1 cap. Act.)
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 139
faith in preference to the rest ; and, fifthly, He assigns
to Peter the high office of strengthening the other
Apostles. There are other facts remaining to be con-
sidered, which, if added here, would greatly increase
the force of the evidence. But these alone consid-
ered together, furnish an argument of overwhelming
strength.* That we have not exaggerated the office
of Peter in reference to his brother Apostles and the
church generally, will presently be amply confirmed
by the testimony of the Fathers. We will cite but
two or three passages just now as a specimen. Hear
St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, who from his advanced
age and great learning has been styled " the Father
of the Fathers," who flourished A. D. 372 : " The
memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles,
and together with him the other members of the
church are glorified ; but the Church of God is ren-
dered solid in him : for he, according to the preroga-
tive granted him by God, is the firm and most solid
rock on which the Saviour built His church." — (Laud,
alt. St. S*eph. apud Zacagnium.) So also St. Am-
brose, (A. D. 374,) Bishop of Milan, speaking of our
Lord's promise to build His Church upon Peter, he
says, " Could He not therefore strengthen the faith of
him to whom he gave a kingdom of his own authori-
ty, and whom in calling a rock, he made the strength
of the church?"— (De Fide, 1. 4.) In another place,
speaking on the same subject, he says with reference to
Peter : " Like an immovable stone he holds together
the structure and mass of the whole Christian fab-
ric" — (Serm. 47.) And again, alluding to the very
*It sometimes happens that although an individual perceives that
the arguments in favor of a proposition appear to be conclusive and
even completely overwhelming, he nevertheless concludes that there
must be some fallacy or misrepresentation about them, otherwise
the doctrine would not be rejected by go many learned ami good
men. But such an individual ought to remember, that a Presbyte-
rian could in this way set .aside all the arguments adduced in favor
of episcopacy ; for many learned and good men have rejected epis-
copacy. "•■
140 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
passage under consideration, St. Ambrose says : " By
temptation we are improved; so that he who was
found weak acquires strength, and is able to instruct
others. Peter, after his fall, is appointed Ruler of
the church, and the Lord before signifies why He af-
terwards chose him to be the Pastor of His flock :
for He said to him, ' And thou being converted, con-
firm thy brethren' "
We shall now pass on to other scriptural proofs of
the supremacy. There are many occurrences related
of Peter in the gospels, which, though each alone
would be very insignificant, yet when combined to-
gether, and especially when considered in connection
with the proofs of a direct nature, add considerable
strength to the argument. We shall not, however,
dwell upon them, nor indeed insist upon them at all.
We believe that those who know how to appreciate
circumstantial evidence, would regard them as afford-
ing strong confirmation ; and indeed they are referred
to by Archbishop Potter and Dr. Barrow as proofs of
Peter's pre-eminence or primacy. But since there is
abundant proof without them, and since also our
limits are somewhat circumscribed, we pass them by
at least for the present.
The passages of scripture which have thus far been
adduced, assign the supremacy to Peter rather by way
of promise : for it was not until after the Resurrec-
tion of our Lord that the Apostles were actually and
fully endowed with those prerogatives or powers which
their work required. While our Lord was visibly
with his church, it needed no other head or chief;
consequently it was not until He was about to with-
draw his visible presence and headship, that Peter
became the actual possessor of those prerogatives which
our Lord had promised him as His Vicar in the gov-
ernment of His kingdom. And whether or not Peter
was invested with these prerogatives, on the occasion
of which we are about to speak, or partly then and
partly at another time, is a point of no-moment in the
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 141
controversy. What our Lord promised to Peter, that
Peter received. What He appointed Peter to be, that
Peter was. This will not be questioned. It was not
until the descent of the Holy Ghost that the Apostles
were thoroughly qualified for their respective stations
in the church, to which they had been previously as-
signed by our Lord. Our Divine Saviour, in the in-
terval between His Resurrection and Ascension, gave
to His Apostles sundry instructions and directions
concerning the work upon which they were about to
enter. And it is agreed among theologians, that He
said much more to them than is recorded in the New
Testament.* But however that may have been, we
are at present concerned only with what is recorded
on the page of Holy Writ. And in the little that has
been related by the Evangelists, we find that by far
the most remarkable words were addressed to St. Pe-
ter alone. Our Lord, shortly before His Ascension,
appears to His Apostles at the sea of Tiberias. He
supplies them with a repast, of bread and fish. After
which, He proceeds to address Peter in the most im-
pressive and significant manner. No special remark
is said to have been made to any other Apostle. But
here, as on many previous occasions, Peter is the prin-
cipal object of His divine solicitude and affectionate
regard. His words to him, uttered in the presence of
the other Apostles, are thus recorded by St. John :
" Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these ? He saith unto Him,
yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith
unto him, feed my lambs. He saith to him again the
second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me 1
He saith unto him, yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love
*" And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His
disciples, which are not written in this book." — (John xx. 30.)
" And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which,
if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books that should be written." — (John
xxi. 25.) m
142 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
thee. He saith unto him, feed my sheep. He saith
unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me ? Peter was grieved because he said unto
him the third time lovest thou me? And he said
unto him, Lord thou knowest all things ; thou know-
est that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, feed my
sheep." — (John xxi. 15, 17.) Our Saviour first asks
St. Peter, lovest thou me more than these ? What,
then, is meant by the phrase "more than these?"
Some have said that it means " Dost thou love me
more than thou lovest these nets, boats, &c. ?" But
this interpretation is too absurd to be entertained for
a moment. Bloomfield rejects it with the following
remark : " But there is something frigid in this sense.
Besides, as Justin observes, Peter might love Jesus
more than these, and yet not love him much." — (Gr.
Test, in loc.) To this we would add that Peter had
already shown that he loved the Saviour more than
his nets, &c, inasmuch as he had " forsaken all" to
follow Him. And now that the Saviour had given
the crowning proof of His divine mission by rising
from the dead, that Peter could have loved him less
now, was surely one of the last things to be supposed.
Besides, if our Lord had designed to refer to the " nets
and boats," surely He would have mentioned them
expressly. The Apostles had just taken a repast to-
gether, and were surrounding our Lord at the time of
this address to Peter, and therefore it is plain that the
pronoun " these" must be applied to his brother Apos-
tles — " Lovest thou me more than these other Apostles
do ?" That this is its meaning, is admitted by Bloom-
field. " The true interpretation," says he, " seems to
be that of the ancient ;" and many of the most emi-
nent modern commentators, as Lampe, Campbell, Kui-
noel, and Tittman, who assign the following sense :
" Dost thou love me more than these do ?" — (Gr. Test.
in loc.) In his Critical Digest he adds to these au-
thorities the Syriac version, Enthymius and Dod-
dridge. That this then is its true meaning, may be
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 143
considered as indisputable, since it is so interpreted,
as Bloomfield says, by " the ancient and many of the
most eminent modern commentators," including the
Protestant expositors whom he names.
The question now arises, why did our Saviour ask
St Peter whether he loved him more than the others.
Some have said that it was by way of allusion to
Peter's profession of superior devotion at the time our
Saviour said to his apostles, " All ye shall be offended
because of me this night." But this cannot be correct ;
for it does not appear that Peter made, on that occa-
sion, any stronger protestation of fidelity than the
others. Peter did, indeed, say, " Though I should
die with thee, yet will I not deny thee ;" but the Evan-
gelist immediately adds, " likewise also said all the
disciples" (Matt. xxvi. 35.) Thus they all alike
professed themselves ready to die for their Saviour.
No one professed more than another — they all affirmed
their devotion to him in the strongest language. Be-
sides, while they were " all offended," according to
our Lord's prediction, Peter did exhibit in some degree
superior devotion to our Lord, by adhering to his per-
son after the others had forsaken him. Moreover, it
cannot be reasonably supposed that our Lord would
have deferred to this occasion an address which im-
plied more or less of censure. He had held, after
his resurrection, several interviews with his apostles,
and it is reasonable to suppose, that if he had wished
to rebuke St. Peter, whether for his alledged claim of
superior constancy, or for his threefold denial, (which
some say he did by asking the question thrice,) he
would most probably have done so at his first inter-
view, and not at the last but one. But there are other
decisive reasons against the supposition that our Sa-
viour designed to rebuke St. Peter by any word or
words contained in the passage under consideration ;
for, first, the other apostles had equally deserved cen-
sure for having forsaken him, and yet not a word of
censure is pronounced upon them. And, secondly,
144 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
St. Peter had repented of his fault almost as soon as
committed ; for we read that "he went out and wept
bitterly," which is more than is recorded of the other
apostles. Is it then to be supposed that our compas-
sionate Saviour, who treated with so much tenderness
even a " woman taken in adultry," would have at this
time upbraided St. Peter for a fault of which he had
already deeply repented ? And, thirdly, such a sup-
position is incongruous with the responsible injunc-
tion which follows, as may be seen by the following
paraphrase ; it would make our Lord address him in
the following strain : When I informed you that you
would all be offended because of me, thou didst arro-
gantly claim for thyself greater love, fidelity, and con-
stancy towards me than the rest ; but now thou seest
that thou didst deceive thyself. Peter replies by ap-
pealing to our Lord's own knowledge of the sincerity
of his devotion or attachment. And our Lord then
says, "Feed my lambs." Thus it makes our Lord
address Peter in the language of censure and rebuke;
it makes him upbraid him for his arrogance, and then
in the very same instant commit to him the feeding
of his flock — yea, give him a charge which he never
gave to any other individual apostle. Thus it is evi-
dent that by this supposition there is not only no con-
nection, but there is a glaring incongruity between the
question asked and the charge given ; which shows
that the supposition is erroneous. Neither does that
interpretation harmonize with the ansioer of St. Peter
— he replies in the affirmative ; he affirms and re-
affirms the sincerity and strength of his devotion,
which he surely would not have done if our Lord
was reproaching him on account of a deficiency in
this respect. And fourthly, we read that at a previous
interview, subsequent to his resurrection, " Jesus said
to them, Peace be unto you ;" and after showing
them "his hands and his side," said again, "Peace be
unto you ;" and immediately renewed the ministerial
commission which he had previously given them, by
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 145
adding these words, " 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 are re-
mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained." (John xx. 19—23.) Here our
Lord gave Peter and the other apostles his benedic-
tion, and solemnly reinstated them (if they may be said
to have fallen) in the apostolic office ; and it is not
to be supposed that our Lord, after having done this,
would have upbraided him for his previous conduct.
For all these reasons we conclude that our divine Sa-
viour did not design, in the passage under considera-
tion, to censure or upbraid St. Peter. But, after all,
this is not essential to our main argument, which is
based chiefly upon the solemn charge which our
Saviour gave to Peter ; so that even if the above rea-
sons were insufficient, the conclusion would not be
materially affected.
The question, then, still remains, why did our
Saviour ask St. Peter whether he loved him more
than the others did ? He must have had some design
in view. It could not have been by way of censure
for his past conduct ; for, besides the reasons already
assigned against such a supposition, we would add,
that the phrase "more than these" is not renewed in
the second or third time of asking the question. Our
Lord simply says, " Lovest thou me?" which is de-
cisive. Neither, of course, did our Lord ask this
question for his own information, since he knew all
things ; and yet he must have had some special object
in view. What was it ? The only reasonable expla-
nation is plainly this : he asks the question in order to
give Peter an opportunity of professing his love, with
the view of grounding upon that profession the solemn
and responsible charge, " Feed my lambs" — " Feed
my sheep." Just as on a former occasion he asked
his apostles, " Whom say ye that I am ?" in order that
Peter might profess the faith which had been revealed
146 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
to him by the Father, and hence "receive upon himself,"
as St. Basil says, "the building of the church." And
he asks him whether he loved him more than the other
apostles, because he was to occupy a higher and more
responsible station. It was meet that he should love
him more, because he had been more highly favored,
and because the station itself demanded more than
ordinary devotion to Christ. The phrase "more than
these," is not repeated, we may suppose, out of a
delicate regard to the feelings of the other apostles.
But our argument rests chiefly, as we have already
said, upon the charge which our Lord gave to Peter,
or rather charges — for we shall presently see that
there is more than one — though the reader will see
that the interpretation of one part confirms that of the
other ; indeed, that it is the only way to harmonize
the various parts of the passage.
St Peter having replied to our Lord's question by
appealing to his own knowledge of the sincerity of his
love, he receives the momentous injunction, " Feed
my lambs." Now in determining the meaning of
this passage, we must first examine the signification
of its terms. The Greek word (j3o<*xs,) rendered by
the English word " feed," literally means " to pas-
ture" that is, to supply with pasture, or, as Bloom-
field says, to "provide with pasture." Allusion is
made to the office of a shepherd, and thus the pas-
toral metaphor runs through the entire passage.
Our Saviour then says to Peter, " Pasture my
lambs ;" that is, perform towards them the office of a
shepherd ; meaning, of course, by the word " lambs"
the younger or weaker members of his flock. The
reader of the New Testament knows very well that
our Saviour had frequently made use of this metaphor
in speaking of his church and its members. There
is one instance in particular which should be borne
in mind in this connection. Alluding to the conver-
sion of the Gentiles, and their union with the Jewish
converts in his church, he said, " Other sheep I have
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 147
which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and
.they shall hear my voice, and there shall he one fold
and one shepherd." That our hlessed Lord did not ac-
complish this by his own ministry is certain ; and that
he accomplished it by the agency of Peter is equally
certain — Protestants themselves being judges. The
reader has seen that the most eminent Protestant com-
mentators allow that Peter u first founded the church,
both among Jews and Gentiles, thus uniting them all
"in one fold." They allow that the giving of the
" keys of the kingdom" to Peter, did at least imply
that he should open its doors for the admission of
these two great divisions of mankind. This, then, is
a settled point ; but is it not manifest, that if St. Peter
did this, he must have been the " one shepherd" over
the whole, as Christ's Vicar. If he performed the func-
tions of a shepherd towards both Jews and Gentiles,
(as Protestants admit,) by introducing them all into
" the one fold," then it is plain that he must have been
the one shepherd over that " one fold." Christ did no
more tend and govern this flock, as a shepherd, in his
own person, than he gathered the Jews and Gentiles
into this fold in his oxon person. If a shepherd, as
his agent or Vicar, was needed in the latter, it was
equally needed in the former; unless the absurd ground
be taken that a flock once gathered together needs no
one to take care of it. Now since Peter was entrusted
with the office of gathering the flock into "onefold,"
we are naturally led to infer that he was likewise en-
trusted with the office of superintending that " one
fold," or, in other words, that he was the " one shep-
herd," under Christ, over it. The one office obviously
implies the other. It is not pretended that Christ per-
forms this office in his own person ; neither is it pre-
tended that he performs it by any person but Peter ;
from all which it follows that Peter must have been
entrusted with the superintendence of the whole flock.
But this will be more evident when we shall have
148 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
duly considered the remaining parts of the portion of
Scripture under consideration.
We have just seen that our Saviour charged St.
Peter to perform the functions of a shepherd towards
his lambs. Having done this he renews the question,
" Simon, son of Jona*, lovest thou me '?" To which
Peter responds as before, " Yea, Lord, thou knowest
that I love thee.' r Our Lord then gives him another
charge — for the language is quite different from that
used before — " Feed my sheep." The difference,
however, is not merely in the substitution of " sheep"
for " lambs," but the word in the original translated
"feed" is also different, not only another word, but
different in signification. It is rfot/ftaevc, which not only
means " feed" or " pasture," but also " superintend"
or " govern." This is admitted by the ablest Pro-
testant critics. Thus Dr. Campbell says it " implies
t\$o guide, watch and defend them." (Four Gospels, in
loc.) Dr. Bloomfield says it means " both to feed and
to tend," "And the nature of tending? he adds,
necessarily carries with it that of guiding and gov-
erning." (Gr. Test, in loc.) And in his Critical Di-
gest, we have the following additional remark, "fioaxt w
critics say has reference to the business of instruction
and the nourishment of the soul : no tfiaivttv to the gov-
ernment of the church." (In loc.)t We may give the
* A certain Anglican divine argues that our Lord here called
Peter by his original name, " Simon, Son of Jona," as a reproof for
his ingratitude in denying him alter he had so highly honored him
as to give him a new name of so much dignity. But this is plainly-
disproved by Matthew xvi. 17, where our Lord gives him his ori-
ginal name while in the very act of calling him " blessed,'''' and of
bestowing upon him the highest reward for his surpassing faith.
" Blessed art thou," says he, " Simon Bar-jona" — that is son of Jona
— for " Bar" is a Hebrew word signifying son. But such are the
" shifts" to which men resort ralher than countenance an interpre-
tation favorable to Catholic claims. We have a similar instance in
the fact that both Drs. Whitby and Bloomfield maintain that Peter
is styled "the first" by St. Matthew, because first called to the
apostleship ! Which is likewise contradicted by scripture, and also
by Archbishop Potter and Bishops Sparrow and Doane !
t The same view is also maintained in the little treatise " Epis-
copacy tested by Scripture." Vide p. 24.
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 149
mere English scholar a clearer idea of its signification
by referring to two or three other passages of scripture
in which it occurs. We find the same word in Mat-
thew ii. 0, where it is translated " rule." " Who shall
rule my people Israel." Here Bloomfield remarks
upon it, " This metaphorical use of ttotpatvia to denote
govern, is found in Homer and the early Greek
writers." And in Rev. ii. 27, it even implies severity.
"And he shall rule (rfo^a^t) them with a rod of
iron." And so also in two other passages in this
book — Rev. xii. 5 and xix. 15. We may conclude
then that it is a settled point that the word signifies
both to pasture and govern. And thus the injunction
given to Peter is this : " Pasture and govern my
sheep." The word "sheep" denoting, as Bloomfield
allows, " the more advanced and mature professors."
But the same question is renewed by our Lord a third
time. And a similar answer being returned, the
charge is repeated, with some little variation in the
original — " Feed my sheep — where the verb /3o<j*«,
signifying " to pasture" or " provide with pasture" is
resumed ; though this word metaphorically signi-
fies to nourish with Christian doctrine or teaching.
Our Lord first commits the younger members to Pe-
ter's charge for the purpose of spiritual instruction
and nourishment. He then commits the older and
mature members to his charge for guidance, direction
and governance. And lastly, he commits these also
to his care for spiritual instruction gud nourishment.
The variation in language at eachFrepetition of the
injunction is another proof that the injunction is not
repeated thrice merely by way of reproaching Peter
with his three denials. For if that had been the de-
sign the same language would have sufficed.* On
* These variations are so great that Dr. Campbell calls them
" three injunctions." " As there is in. the original," says he,
"some difference in every one of the three injunctions at this time
laid on Peter, there ought to be a corresponding difference in the
version." (Four Gospels, in loc.)
150 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
the contrary our Saviour's design is shown by the
terms he employed to have been altogether different ;
that is, that it was to commit the various classes of
his flock to Peter's care and governance. It may be
perfectly allowable indeed to run a parallel between
Peter's three denials and his three acknowledgements
of devotion to his Master ; and to speak of the latter
as compensations for the former. But to say that this
was the sole or chief design of our Saviour, is to treat
his words in the most arbitrary manner. His main
design is certainly to be sought in the injunctions
which he laid on Peter. We might allow, however,
(although we see no proof of it,) that our Saviour pos-
sibly intended to make an allusion to Peter's denials.
We might allow this, we say, without diminishing
the force of our argument founded on the passage,
since it is based, as we have already mentioned, upon
the injunctions which Peter receives. And the mean-
ing of these is not at all affected by the question
whether there was or was not an allusion made to his
three denials. The meaning of the terms employed
in these injunctions has already been settled, and set-
tled too according to the interpretations of the best
Protestant authorities. Our Lord, when about to leave
the world, in the most particular, earnest and impres-
sive manner, commits his flock, young and old, feeble
and strong, to the care and governance of St. Peter.
This Protestants cannot deny. But they endeavor to
evade the force of the fact by the supposition that it
is to be understood in a limited sense. In other words
that our Lord did not commit his flock to St. Peter's
care, but only a portion of it. But this is a most gra-
tuitous assumption. There is not the least proof to
sustain it ; while, on the other hand, the evidence is
most decisive against it.* Our Lord commits to the
care of Peter both his " lambs" and his " sheep," that is
* Even Barrow is compelled to admit that here our Lord did "in
especial manner recommend to him (Peter) the pastoral care of his
church." (Pope's Supremacy, p. 58.)
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 151
the feeble and the strong. Two distinct terms are
employed, which evidently comprise his whole flock.
The langpftge is unlimited. No portion of the flock
is excepted, but the whole without the least reserva-
tion, expressed or implied, is entrusted to his custody.
It cannot be denied that the expressions "my lambs"
and " my sheep," embrace the whole flock of Christ.
Neither can it be denied that the Greek words trans-
lated " feed" signify to pasture and to govern. How
then can it be denied that the whole flock, or all the
members of His church, are put under his care and
governance ? It cannot be denied, unless it can be
shown that the same injunctions or others of similar
import were laid on the other Apostles. It is admit-
ted that the injunctions in this case were addressed
only to Peter. Although the other Apostles are pre-
sent, yet he alone is singled out for the reception of
this high trust, as if our Lord intended that they
as well as Peter himself should be fully informed
as to the high and responsible office to which he
had been appointed. It will not be pretended that
these injunctions were given to any other Apostle
singly, on some other occasion, for no such thing
is mentioned in the New Testament. Neither will
it be pretended that these injunctions were on
some other occasion given to all the Apostles to-
gether. For neither is there any record of such an
act. It is a significant fact that to none but Peter
did he commit the office of a shepherd over his
people. Can it then be shown that commands of
equal import were at some other time given to the
other Apostles? This is equally impossible. The
two strongest commands given to all alike, as every
one will agree, are found in John xx. 23, "whosoever
sins ye remit," &c, and Matt. 28, 19, "'go ye and teach
all nations," &c. The former implies merely the power
of remitting sins, which every priest possesses, who
is nevertheless subject to a bishop. It does not imply
jurisdiction — whereas the injunctions given to Peter
152 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
do imply jurisdiction, and even unlimited jurisdic-
tion. And the latter passage, " Go ye and teach" &c,
merely gives them authority to teach. They were of
course equally endowed with all the essential powers
of the Apostleship. Neither these passages nor any
others prove more than this. But as the bishop of a
single diocess was in the early church subject to a
metropolitan bishop, though fully his equal in all the
essential powers of the episcopal office, so St. Peter
might have had jurisdiction over the other Apostles,
although they were fully equal to him in the essen-
tial powers of the Apostleship. We maintain that St.
Peter had, in addition to the ordinary power of the
Apostleship, the office of general or universal juris-
diction over the whole church. And this position,
we say, cannot be overthrown by bringing forward
passages of scripture which gave them all the ordina-
ry powers of the Apostleship. It is plain that these
passages cannot lessen the force of those addresses
which our Lord made to St. Peter only, singled out
from the rest of the Apostles. As they do not equal
these charges to Peter in signification, they could have
been fully realized by the Apostles without interfering
in the least degree with the exercise of univeral juris-
diction by Peter. But the sense of a passage of scrip-
ture is best explained and confirmed by other passages.
Our Saviour had previously (as we have seen) ad-
dressed St. Peter alone in the most extraordinary terms :
" I will build my church on thee ;" " And I will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Here
He confers general authority and unlimited jurisdic-
tion. And on another occasion He singles out Peter
from the rest : H I have prayed for thee." " And thou
having recovered thyself, strengthen thy brethren."
Here He not only intimates the greater importance of
Peter's stability in the faith, just as if he were the
leader of the rest,- but also plainly commits the other
Apostles to his care, by charging him to strengthen
them. This passage alone teaches most decisively
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 153
that our Lord intended that the other Apostles should
look up to St. Peter as their leader and director. It
proves most conclusively that when our Lord after-
wards committed His flock to Peter as His deputy-
shepherd, no exception was made even in favor of his
brother Apostles. Peter received, in common with his
brother Apostles, all the commands of our Saviour re-
lating to the apostolic office. But in addition to these,
he receives apart from the rest, several special pro-
mises and injunctions relating to the church in gene-
ral, and couched in the most unlimited terms. Now
why was this ? Let the reader ponder this question
with impartiality, and he cannot but conclude either
that our Lord made use of the most extrordinary lan-
guage and in the most extraordinary manner, without
any special object in view, or that He intended to con-
fer upon Peter some peculiar prerogative ; and that
that prerogative was one of universal jurisdiction over
the church, is clearly signified by the terms employed.
Thus "the keys" imply unlimited jurisdiction. The
command, "strengthen thy brethren" places the
other Apostles under his care. And the injunction,
"pasture and govern my lambs and my sheep"
plainly includes His whole flock or church. The one
illustrates and confirms the other ; and the whole com-
bined, furnish the most satisfactory evidence that St.
Peter enjoyed a primacy of jurisdiction among the
Apostles and first Christians.
But we have not yet exhibited all the Scripture
proofs of this primacy. There are several passages in
the Acts of the Apostles, which contain indications of
its exercise. But before we finally dismiss the pas-
sage under consideration, we must show that in inter-
preting it as a proof of St. Peter's supremacy, we are
sustained by the testimony of the fathers, though we
have room only for a few citations. We shall begin
with Origen, a learned expositor, who lived in the
second century. Alluding to St. Peter's profession of
love, he says, " When the supreme power to feed the
8
154 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
sheep was given to Peter, and the church was founded
on him, as on the earth, the declaration of no other
virtue but of charity is required of him." (In Ep. ad
Rom. L. v. n. 10.) And St. Cyprian, in proving the
unity of the church, appeals to the charge which our
Lord gave to Peter, "feed my sheep," in connection
with the passage in Matt. xvi. 18, 19, and remarking
immediately after, that although all the apostles were
equal in the powers of the apostleship, yet he says
that our Lord, to "manifest unity, disposed by his
authority the origin of the same unity which begins
from one." (" Treatise on the Unity of the Church.")
Now there would have been no pertinency in this
reference to the words " Feed my sheep," unless the
command had been given to Peter in some peculiar
and superior sense, such as we have alledged it to
mean. In another place Cyprian says, " Even Peter,
to whom the Lord commits his sheep to be fed and
protected, on whom he placed and founded his
church, denies that he has silver or gold, but says
that he is rich in the grace of Christ." (De Habitu
Virginum.) It is evident that St. Cyprian would
never have referred to Peter in this way, if the
sheep of Christ had been equally committed to the
keeping of the other apostles. As u the keys" and
" the rock on which the church is built" were Peter's
characteristics, so also was the " feeding of the sheep"
as implying jurisdiction over all. And it is plainly
in this sense that St. Cyprian alludes to it ; for unless
so understood, there is no force at all in the allusion.
And here we may remark that nothing could afford a
stronger confirmation of St. Peters primacy of order
and jurisdiction, than the fact that the fathers con-
stantly designate him by one or more of these charac-
teristics.
St. Ambrose also furnishes similar testimony.
Remarking upon this very passage, he says, " He
is afflicted, because he is questioned the third time,
' Dost thou love me V But the Lord does not doubt ;
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 155
he interrogates him not to learn, but to teach who
it was that he would leave behind him as the
Vicar of his love, when he was about to be elevated
to heaven; for thus you have, 'Simon, son of Jona,
dost thou love me? Thou knowest, Lord, that I love
thee.' Jesus said to him, c Feed my lambs.' And be-
cause he alone of all professes his love, he is prefer-
red to all." And again, in the next paragraph, allud-
ing to the charge which our Saviour gave to Peter,
after questioning him the third time, Ambrose says,
" Not the lambs, as at first, nor the little sheep, as at
the second time, but he is ordered to feed the sheep,
that the more perfect should govern the more perfect."
(In Luc. Lib. 10.)
St. Chrysostom also assigns the same interpretation.
Having asked why our Lord addressed Peter concern-
ing the sheep, passing by the others, he gives this an-
swer : " He was the chief of the apostles, and mouth
of the disciples, and summit of that body : where-
fore Paul also went up to see him in preference to
the others ; showing him at the same time that he must
have confidence hereafter, cancelling his denial, He
gives him the presidency of the brethren" (In c.
xxi. Joan. horn. 87.) In another place, speaking of
Peter, James, and John, as more highly honored than
the rest, he adds, "Again, of these three, all were not
of equal rank ; placing Peter over the rest, He said
to him, 'lovest thou me more than these V " (Horn,
xxxi. in c. xvi. ad Rom.) St. Asterius, Bishop of
Amasea, and cotemporary with the eloquent author
last cited, is another witness: "When our Saviour,"
he says, " was about to sanctify mankind by subjecting
himself, of his own choice, to death, he delivers over
to this man the universal church, every where dif-
fused as a precious deposit. After having asked him
thrice, ' Dost thou love me V and as with great alacrity
he replied to the questions by an equal number of pro-
testations, he received the world in charge, as one
shepherd, one flock, having heard < feed my sheep ;'
156 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
and the Lord gave to those who should come to the
faith, the most faithful disciple, almost in his own
stead, as a father, and shepherd, and instructor."
(Orat. in Pet. et Paul.) These quotations, which
might readily be increased, will serve to show that,
in interpreting the passage of Scripture which has
just been examined as a proof of St. Peter's supremacy
and universal jurisdiction, we are sustained by the
brightest lights of the Ancient Church, as well as by
every principle of correct exegesis. The passages of
Scripture adduced thus far have reference to the pro-
mise and institution of St. Peter's supremacy. We
shall now proceed to exhibit a few which furnish in-
dications of its exercise.
We cannot, of course, expect to find in the Acts of
the Apostles (and much less in the Epistles) any thing
like a full and detailed account upon this subject. It
was composed chiefly for the purpose of relating the
gradual extension of Christianity, and occurrences in-
cidentally connected therewith, and not for the purpose
of setting forth the System of church polity then
adopted. But, nevertheless, we find sufficient to fur-
nish a confirmation of the argument which has been
already presented. We would naturally expect that
St. Peter, if he had enjoyed such a primacy as we
have been maintaining, would be found to have taken
a leading part in matters of moment and general in-
terest in the church ; and in this we are not disap-
pointed. We have an instance of it in the very first
chapter of Acts, and in the very first action of the
whole church after our Lord's ascension. When
the apostles and disciples were assembled together,
engaged in prayer and supplication, and awaiting the
descent of the Holy Ghost, one arises in their midst
and delivers an address of much interest and impor-
tance. He announces in the language of decision and
authority that a vacancy had been created in the col-
lege of the apostles, by the fall of Judas ; and that it
was their responsible duty to fill that vacancy by the
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 157
election and appointment of one of the disciples. And
who is it that delivers this address ? It is the apostle
Peter. Having reminded them of the treachery and
fate of Judas, he concludes in this authoritative strain :
" Wherefore," says he, " of these men which have
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus
went in and out among us ... . must one be ordained
to be a witness with us of his resurrection." And
immediately "they gave forth their lots, and the lot
fell upon Matthias ; and he was numbered with the
eleven apostles." (Acts ch. i. 13 — 26.) Let this whole
portion of Scripture be attentively considered, and the
reader will perceive in it the strongest corroborative
proof that St. Peter was, indeed, the centre of unity
and authority in the apostolic church — that he acted
as its guide and ruler. This is clear from the fol-
lowing particulars : 1. Peter introduces the subject,
and that not for deliberation and discussion, but as
already determined by his own judgment — thus
acting as leader and guide. 2. He declares that " the
Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David," had predicted
the fate of Judas ; thus acting as if endowed with
superior knowledge, and hence qualified to direct the
rest. 3. He decides that it was necessary to fill the
vacancy caused by his fall ; thus acting as one not
only possessing superior knowledge and authority, but
also as if charged with the care and management of
the college of Apostles, and the church in general.
4. He not only decides that the vacancy must be
filled, but also that the person elected must be chosen
from a certain class of Christians; thus giving another
indication of superior knowledge and authority. 5.
When Peter finishes his remarks, no other apostle rises
to speak; but they all forthwith proceed to act in
accordance with his decision and determination, and
Matthias is at once elected, precisely as if they looked
upon Peter as authorized to judge and to give sentence,
by himself, in such cases. Let the candid reader con-
sider all these particulars together, and he cannot fail
158 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
to recognize in them the most conclusive evidence of
St. Peter's supremacy. Indeed, the conduct of Peter
on this occasion was so extraordinary, that even An-
glican divines have been forced to allow that it fur-
nishes a proof of his preeminence. Thus Archbishop
Potter refers to it as one of the many instances of
Peter's leadership. (Church Government, pp. 72 —
74.) And Dr. Barrow also refers to it as a proof of that
primacy which he was willing to concede to Peter.
(Pope's Supremacy, Sup. 1.) But we find more im-
partial and authoritative acknowledgments in the
writings of that brilliant star of the early church, St.
Chrysostom. Speaking of St. Peter's deciding the pro-
ceedings at the election, he says, " He is the first to
proceed in this matter, because all have been delivered
over into his hands : for to him Christ said, | Thou
being converted, strengthen thy brethren. 5 " In the
same connection St. Chrysostom ascribes it to St.
Peter's humility and prudence that he did not exer-
cise his authority and power to the fullest extent by
appointing the individual himself, without even
communicating with the other apostles at all. He ex-
claims, H Why does he communicate with them on
this matter 1 Lest it become a subject of dispute and
they fall into dissensions, he permits the choice to
the judgment of the assembly, thus securing their re-
gard for the objects of their choice, and freeing himself
from jealousy. Could not Peter himself have chosen
the individual ? By all means. But he abstains
from doing it lest he should appear to indulge in par-
tiality." (Horn. 3 in 1 cap. Act.) How can any one
say that this eminent father did not allow St. Peter's
supremacy % He expressly states that " Peter himself
could have chosen" Matthias, and also affirms in the
most positive terms, that he took the lead in the
matter " because all had been delivered into his hands."
Surely he could not have asserted St. Peter's supre-
macy in language more explicit and decisive. It is
worthy of remark, too, that this passage of St. Chry-
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 159
sostom seems also to confirm the view which we took
of the injunction which our Saviour laid on Peter,
"confirm thy brethren ;" for it is to this t licit he ap-
peals as a proof that all the brethren had " been de-
livered into his hands."
We will now present to the reader another instance
of the exercise of this superior office by St. Peter. It
consists in the fact that it was by St. Peter that the
door of the church was thrown open both to the Jews
and to the Gentiles. It was his preaching that con-
verted so many Jews on the day of Pentecost ; for we
are told " Then they that gladly received his word
were baptized ; and the same day there were added
about three thousand souls." (Acts ii. 14-41.) And
by special revelation Peter was directed by Almighty
God to admit the Gentiles into the church, which he
accordingly proceeded to do by the reception of Cor-
nelius and his friends. (Acts x.) Now the fact that
Peter was chosen to found the church among both of
these two great divisions of the human race, is alto-
gether so striking that many Anglican divines have
allowed it to have been done in accordance with that
remarkable promise of our Lord to Peter, "Upon this
rock I will build my church." Thus Dr. Bloomfield
says that our Lord thereby taught that Peter should
be the person by whose instrumentality the kingdom
of Heaven (the gospel dispensation) should be first
opened to Jews and Gentiles ; which was verified by
the event. (Gr. Test, in Matt. xvi. 18, 19.) And
Bishop Tomline also allows, in the passage already
cited, that by this means " Peter may be said to have
founded the universal church." And so also Dr.
Gerard, " It is here promised that Peter should begin
erecting it (the church) by his preaching, which was
fulfilled both among the Jews and Gentiles." (Insti-
tutes of Biblical Criticism, chap. 6. sec. 3.) The
founding of the church among both Jews and Gen-
tiles was plainly no mere accident, but the exercise of
a peculiar and extraordinary prerogative conferred on
160 SEPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
Peter. And hence it is another proof of his superior
authority.
But we have yet another indication of the exercise
of this office in the Acts of the Apostles. After the
Gentiles had been admitted into the church, some of
the Jewish Christians maintained that it was necessary
"to circumcise them and to command them to keep
the law of Moses." This led to so much contention
that the " Apostles and elders came together to con-
sider" the question. And we are told that "when
there had been much disputing, Peter rose up" and
reminded them that God had directed him to admit
the Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel and had
bestowed upon them the Holy Ghost. He then pro-
ceeded to remonstrate with those who insisted on the
practice of circumcision in these words, " Now, there-
fore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear?" The judgment of St. Peter was evi-
dently recognized as authoritative. For we are told
in the same chapter that Paul and Barnabas had
" had no small dissension and disputation" with these
Judaizing Christians. (Acts xv.) And even in the
council " there had been much disputing" until Peter
arose and expressed his decision, then all contentions
immediately ceased. Paul and Barnabas had labored
in vain to convince them of their error. They still
persisted in their opposition. But Peter speaks, and
his voice, like that of his Master's upon the rolling
billows of the sea, calms the tumultuous agitation of
the assembly. For at the close of his address it is
immediately added, " Then all the multitude kept
silence and gave audience to Paul and Barnabas, de-
claring what miracles and wonders God had wrought
among the Gentiles by them." Or, as Bloomfield
renders it, " Whereupon the assembly at large kept
a reverential silence and listened to Paul and Barna-
bas while recounting," &c. (Gr. Test, in loc.) Here
we see that Peter laid down the important principle
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 161
in mild but decisive language that circumcision and
other Jewish rites were not binding upon the Gentiles.
And this was evidently an exercise of thai power
which our Lord promised him when lie said : What-
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in Heaven" For he hereby " loosed"
or abrogated the Jewish ritual. Indeed Bloomfield
himself acknowledges that it was an exercise of that
extraordinary prerogative ; though he says it was
done " in conjunction with the other Apostles." (Gr.
Test, in Matt. xvi. 18, 19.) If by this he means
that the other Apostles afterwards concurred in the
judgment of Peter, we agree with him. But if he
means that it was not determined by the authority of
Peter, we do not agree with him. For in the first
place the promise alluded to was evidently intended
(as we have already proved,) to confer some peculiar
power or powers upon Peter. Secondly, Peter alone
did exercise this power by himself and without the
concurrence of the other Apostles, when he received
Cornelius and other Gentiles into the church. Which
is a conclusive proof that Almighty God had given
Peter authority to act in such cases, without the pre-
vious concurrence of the rest. And, thirdly, Peter
did decide this point in the presence of the council
before the consent of the rest had been given. " When
there had been much disputing Peter rose up" and
decided the question, by delivering his judgment
against those who sought to impose the Jewish
""yoke" upon the Gentile Christians. The force of
this fact is not at all diminished by the circumstance
that Paul and Barnabas afterwards went on to recount
the miracles which God had wrought among the
Gentiles, and also that James likewise addressed the
assembly: for they all spoke in accordance with the
principle which St. Peter had laid down. It does not
appear that there was any further disputing after Peter
gave sentence in the case.
8 8*
162 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
But it may be objected that if Peter was able to decide
the question by himself, why is a council assembled?
We would ask in reply why was the Council of Trent
assembled ? Those who met in that council acknow-
ledged the supreme authority of the Pope. However
legitimate and unlimited authority may be, it is not
prudent to exercise it in a peremptory and dogmatical
manner, especially in ecclesiastical and spiritual mat-
ters. St. Peter preferred in this case (as his succes-
sors have likewise often done,) to have the question
brought before a council of his brethren, that an op-
portunity might be offered, not only to give his own
sentence, but also that reasons might be set forth with
the view of adding the influence of reason and per-
suasion to that of authority. This is the course
which Popes and General Councils have pursued in
all ages. Surely no one will say that a father com-
promises his authority by assigning reasons for his
decision or command, or by allowing others to do so.
Some Protestants have argued that the Apostle
James spoke with more authority on this occasion
than Peter, because he is represented as having said,
" Wherefore my sentence is," &c. It does indeed so
read in the Protestant version. But this language is
stronger than the original requires. St. James could
not have intended to set forth an authoritative sen-
tence. For that had already been done by St. Peter.
He merely expresses his opinion as to the practical
application of the great principle which St. Peter had
decided. The Greek word which the Protestant ver-
sion renders "my sentence is" is simply x^cvco, which
in its ordinary use signifies no more than " I think."
It is true it was often used in a stronger sense, just
as our English word "judge" is when applied to a
decision made in a court of justice, while at the same
time in common conversation or in a deliberative as-
sembly, a person often says " I judge," when he merely
means "I think." or "it is my opinion." But it s
unnecessary for us to argue this point ; for we have
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 163
the ablest Protestant critics on our side. If their de-
cision will not satisfy their own brethren in such
cases, it is useless to hope for a settlement of these
points. If this or that Protestant commentator has
given an opinion upon any question of this nature,
unfavorable to the claims of the Catholic church, it is
of course very easy to account for it. But on the
other hand, when the most eminent of them concur
with Catholics, it is a sure indication that the evidence
in the case is overwhelming. We shall again sum-
mon to our aid that eminent critic whose authority is
universally acknowledged among Protestant church-
men, and who has already rendered important ser-
vice in this discussion. " I cannot agree," says Dr.
Bloomfield, " with some commentators (as Hammond)
who recognize in x£iv* the determination of James as
Bishop of Jerusalem. The best interpreters, both
ancient and modern, agree that it has merely the
force of the Latin censeo, ' my opinion or sentiment
is.' Grotius, too, remarks that ita censeo, 'this is
my opinion,' was generally the concluding phrase with
the Latin orators." (Crit. Dig. in loc.) After making
these observations, Bloomfield proceeds to confirm
them by citations from the Greek classics. And every
one familiar with the Greek Testament knows very
well that in it this verb commonly bears only the
sense just given.
But that Peter took a prominent or leading part in
this first Council of the Church is admitted by many
eminent Anglican divines. Thus Dr. Barrow says,
" At the convention of the Apostles and elders, about
resolving the debate concerning observance of Mo-
saical institutions, he first rose up and declared his
sense" (Pope's Supremacy, Sup. 1.) And Cave
says that it was at the time of this Council that Paul
" went up to see Peter." And that " Peter was the
leading character" in this council.* (Hist. Lit. Saec.
Apos.) It now remains to cite a few passages from
*" Cujus Petrus pars magna fuit."
164 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
the fathers to show in what light they regarded this
matter. Tertullian expressly ascribes the decision of
this council to Peter. " The decree of Peter ^ says
he, " loosed such things of the law as were set aside,
and bound fast such as were retained." (De Pudicit.
21.) And St. Jerome likewise affirms that Peter
u was the author of this decree." And again he says,
" When Peter had done speaking the multitude was
sile?it, and James and the other elders went over to
his opinion." (Ep. 112 ad August.) And St. Chrysos-
tom also affords similar testimony. Speaking of Pe-
ter's action at this council he exclaims, " See, he
permits the inquiry and dispute to go on, and then he
himself speaks." (Horn. 32, in cap. xv. Act.)
There are many other passages of scripture which
serve to establish the doctrine of St. Peter's suprema-
cy, but we have not space to give them a particular
consideration. The reader should bear in mind lhat
the passages already adduced have been shown by a
threefold argument to support the doctrine : first, by
the usual rules of biblical exegesis ; secondly, by the
acknowledgments of the most eminent Protestant ex-
positors and critics ; and thirdly, by the testimony of
the earlier Fathers. And he should also bear in mind,
that the strength of the argument in cases of this
nature can be adequately realized only by combining
all the proofs together, and considering their collective
force. Here we are reminded of a remark of that acute
and powerful reasoner, Bishop Butler, who says, when
speaking of the evidences of the truth of Revelation :
" All these things, and the several particulars contained
under them, require to be distinctly andmost thoroughly
examined into ; that the weight of each may be judged
of upon such examination, and such conclusion drawn
as results from their united force" — (Anal, of Rev. p.
2, ch. vii.) So we say with regard to the scriptural
proofs in favor of St. Peter's supremacy or primacy of
jurisdiction, for they are many and various : some are
direct and others collateral ; and it is impossible to ap-
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 165
predate them fully except in the way just mentioned.
The many minor proofs scattered through the New
Testament of St. Peter's priority or 'preeminence,
should be considered in connection with the direct
proofs furnished by the passages which we have been
discussing. Of these minor proofs, there is almost an
infinite number — some of much weight, others of less ;
but all combined, affording a powerful argument.
We shall mention, however, only those which Angli-
can divines themselves have recognized as proof of
Peter's preeminence. The following instances are
referred to by Archbishop Potter and Dr. Barrow :*
First, the excellent qualities of Peter for leadership ;
second, that "upon all occasions our 'Lord signified a
particular respect to him, before the rest of his col-
leagues ;" third, He " picked him out as His compan-
ion and attendant in His Agony ;" fourth, " He sent
him a particular message of His Resurrection, and ap-
peared to him before the rest of the Apostles." There
are many other instances, such as His paying tribute
for Himself and Peter ; thus associating Peter with
Himself in a pecular manner ; and His predicting the
martyrdom of Peter and not of the rest, &c. But we
shall not insist on them. We maintain only that those
instances should be taken into consideration which
are acknowledged by Anglican divines as indications
of superiority. Let them be considered in connection
with the direct proofs which have been presented, viz :
1st, St. Peter is expressly called " the first" among the
Apostles ; 2d, our Lord bestowed on him a new name,
signifying " rock ;" 3d, he is favored with a special re-
velation from the Father respecting the true nature of
Christ; 4th, our Lord promised to build His Church
on Him, as an impregnable structure ; 5th, that Peter
should be intrusted with " the keys" of this church —
that is, with its control and management ; 6th, that
he should have the power of " binding and loosing" —
* Potter on Church Government, pp. 72, 74 ; Barrow on Pope's
Supremacy, p. 58.
166 SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER.
that is, of deciding points of doctrine and discipline ;
7th, although our Lord told him that they were all
equally exposed to the assaults of Satan, yet that He
had prayed particularly for him ; 8th, He then charged
him with the superior office of strengthening his
brother Apostles ; 9th, after his resurrection, He solemn-
ly and tenderly and with peculiar emphasis, and in
presence of the rest, committed His entire flock to his
care and governance; 10th, in the exercise of these
great prerogatives, Peter orders the election of Mat-
thias; 11th, he " first founds the church both among
the Jews and Gentiles ;" 12th, he decides by his own
authority the great controversy respecting circumci-
sion and other regulations of the Mosaic Dispensation.
When it is remembered that all these particulars are
contained in scripture, interpreted according to the
soundest principles of exposition, and with the con-
currence both of the early Fathers and (for the most
part) of modern Protestant critics, surely we have an
array of evidence in favor of Peter's supremacy which
no intelligent and candid mind can resist.
But thus far we have availed ourselves of the tes-
timony of the Fathers only in part. We have cited
them only to confirm our interpretations of scripture.
But besides this, their writings bear the most direct
and conclusive testimony in favor of St. Peter's su-
premacy. Living so near the age of the Apostles, they
are of course the most competent witnesses on ques-
tions of this nature. They well knew what had been
handed down from the Apostles, and what was the
belief of the church in their day. Their writings
abound with proofs of St. Peter's supremacy. We
have room, however, only for a few in addition to
what has been already spread before the reader. Some
of the passages which were brought forward by way
of confirming our interpretation of scripture, contain
the most decisive proof upon the whole question ;
and as we have not space to repeat them, the reader
who is really desirous to see the united force of the
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 167
whole argument, is advised to turn back and review
them before he proceeds to examine the passages which
follow.
We have already given many passages from St.
Cyprian, but we will here add one or two more.
That this eminent Father considered St. Peter the
centre of unity and authority in the Apostolical
Church, plainly appears in almost every part of his
writings. We have cited several in which he asserts
that "the church was built on him," and one in which
he says that " he held the primacy." In another place,
addressing those who had fallen from the church, he
says : " Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions
we ought to observe, establishing the honor of the
bishop and the order of His church, speaks in the
gospel, and says to Peter : ' I say to thee that thou art
Peter, and on this rock,' &c. Thence through the
series of times and successions, the order of bishops
and the system of the church flows on." — (Ep. 27,
Cyp. lapsis.) Thus he traces the whole system of the
church as existing in his day to St. Peter, endowed
by our Lord with the extraordinary power which He
promised him in the passage referred to ; which clear-
ly argues that St. Peter was such an officer as we
have maintained. And again : In undertaking to es-
tablish the unity of the church, he says, "there is no
need of a lengthy treatise and of arguments. The
proof of faith is easy and compendious, because true.
The Lord speaks to Peter : ' I say to thee that thou
art Peter, and upon this rock,' &c. And again, after
His resurrection, He says to him, ' Feed my sheep.' " —
(De Unit. Eccl.) Now we can perceive no force in
this reasoning of St. Cyprian, unless the texts referred
to be understood as we have explained them in a
former part of this work. St. Cyprian does indeed
affirm that our Lord " gave to all the Apostles equal
power ;" but by this he evidently means no more than
that they were all equal in the essential power of the
apostolical office, which every Catholic allows. This
168 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
is not at all inconsistent with the belief that Peter en-
joyed over and above this power common to all, a
general jurisdiction over the church — to maintain
concord, order, and unity. And this St. Cyprian
must have held, otherwise his language on many oc-
casions is utterly destitute of meaning and force. He
constantly traces the unity of the church to St. Pe-
ter, which is all very clear and conclusive, accord-
ing to the Catholic theory, but without it, wholly void
of significancy. If the Apostles were equal in all
respects, it should be traced as much to one as to
another. It is sometimes said, indeed, by Protestants,
that the powers of the apostolate were first conferred
on Peter to show unity of orgin. But we have already
furnished a sufficient reply to this, by showing that
the extraordinary addresses of our Lord to Peter con-
ferred on him an office over and above that of the
apostolate. And we would further observe, that if
the object was merely to exhibit unity by unity of
origin, that was sufficiently accomplished by deriva-
tion of these powers from Christ Himself. But
again : Even unity of origin could not have been
shown by means of Peter in this way, unless it be al-
lowed that the other Apostles received their ministe-
rial powers from Peter; which we presume Protes-
tants will hardly grant. And yet again, a mere re-
ception of these powers first, could not have been a
means of promoting the practical unity of the church
at that time, and much less afterwards. Unity can
be maintained only by means of an officer having
general jurisdiction, as we proved in the first part of
this treatise. And lastly, this priority of reception falls
far short of the strong language which St. Cyprian
employs respecting the office of St. Peter, as well as
of the language of scripture.
But we pass on to another eminent writer of the
early church. Eusebius, the father of Church History,
says, " The kind providence of God conducts Peter to
Rome, the most powerful and greatest of the apostles,
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 169
and by his deserts the chief of all the rest." (Hist.
Eccles. L. ii. c. 14.)
Let us now hear St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem,
A. D. 340. Speaking of St. Peter's confession of our
Lord's divinity, he says: "All of them remaining
silent, for the doctrine was beyond the reach of man,
Peter, the chief of the apostles, and supreme teacher
of the church, not following his own inventions," &c.
(Cat. xi.) And again : " In the same power of the
Holy Ghost, Peter also, the chief of the apostles, and
the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, cured
jEnas," &c. (Cat. 17.) Another eminent Father, St.
Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, in France, A. D. 350, is
equally decisive. " Peter," he says, " first believed,
and is made the prince of the apostleship." (Com. in
c. vii. Matt.) St. Epiphanus, A. D. 368, is another
witness. He applies to St. Peter the same superlative
term as the others : " Peter, the supreme head of the
apostles, truly became, by his faith, that solid rock on
which the church was built." (Haer. 39, sive 59.)
So also St. Ambrose, who has already afforded de-
cisive testimony : " This is that Peter to whom Christ
said ' thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church.' Therefore, where Peter is, there is the
church, there death is not, but life eternal." (Com. in
40 Ps.) And again, in commenting on the passage
in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, "Then, after
three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter," he
says, " It was fit that he should desire to see Peter, for
he was the first among the apostles to whom the Sa-
viour delegated the care of the churches." (In Ep.
ad Gal.) And again : speaking of Peter as the "rock
on which the church is built," he says, "The rock
sustains and renders firm the nations lest they fall."
(Ser. 68.) St. Crysostom is next in the order of time.
He has already furnished most decisive evidence in
his remarks upon the injunction " Feed my sheep."
We will here cite but one or two more passages from
his writings. This father even argues the divinity of
170 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
onr blessed Lord from the prerogatives which he
gave to Peter. Thus alluding to his elevation of
Peter, he says of the church, " whose head and shep-
herd, a lowly fisherman, should surpass adamant in
strength, the whole world struggling against him —
all things, I say, which God only can effect, he pro-
mises that he will give. Thus the Father also said
to Jeremiah: 'I have made thee a pillar of iron, and
a wall of brass : but the Father set him over one na-
tion, Christ placed this man over the entire world. 11
(Horn. 55 in cap. 16 Matt.) Thus he labors to prove
the equality of the Son to the Father. Who does not
perceive that his argument would have been utterly
futile if Peter had not been a supreme officer over the
whole church, which was coextensive with the world.
And in another place, extolling the See of Antioch,
because once filled by Peter, he says : " He set over it
Peter, the doctor of the whole world, to whom he gave
the keys of heaven, to whose will and power he en-
trusted all things." (Paneg. on St. Ignat.) And again,
he says, " To him the Lord gave the presidency of
the church throughout the whole earth. 11 (Ad pop.
Antioch, hom. 80 de Poenit.) Surely it is impossible
for language to be more decisive than this. ]f men
will disregard testimony so positive, we do not see
how they can continue to profess the least deference
to the writings of the fathers. It is certainly with
very ill grace that they condemn Presbyterians for
disregarding their testimony respecting Episcopacy,
while they disregard testimony no less overwhelming
in favor of Peter's supremacy. The language of St.
Asterius, already cited, is equally strong : " He delivers
over to this man the universal church every where
diffused, as a precious deposit." " He (Peter) received
the icorld in charge as one shepherd one flock." The
passage already cited from St. Jerome, is likewise most
conclusive. Although he asserts the equality of the
apostles in all the essential powers of the apostleship,
yet he is careful to distinguish Peter as the supreme
SUPREMACY OP ST. PETER. 171
officer over all. " Yet one is chosen" he says,
11 amongst the twelve, that a head being established,
the occasion of schism might be removed" (Ad.
Jovin. L. 1.) This, as well as the other passages
cited, plainly imports much more than a mere pre-
cedency of power ; for the very term " head" implies
authority. And besides, unless the person constituted
a head, possessed authority over those among" whom
he acts, there would be just as much "occasion of
schism" as if there were no such appointment. A
head without authority is obviously not only a con-
tradiction in terms, but also a mere nullity. This
passage of St. Jerome contains all that we care to
claimTin behalf of Peter, that is, that our Lord con-
stituted him a head among the apostles and first Chris-
tians, for the purpose of exhibiting and maintaining
the unity of his church. And whether the universal
authority which he promised was less or more, it
must have been sufficient for the purpose for which
he was thus chosen. This is all we care to prove;
and this, too, is all that is now claimed for his suc-
cessors, that is, so much authority as is requisite to
preserve the unity of the church. The extent of a
bishop's authority over his presbyters is not clearly
defined in the New Testament ; and in some ages and
countries it has been greater than in others, and many
objections may be raised against its exercise in this or
that particular way or degree. But, of course, this
does not affect the divine nature and obligation of that
authority, although a perverse presbyter will some-
times make it a plea for resistance to wholesome dis-
cipline. So in respect to the Pope's authority. A
reasonable and pious mind, knowing the necessity of
church unity, and knowing that a chief officer has
been divinely appointed to maintain it, will not be
over exact in defining the amount of authority to be
conceded. And even when authority is supposed to
have been exceeded, it is not the right of the com-
plainant to decide the point — if it were, no govern-
172 SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
merit could exist for a moment ; and yet the " Re-
formers" (so called) did decide in their own case;
and, nevertheless, their followers complain that Pres-
byterians and Methodists have exercised a similar
right !
We shall finish our citations from the fathers on
this point, with one or two from that illustrious doc-
tor of the ancient church, St. Augustine. Speak-
ing of the church, he says, " Of which church Peter
the apostle, on account of the primacy of his apostle-
shop, sustained the person," &c. (Tract. 124 in c.
21, Joan.) And again. "For all the saints insepa-
rably belonging to the body of Christ, Peter, the first
of the apostles, received the keys of the kingdom for
its government in this most tempestuous life"
(Tract 24 in Joan.) Again. " This same Peter, there-
fore, who had been by the Rock pronounced blessed,
bearing the figure of the church, holding the princi-
pality of the apostleship," &c. (Horn, on Peter walk-
ing on the Sea.) And again. "In that one apostle, then,
that is, Peter, in the order of the apostles first and
chief est, in whom the church was figured," &c. (lb.)
We now commend the testimony adduced from the
fathers to the candid consideration of our readers.
Let it all be combined together, and weighed with im-
partiality, and the result must be a favorable verdict.
We are satisfied that the argument which has been
presented in favor of Peter's supremacy as the centre
of unity and authority in the apostolical church,
drawn from Scripture and the fathers, is much stronger
than that usually drawn from these sources in favor
of Episcopacy — meaning by Episcopacy not the mere
fact that there was an order of ministers in the primi-
tive church, called "bishops," for that is allowed by
Presbyterians, but that these " bishops" were distinct
and superior by divine institution — or that by divine
arrangement they were endowed with powers and
prerogatives which " presbyters" did not possess, and
could not presume to exercise. This is the great
SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER. 173
point in the question concerning Episcopacy. Now
how very few clear and decisive passages can be
cited from the Scriptures and the fathers in favor of
this point — enough, indeed, to satisfy a reasonable
mind when taken in connection with the tradition of
the church — but they are exceedingly scanty, com-
pared with the numerous proofs which we have pro-
duced in favor of St. Peter's supremacy. How any
one who thoroughly examines the evidences in both
cases can admit the former and deny the latter, we are
at a loss to conceive. That passages may be picked
out of the fathers which seem to militate against St.
Peter's supremacy we have already allowed ; but
they are as easily reconciled with his supremacy, as
with his primacy as acknowledged by Barrow and
other Protestant divines. And besides, as we before
remarked, they refer merely to an equality in the
powers of the apostleship. While some of the fathers
affirm an equality in this sense, they are at the same
time careful to assign to Peter, either in the same con-
nection, or in another place, the prerogative of a head-
ship, or general jurisdiction. And further, these pas-
sages* are much more easily reconciled with St.
Peter's supremacy than those which are adduced from
their writings against episcopacy and apostolical suc-
cession. Thus Presbyterians cite the following pas-
sage from St. Jerome : " Let bishops know that they
are greater than presbyters rather by custom than
by the truth of the Lord's arrangement" And others
advocating a lay-ministry, appeal to the following
passage in Tertnllian : " Are not we laymen also
priests ?" The able author of " Episcopacy tested by
Scripture," alluding to St. Jerome, eays, " One at least
of the fathers has written in a contradictory manner
concerning episcopacy." It should not, then, be a
matter of concern, that among the voluminous writings
of the fathers, a few passages may be found, which,
* They may be seen in Palmer's " Treatise on the Church," and
also in Barrow's " Treatise on the Supremacy."
174 SUPREMACY OF THE
taken apart from their general testimony,, seem to be
opposed to the supremacy of St. Peter and his suc-
cessors. After a careful examination of these passages,
we are convinced that they do not impair in the least
degree the force of the positive and overwhelming
testimonies which they continually bear to that su-
premacy.
CHAPTER III.
The Prerogatives of St. Peter as Head or Ruler of the Visible
Church, proved to have been transmitted to his Successors in the
Holy Roman See.
That the office of St. Peter as the centre of unity
and authority in the church was designed by Christ
to be permanent or perpetual, cannot be denied with
the least consistency by Protestant Churchmen. For
they acknowledge it to be an unquestionable axiom
that that form of church polity which Jesus Christ in-
stituted was intended to be perpetual in all future
time. It is true that some of those Protestant divines
who have been compelled to acknowledge the pri-
macy of St. Peter, have endeavored to evade the con-
sequences by maintaining that the office was personal
and confined to Peter himself. But this is not only a
gratuitous assumption — it is contrary to the most de-
cisive evidence.
The office having been instituted, not for the bene-
fit of Peter but for the benefit of the church, there is
an obvious presumption in favor of its continuance.
It is not even alledged that there is any passage of
scripture limiting it to Peter. Consequently it is a
mere inference or surmise of those whose peculiar
position naturally inclines them to form the conjec-
ture. It is by means of a similar assumption that
Presbyterians and others evade the doctrine of Apos-
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 175
tolical succession. They affirm thai the office was
personal and confined to the Apostles ; and conse-
quently that there arc no successors of the Apostles.
No\\ r that the office of St. Peter, as head of the
church, was designed to be transmitted to successors,
can he proved by the very same course of reasoning
which is usually employed to prove that the episcopal
powers possessed by the Apostles were designed to be
transmitted to after ages. Protestant churchmen argue
that the office of the Apostles was designed to be per-
petuated because our Lord promised to be with them
"even to the end of the world." Now since this
promise was given to the whole college of Apostles,
with Peter at its head, it equally proves that the office
of Peter as head was also to be perpetuated. It is
maintained by Protestant churchmen that it was
a pledge of perpetuity in behalf of the Apostolic
ministry as then constituted, icith all its official
powers. Now since that ministry included a chief
officer as its centre of unity, it follows that the prero-
gatives of that chief officer must have been perpetuated
as well as the other prerogatives or powers of that
ministry, otherwise that ministry as then constituted
was not perpetuated. If the pledge given by Christ
was not a security for the perpetuity of the preroga-
tives of the highest officer, we cannot see how it was
a security for the perpetuity of the prerogatives of the
rest.
Again : Another argument used by Protestant
churchmen in favor of Apostolical succession is this :
That that particular ministry which Jesus Christ in-
stituted for the instruction and government of his
church must be binding in all subsequent time, since
that ministry and that ministry only has received his
sanction. Having been appointed by Him to teach
and guide, it cannot be altered, abolished or resisted
by man. The argument applies with equal force in
the present question. The ministry which Jesus
Christ instituted had a chief officer at its head ; con-
176 SUPREMACY OF THE
sequently, it is only such a ministry that has received
the sanction of Christ and that can claim his autho-
rity. And consequently it is such ministry and such
ministry only, that men are bound to acknowledge
and obey. To reject or abandon an inferior order of
this ministry is a violation of Christ's institution ;
how much worse is it to reject or set aside its highest
office. It is plainly only a ministry with a chief offi-
cer at its head that can pretend to be Apostolical and
primitive. We have seen that many Anglican divines
have acknowledged the primacy of St. Peter in a cer-
tain sense ; " a primacy," says Barrow, " of order to
maintain concord," &c. Now among Catholics such
a " primacy" is still acknowledged and retained ; but
by Protestant churchmen it is not. Which then of
these two systems accords with the primitive pat-
tern ?"
But further : It is customary to plead for the doc-
trine of apostolic succession on the ground of neces-
sity. The church must always require, it is said, the
essential powers of the Apostleship. This argument
also may be urged with equal force in favor of the
perpetuity of the office of St. Peter. For if a primate
was necessary " to maintain concord" in the College
of Apostles, though embracing but twelve men, how
much more necessary is a primate among their suc-
cessors, who, within a very short period, were multi-
plied into thousands ? And again : If a primate was
necessary when the church was confined to Judea,
and contained but a few hundred members, how much
more necessary when it covers the globe and counts
its members by hundreds of millions. The larger or
more numerous a body may be, the more difficult it is
to " maintain concord ;" and hence there is more need
of a chief officer. But there is no need of a length-
ened argument upon this point. The necessity of
some supreme officer has been felt and acknowledged,
as we have shown in a former part of this work, by
some of the most eminent Protestant divines. And it
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 177
is plainly demonstrated by the unhappy divisions of
Protestantism, and also by the divisions which have
long prevailed among the Oriental Christians, although
they possess the Episcopal regimen.
Hut it is unnecessary to dwell longer upon evi-
dences of this nature. That the supremacy enjoyed
by St. Peter has been transmitted to others, can be es-
tablished by historical proof. That that supremacy
has been claimed by the Roman See from time imme-
morial, is an undisputed fact ; and that that claim is
valid, we shall now proceed to show by proofs drawn
from the documents of the early church.
That St. Peter was at Rome, and suffered martyrdom
there, is one of the clearest facts in ecclesiastical history.
A few Protestants, it is true, goaded to desperation
by their anxiety to undermine the claims of the Holy
Roman See, have been so reckless as to insinuate the
contrary. But that any man of the least acquaintance
with ancient history ever really doubted it, we cannot
believe. Any insinuation of this sort is unworthy of
serious notice. It is but little better than the preten-
ded doubts of certain infidels as to whether there ever
existed on earth such a person as Jesus Christ.
With regard to the fact that St. Peter was at Rome
and there suffered martyrdom, it will be sufficient to
cite a remark of Dr. Cave, a learned Anglican writer,
and a zealous opponent of the Papacy. Says he:
"And perhaps there is scarce any one piece of ancient
church history for which there is more clear, full,
and constant evidence, than there is for this." — (Ap-
pendix to Life of St. Peter.) The fact that some Pro-
testants have endeavored to throw doubt upon this
point, shows to what desperate and fanatical lengths
men are hurried by their zeal against Popery. And
italso shows how dangerous it is for men to receive,
without thorough examination, the mere assertions or
insinuations of interested controversialists. Dr. Cave
candidly allows that Protestants were led by their
zeal against the Papacy to express these doubts. And
9
178 SUPREMACY OF THE
under the conviction that they were utterly preposte-
rous, and also calculated to undermine the historical
evidences in support of Christianity, he employs the
Appendix just referred to in showing that there is not
the least foundation for them.
It is also an indisputable fact that St. Peter founded
the church at Rome ; — that St. Paul was not the ori-
ginal founder of that church, is evident from his Epis-
tle to the Romans. From that epistle we learn that,
at the time of writing it, St. Paul had never visited
Rome, although there was then there a numerous body
of Christians whose faith was celebrated "throughout
the whole world." But as St. Paul labored there in
the gospel for some time, and eventually suffered mar-
tyrdom there, some of the ancient writers have as-
sociated his name with Peter's in the founding of
that church, while others mention the name of Peter
only. But whether or not Peter founded the Roman
church, is not important to our argument. The in-
disputable fact that he spent the last years of his life
there is enough. That he filled that See, and died in
that See, is the unanimous declaration of antiquity ;*
consequently it is in that See that we are to look for the
transmission of his prerogatives ; and how far St. Paul
co-operated with him, is equally irrelevant to the main
point. St. Peter having the superintendence not only
of that diocess, but also of the universal church, the
assistance of St. Paul must have been attended with
much benefit. Of course his presence could not have
interfered with the superior office of St. Peter, nor
with its transmission to those who succeeded in that
See after both had been called to their rest.
For some time St. Peter made Antioch his resi-
dence, but afterwards removed to Rome, the political
*This is admitted even by Dr. Cave, the learned Anglican alrea-
dy cited. " All. (says he) both ancient and modern will, I think,
agree with me that Peter may be called Bishop of Rome in a less
strict sense, inasmuch as he laid the foundations of this church, and
rendered it illustrious by his martyrdom." — Hist. Lit. Saec. Apost.
St. Pet.
HOLY ROMAN SEE.
179
centre of the world, and there fixed his episcopal and
presidential chair. I >ut upon this point it is unneces-
sary to dwell. The testimonies which we shall pre-
sently adduce from the historical documents of anti-
quity, will abundantly establish all that we have un-
dertaken to prove. We will, however, cite upon this
point the opinion of Bramhall, an archbishop of the
Anglican Church : " That St. Peter," says he, "had
a fixed chair at Antioch, and after that at Rome, is
a truth which no man, who giveth any credit to the
ancient Fathers and councils and historiographers
of the church, can either deny or well doubt of? —
(Apud Brit. Critic, No. 64, p. 353.) All that now re-
mains is to show by historical proof that the succeed-
ing" occupants of that chair or See inherited the pre-
rogatives of St. Peter as primate and head of the uni-
versal church. We premise, however, that it is only
a summary of the evidence that we can find space for.
But we are assured that it will be more than sufficient
to satisfy the candid reader who will carefully con-
sider it in its combined aspect — as such proof must
always be considered in order to be duly appreciated.
As most Anglican divines have allowed that St.
Peter enjoyed a certain primacy, so likewise they have
allowed, at least many of them, that that primacy has
been inherited by his successors in the Roman See.
Now although their testimony upon this point falls
short of the reality, yet it is useful as corroborating
the following facts : 1st, that Peter was Bishop of
Rome ; 2d, that his primacy was not merely personal;
3d, that that primacy was transmitted to the future oc-
cupants of his See, the bishops of Rome. We shall
reserve this testimony, however, until we shall have
exhibited our proof from ancient authorities.
We shall begin with a writer who was cotemporary
with the Apostles. St. Ignatius speaks of the Roman
Church as the presiding church : " Which presides"
says he, "in the Roman region, being worthy of God,
most comely, deservedly blessed, most celebrated,"
180 SUPREMACY OP THE
&c. — (Epist. to Romans.) Now although this apos-
tolical bishop and martyr addressed epistles to five
other churches, each of which was an episcopal See,
yet not one of them is called " the church which pre-
sides." It is only to the Roman Church that he gives
this significant title. We see no rational way of ac-
counting for this but by the fact that the Roman See
was the seat of general and supreme jurisdiction.
There are two or three incidental proofs which, in
the order of time, should be placed here. We do not,
however, insist upon them. We would merely men-
tion them as indications that the authority of the
Bishops of Rome was regarded at that early period
pretty much as it is now by Catholics. Thus St.
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, resorted to Anicetus,
who then filled the Roman See, to consult him upon
the question respecting the celebration of Easter. —
(Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 3, c. 14.) And at an earlier
period than this, when violent contentions broke out
in the church at Corinth, by which it was threatened
with schism, the Bishop of Rome, St. Clement, wrote
them a long epistle, in which he rebuked them for
their dissensions and opposition to their clergy, and
admonished them to return to peace and concord. In
short, it was just such an epistle as the Pope would
now address to a distant church under his jurisdic-
tion in similar circumstances. At the close of the
letter, St. Clement urges them to send back to him,
v with all speed," the messengers whom he had des-
patched with it, that they might acquaint him with
their restoration to harmony, and that he might " re-
joice" in their " good order." The interference of St.
Clement is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the
Apostle St. John was still living, and residing at Ephe-
sus, and consequently much nearer to Corinth. But
the force of the fact is increased by the circumstance,
that this letter was received and ever afterwards re-
garded by the Church of Corinth with more than or-
dinary respect and veneration. For Eusebius informs
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 181
us that Dionisus, Bishop of Corinth, wrote to Soter,
Bishop of Rome, some years alter, stating that this let-
ter of St. Clement's was still read in their assemblies
on the Lord's Day.— (Eccl. Hist. L. 3. c. 23.) And
at the same time Dionisus made mention of another
fact which serves to add strength to the argument.
He also tells Soter that an epistle received from him
(Soter) was likewise read by the church at Corinth on
the Lord's Day.— (lb.)
About this period, or a little later, another circum-
stance occurred which is worthy of consideration.
The churches of Asia had been accustomed to cele-
brate Easter at the time of the Jewish Passover, but
the churches of the west on the following Sunday.
Although this was no serious difference in itself, as it
did not affect any doctrinal point, yet inasmuch as it
caused much confusion, efforts were made to bring
about a general uniformity. But the Asiatic churches
persisting in their old custom, Victor, Bishop of Rome,
resolved to enforce uniformity by the exercise of his
authority. Accordingly, he threatened to cut them
off from the communion of the church. — (Euseb. Ec.
Hist.) And whether he actually pronounced a sen-
tence of excommunication, or merely threatened to do
so, (about which there is some uncertainty,) he plainly-
showed by this course that he claimed general autho-
rity throughout the whole church. The author of
" True Catholic no Romanist," states that " Irenaeus
rebuked Victor with just as much freedom and sharp-
ness," &c. — (p. 118.) But this is a very exaggerated
statement, and wholly unwarranted by the facts of
the case. Eusebius merely says that Irenaeus " be-
comingly admonished Victor not to cut off whole
churches of God."— (Eccl. Hist. L. 5. c. 24.) Irenaeus
merely endeavored to persuade Victor to tolerate this
difference ; and he urges as an argument the fact
that the preceding bishops of Rome had tolerated it :
" Neither at any time (says he) did they cut off any
merely for the sake of form." — (lb.) There is not
182 SUPREMACY OF THE
the least intimation from any quarter that Yictor did
not legitimately possess the authority which he threat-
ened to exercise; but, on the contrary, it is virtually
acknowledged by Irenaeus, and all others engaged in
the controversy. It is only against the expediency of
its exercise in this particular case that they objected.
Irenaeus did no more than any Catholic bishop of the
present day would be allowed to do in similar circum-
stances. It should be remembered that the Popes have
always been accustomed to consult their brethren in
all questions affecting the general welfare of the church,
and to act with their concurrence. It was doubtless
owing to their persuasions that the threatened excom-
munication of Victor was not carried into effect. And
it is worthy of remark, that the judgment of Victor
upon this question was confirmed 150 years after by
the Council of Nice. And henceforth those who per-
sisted in the Eastern usage, were accounted heretics.
We shall now adduce the testimony of St. Irenaeus,
who, in his youth, was under St. Polycarp, the disci-
ple of St. John. Arguing against the Gnostics, he
appeals to the universal teaching of the church as
handed down by the Apostles through their succes-
sors in the various Sees. " But since," says he, " it
would be very tedious to enumerate in this work the
succession of all the churches, we confound all those
who in any improper manner gather together either
through self-complacency or vain glory, or through
blindness and perverse disposition, by pointing to the
tradition of the greatest and most authoritative* church
known to all, founded and established at Rome by the
two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to
her faith announced to men, coming down to us by
the succession of bishops. For with this church, on
account of the more powerful principality, it is ne-
cessary that every church, that is, the faithful, who
*The original literally means "most ancient," but often bears
the sense above given. The Roman Church was not as old as that
of Antioch.
HOLY ROMAN SKI.. 183
are in every direction, should (t^rce; in which the
apostolic tradition has been always preserved by those
who are in every direction." — (S. Iren. L. 3, c. 3.)
Surely this father could not have asserted the superior
and universal authority of the Roman Church in
clearer and stronger language than this. We have
another witness in Tertullian, of Carthage, who flour-
ished in the latter part of the second century. This
writer had the misfortune, in the latter part of his life,
to fall into the errors of the Montanists, who maintained
that the power of remitting sins had not been trans-
mitted to the successors of the Apostles. The Bishop
of Rome having issued a decree condemning that sect,
and declaring that penitent sinners might be admitted
to pardon, Tertullian wrote a book in opposition to it.
And although opposing a decree of the Bishop of
Rome, he bears strong testimony to the fact, that at
that early period the Bishop of Rome claimed, and
was allowed to be, the highest functionary of the
church. li I hear," said he, " that an edict has been
published, and indeed a peremptory one, namely :
the bishop of bishops, which is equivalent to the Sove-
reign Pontiff, proclaims — I pardon the sins of adul-
tery and fornication to such as have performed pen-
ance. This is read in the church, and is proclaimed
in the church? 1 — (L.de Pudic.) This testimony is so
decisive, that it extorted the following admission from
one of the most unyielding opponents of the Catholic
Church : ** In the time of Tertullian, whose life ex-
tended into the third century,* a considerable advance
had plainly been made by the See of Rome in the
claim of the primacy. Tertullian calls the bishop of
that church the Supreme Pontiff, and dignifies him
with the authoritative appellation of the bishop of
bishops."— (Faber's Dif. of Rom. p. 300.) But the
* Tertullian died A. D. 216. The work referred to was probably
written some twenty or thirty years before. Most of his life was,
of course, passed in the second century y that is, in the very century
in which the Apostle St. John died.
184 SUPREMACY OF THE
candid and intelligent reader will be disposed, we
think, to regard this claim, set up and allowed in the
very next age after the Apostles, not as a usurpation,
but as the inherited prerogatives of St. Peter. It is
not for a moment to be supposed that such an " ad-
vance" could have been made in so short a time, and
that too a time during which the Roman Church was
most cruelly oppressed and persecuted by the Pagan
Emperors. Besides, judging of the obvious meaning
of these titles, it was not a mere " advance, but a com-
plete attainment — u Popery full grown:" for higher
titles than these have never in any subsequent age
been applied to the Popes ; — though it is proper to re-
mark that the Popes themselves have always studious-
ly avoided using any such titles.
Our next witness shall be St. Cyprian, Bishop of
Carthage, who flourished shortly after Tertullian.
We have already cited several passages from this
father, in which he asserts that the church was built
upon Peter ; and accordingly we find him constantly
designating the Roman See as the " place of Peter,"
and the " Chair (or See) of Peter."* Thus, in one of
his epistles, speaking of the election of Cornelius to
succeed Fabian as Bishop of Rome, he says, he " was
chosen when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of
Peter, was vacant." (Ep. 52 ad Anton.) And again.
When certain priests of Carthage, who had separated
from their bishop, sought to seduce the flock into their
schism, Cyprian warned his people against them in
the following language : " They now offer peace who
themselves have not peace ; they promise ta bring back
and recall to the church them that are fallen, who
themselves have left the church. There is one God
and one Christ, and one church and one chair, founded
by the voice of the Lord upon Peter. That any other
* This is admitted by Dr. Hopkins. " That the Church of Rome,"
says he, "was the seat of Peter, Cyprian doubtless believed; and
therefore he attaches the same importance to it that he attaches to
Peter in relation to the other Apostles" — (Ch. of Rome, p. 118.)
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 185
altar should be erected, or a new priesthood estab-
lished besides that one altar and one priesthood, is
impossible. Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters."
(Ep. 40 ad Pleb.) Thus St. Cyprian argues that
these priests were guilty of schism, not because they
had separated from their own proper bishop, but be-
cause they had separated from that " one chair" of
Peter — the Roman See. This he regarded as the
source and centre of ecclesiastical unity, as he still
more clearly affirms in another place. Speaking of
certain schismatics, who had resorted to Rome to seek
the sanction of the Pope, he says, "A false bishop
having been ordained for them by heretics, they ven-
ture to set sail, and carry letters from schismatical and
profane men, to the chair of Peter, and to the prin-
cipal church, whence sacerdotal unity has arisen."
(Ep. 55 ad Cornel.) This passage is so conclusive,
that it forced Dr. Hopkins to make the following ac-
knowledgment : " Now here we have, certainly, a be-
ginning of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, show-
ing to us what we anticipated when examining the
evidence of Irenaeus, namely, how early the bishops
of Rome endeavored to secure dominion and supre-
macy." (Brit. Ref. p. 127.) But Dr. H. seems to have
forgotten that the passage to which he refers, was not
the language of a bishop of Rome, but of St. Cyprian,
bishop of Carthage, in Africa — a most competent
witness. Here is no " endeavor," on the part of the
bishop of Rome, to " secure supremacy," but only the
spontaneous testimony of a bishop of a distant See to
the fact of that supremacy. Faber, we have seen, ac-
knowledged that a " considerable advance had plainly
been made," in the days of Tertullian, a half century-
earlier. But whether the bishops of Rome, at this
early period, were such men as would have usurped
" dominion and supremacy," let an opponent of the
Catholic Church decide. " In justice, nay, with gra-
titude to God, let me here say, that none of the early
churches bore more consistent witness to the truth as
9*
186 SUPREMACY OF THE
it is in Jesus ; that none furnishes a more honorable
array of wise and holy bishops, of true confessors,
and of glorious martyrs, than the early Church of
Rome." (Dr. Ogilby, " I^ec. on the Ch." p. 83.)
But we have other equally strong passages in Cyp-
rian. In another epistle we have evidence that the
sway of the Bishop of Rome was so great as to excite
the jealously of the heathen emperor. Speaking of
Pope Cornelius, he exclaims, " How great his virtue
in sustaining the office .... to have sat fearlessly at
Rome in the priestly chair, at a time when a hostile
tyrant threatened the priests of God with dire torments ;
when he would hear with less pain of a rival prince
rising up against him, than that a priest of God
was established at Rome." (Ep. 52 ad Anton.)
We have still more decisive proofs in the epistles in
which he details many occurrences connected with
the Novatian schism. A priest of this name made a
schismatical attempt to occupy the See of Peter, at the
time of the election of Pope Cornelius. Having ob-
tained consecration in an unlawful way, he imme-
diately sent messengers into various countries to an-
nounce his pretended elevation ; and not only so, he
also sought by his apostles to establish rival churches
" throughout all the provinces." (Ep. 52 ad Anton.)
By so doing, it is plain that Novatian considered that
See as possessing universal jurisdiction, else why
did he attempt to institute new churches in other
diocesses ?
The Bishops of Africa had despatched ambassadors
to Rome to ascertain the facts of the case. But in the
mean time they had been careful to cling to the Ro-
man See itself, as Cyprian informs Pope Cornelius in
the following language: "Giving an account to all
who sailed we know that we exhorted them to ac-
knowledge and hold fast the root and matrix of the
Catholic church" (Ep. 45, ad Corn.) This passage
is illustrated by another in his " Treatise on the
Unity of the Church," written on account of this very
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 187
Novatian schism. Affirming the impossibility of there
being more than one church, he says, " Whatever
has separated from the matrix cannot by itself live
and breathe, it loses the essence of being." And again :
Cyprian writes to Cornelius that all doubts as to the
validity of his election being removed, it was resolved
that ambassadors should be sent to him from all the
bishops, assuring him that they adhered to him. His
language is this: "That all our colleagues approved
of you and firmly held fast to your communion, that
is to the unity and charity of the Catholic church"
(Ep. 45, ad Corn.) St. Cyprian having received a
letter from one of these bishops informing him of his
rejection of Novatian and adhesion to Cornelius, sends
him a reply containing the following passage : "You
also write that I should forward a copy of the same
letter to Cornelius, our colleague, that he might lay
aside all solicitude, knowing that you communicate
with him, that is, with the Catholic church." (Ep.
52, ad Anton.)
These passages conclusively prove that Cyprian
regarded the Roman See as the centre of unity to
which all Christians must adhere, and from which
none could separate without severing themselves from
the one church. He speaks of union with this See
and union with the Catholic church as identical.
And yet again : St. Cyprian speaks of those who re-
fused the communion of Cornelius as rejecting "the
bosom of the root and mother," and as having " set
up a false and opposing head without the church,
against the sacrament of divine arrangement and Ca-
tholic unity." (Ep. 42, ad Corn.) And when some
of the priests who had been seduced into this schism
returned to their true mother, Pope Cornelius com-
municated the intelligence to St. Cyprian, giving the
very words which they employed in abjuring their
error. " We know," said they, that " Cornelius was
chosen by Almighty God, and Christ our Lord, bishop
of the Catholic Church. We acknowledge our en
■$**■- ♦£
«*£
188 SUPREMACY OP THE
We have been deceived. We have been misled by a
specious and treacherous device ; for although for a
time we were seen to hold communion with a schis-
matical and heretical man, yet our mind was always
sincere in the church ; for neither are we ignorant
that there is one God, and one Christ our Lord, whom
we have confessed, one Holy Spirit ; and that there
should be one bishop in the Catholic Church." (Ep.
46. Corn, ad Cyp.) Now it is evident that in the pas-
sages marked in italics, the term bishop is used in its
etymological sense, signifying "overseer," and as im-
plying an universal jurisdiction over the whole church ;
for this is the only sense in which it can be truly
asserted that there "should be one bishop in the Ca-
tholic Church." Had Cornelius been simply the
head of a diocess, they would have said that they
knew he had been chosen bishop of the diocess, or of
the Roman city, and not bishop of the Catholic
Church. And they would also have said, that
they knew there should be but one bishop in a dio-
cess or city, and not but " one bishop in the Catholic
Church." This is confirmed by the circumstance
that Novatian himself had claimed universal jurisdic-
tion by endeavoring to institute branches in the
various provinces. We have additional evidence in
another epistle. Arguing against Novatian, he cites,
as a proof of the unity of the church, these words
of our Lord: "There shall be one fold and one
shepherd," and then adds the following remarks, " If
there be one fold, how can he be reckoned of the fold
who is not in the number of the fold? Or how can he
be the shepherd, who, while the true shepherd re-
mains and presides in the church of God by a suc-
cessive ordination, succeeding no one, and originating
from himself, becomes a foreigner and profane, an
enemy to the peace of the Lord, and to divine unity,
not dwelling in the house of God, that is, in the church
of God," &c. (Ep. 76 ad Magnum.) Here it is evi-
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 189
dent that Cyprian regarded the bishop of Rome as the
"one shepherd" over the "one fold of Christ." And
again, in the same epistle, speaking of the Novalians,
he says, "These, rending the church, and rebels
against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to set
up a See for themselves, and to assume the primacy,
and to claim the privilege of baptizing and offering."
From all these passages it is evident that the Nova-
tians, together with Cyprian and others engaged in
the controversy, regarded the Roman See as having
the primacy, and as possessing universal jurisdiction
over the church.
An objection has been raised on the ground that
Cyprian resisted Stephen, in the controversy respect-
ing the validity of baptism by heretics. But it is easy
to show that it is without weight ; for, first, the same
answer will apply here that was given with respect
to St. Paul's withstanding St. Peter. A superior
officer may be resisted within proper limits, and espe-
cially in questions not of faith, and not fully decided ;
which was the case in the dispute between Cyprian
and Stephen. And, secondly, every one will allow
that the sentiments of an individual respecting the
station, or office, or character of another, are to be
judged by what he has deliberately written and spoken
with regard to it, and not by the hasty and excited
language which he was led to utter when reproved by
that individual.
The most that can be inferred from this conduct of
Cyprian is, that he did not regard the Pope as infal-
lible in all things. He thought he was wrong in
allowing the validity of baptism by heretics, though
the subsequent judgment of the church has been in
favor of Stephen. But surely he could have supposed
that the Pope was capable of erring in a matter of this
nature, and yet at the same time have allowed what
he had previously asserted, that the Roman See was the
" root and matrix," and " principal See" of the Catholic
190 SUPREMACY OF THE
Church — the seat of unity and universal authority.*
Suppose a clergyman of the Episcopal Church were
to persist in rebaptizing converts from some other sect
who had already been baptized with water in the name
of the Holy Trinity, after his bishop had given his
judgment against it, would any one be so silly as to
infer that that clergyman did not acknowledge the
jurisdiction of his bishop 1 Certainly not. How, then,
can the conduct of Cyprian furnish an argument
against the general jurisdiction of Stephen?
That we have not misrepresented St. Cyprian, let
us hear the testimony of one whose position strongly
inclined him to form an opposite opinion, the Protes-
tant Archbishop Bramhall. u My third assertion," says
he, " is that some fathers and schoolmen, who were
no sworn vassals to the Roman Bishop, do affirm that
this primacy of order is affixed to the chair of St.
Peter and his successors for ever." "And among
the fathers I instance St. Cyprian, whose public op-
position to Pope Stephen is well known, who seemeth
not to dissent from it."t He then goes on to cite from
St. Cyprian the passages which we have just quoted.
We have another proof of the supreme and general
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in the days of
Cyprian. Marcian, bishop of Aries, in Gaul, a See
of more than ordinary dignity, having espoused the
cause of Novatian, the bishop of Lyons and the other
bishops of the province made application to Pope
Stephen, for his removal ; and Cyprian also joined
them in the application — another proof that he re-
garded the Bishop of Rome as endowed with univer-
sal authority. He urged him to issue at once letters
of deposition against Marcian. " Let letters be directed
* St. Jerome, speaking of St. Cyprian's course in this matter,
says : " His effort proved vain ; and finally these very bishops, who
with him had determined that heretics should be re-baptized, turn-
ing back to the ancient custom, issued a new decree." — Dial. adv.
Lucifer.
t Apud British Critic, No. 64, p. 354.
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 191
by you throughout the province, and to the people of
Aries, by which Marcian being cut off, another may
be substituted in his place, and the flock of Christ
may be gathered together, which hitherto scattered
and wounded by him is despised." (Cyp. Ep. 67 ad
Steph.) Now why did not the bishops of the province
remove this schismatic ? Why do they call upon the
bishop of Rome to do it? It is plainly a decisive proof
that it was the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome to
exercise this discipline, not only in his own immediate
diocess, but throughout the whole church. St. Cyp-
rian does not even ask him to summon a council or
court for the purpose, but by his own letters to pro-
nounce the See vacant. But we shall presently men-
tion still more striking instances of the exercise of
this power of deposition by the Popes.
We must not omit to exhibit here the testimony of
a cotemporary and correspondent of St. Cyprian, Fir-
milian, bishop of Caesarea. His testimony is the more
valuable, because he was at the time arguing against
the course which Stephen, Bishop of Rome, pursued
with regard to baptism administered by heretics. In
a long letter, which he addressed to St. Cyprian on
this subject, he says, " And here in this matter I am
justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of
Stephen, that he who so much boasts of the place of
his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succes-
sion of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the
church were laid, introduces many other rocks," &c.
''Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by suc-
cession the See of Peter, is moved with no kind of
zeal against heretics." (Inter. Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75.)
Here Firmilian does not oppose these superior claims
of St. Stephen, but accuses him of acting inconsist-
ently therewith, by sanctioning heretical baptisms, and
thereby, as he erroneously argued, introducing "many
other rocks"— that is, building up heretical churches.
In the year 314 a council was held at Aries, at-
tended by bishops from Sicily, Campania, Apulia,
192 SUPREMACY OF THE
Dalmatia, Italy, Gaul, Britain, Spain, Mauritania,
Sardinia, Africa, and Numidia. At the close of their
proceedings they drew up an address to the Pope,
styling him "the most beloved, most glorious Pope
Sylvester." Having expressed their regrets that he
was not present to pass " a severer sentence" on the
Donatists, they proceed, "But you could not leave
these parts wherein the apostles sit, and their blood
incessantly attests the divine glory." They made
known to him the decrees which they had passed,
that through him who had the great dioc esses under
his charge, they might be made known to the whole
church. (Ep. Syn. ad Sylvest.)
There are recorded in the Church History of this
period many similar acts on the part of councils and
bishops of the principal sees recognizing the universal
authority of the Pope ; but we have room only for a few
of them. Many cases of appeals to the Pope, by bishops
of the highest sees after that of Rome are related. Thus
the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria,* when
condemned and persecuted by the Arians, appealed to
Pope Julius, who convened a council of bishops, and
gave him a trial. Socrates, one of the earliest church
historians, thus mentions the appeal of other bishops
also : "At the same time Paul, also the bishop of Con-
stantinople, Asclepas, of Gaza, Marcellus, of Ancyra,
a city in lesser Galatia, and Lucius, of Hadrianople,
each accused of a different offence, and driven from
their churches, reach the imperial city. When they
had stated their case to Julius, bishop of the Roman
city, he, according to the prerogative of the Roman
church, sent them back into the east, bearing with
them strong letters, and restored them to their sees,
and severely rebuked those who had rashly deposed
them" (Hist. Eccl. L. 2. c. xv.) Sozoman, another
early church historian, speaking of these appeals, says,
" The Roman bishop, having taken cognizance of
* The See of Alexandria was next in point of dignity to that of
Rome.
HOLY ROMAN SEE.
193
the cases of each of them, and finding them all to har-
monize in the Nicene faith, admitted them to his com-
munion. And since on account of the dignity of his
see, the care of all belonged to him-, he restored each
one to his church" (Hist. Eccl. L. 3. c. vii.) Com-
ment here is unnecessary. These are facts, and they
speak for themselves. We will add a short sentence
contained in the answer which Julius returned to the
Arians, as recorded by Sozoman : " 7/ was a sacer-
dotal law" said he, "to declare invalid whatever was
transacted beside the will of the bishop of the Ro-
mans." (Ecc. Hist. iii. 10.)
We will also give a passage from Theodoret, an-
other historian of this early age. " The Eusebians,"
says he, " wrote the calumnies they had forged against
Athanasius to Julius, bishop of Rome. But he, ac-
cording to the canons, both commanded the Euse-
bians to come to Rome, and appointed Athanasius a
day to have his cause tried." (Hist. Eccles. L. 2. c. 4.)
Here we see that both Athanasius, the highest bishop
after the bishop of Rome, and also his accusers, alike
acknowledge the superior authority of the Pope.
Now when we remember that these three historians,
Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozoman, wrote about A. D.
340, and, moreover, that not one of them belonged to
the western portion of the church, their testimony is
most conclusive.
We shall omit to mention the many passages in the
letters and decrees of the early Popes, found not only
in their own writings, but reported also by their co-
temporaries, claiming these great prerogatives. As
there are very few, if any, who will deny that they
set up such a claim, and based it upon their succeed-
ing in the See of Peter. The adversaries of the Pa-
pacy have sometimes appealed to the 6th canon of
Nice. The portion appealed to reads thus : " Let the
ancient customs be maintained which are in Egypt
and Libya, and Pentapolis, according to which the
bishop of Alexandria has authority over all those
194 SUPREMACY OF THE
places ; for this is also customary to the bishop of
Rome. In like manner, in Antioch, and in the other
provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to the
churches." Now it is an admitted principle that a
canon, or law, is best explained by the occasion which
led to its enactment. Let us apply this principle
here. What led to the adoption of this canon? It
was not an act of usurpation on the part of the bishop
of Rome ; it was certain difficulties in the church of
Alexandria. " It appears to have been made," says
Hammond, "with particular reference to the case of
the church of Alexandria, which had been troubled
by the irregular proceedings of Miletius, and to con-
firm the ancient privileges of the bishops of that see,
which he had invaded." (" Def. of Faith," p. 42.)
We have already mentioned instances of the exercise
of general authority in the church by the bishop of
Rome, before the period of this council. And the
reader has seen that both Faber and Hopkins allow
that a " beginning," and a " considerable advance"
had been made by the Popes long before this ; and
although a canon is called into existence by the acts
of Miletius, confined to a single patriarchate, yet
neither this canon, nor any other canon passed by a
general council, was ever passed in opposition to the
universal authority claimed and exercised by the
Popes. This fact is of itself a strong proof that that
authority was recognized by the universal church.
It is true this canon makes an allusion to the
Bishop of Rome, but not so as to militate against his
universal jurisdiction, but rather to confirm it. It de-
clares that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have au-
thority over certain countries in opposition to the
usurpation of Miletius, assigning as the ground of the
decision that it was "customary to the Bishop of
Rome." This language is indeed very obscure. It
may be and indeed has been variously interpreted.
Protestant churchmen say it means that the Bishop of
Alexandria shall have authority over certain specified
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 195
countries, because the Bishop of Rome has authority
over certain countries. But to this we object; first,
because it does not say so — it does not mention any
countries in connection with the Bishop of Rome.
And secondly, because that would not be a reason at
all. It seems more consistent to understand it as
meaning that the Bishop of Alexandria should exer-
cise authority over certain parts because allowed by
the Bishop of Rome.* But even if the interpretation
of Protestants were correct, the canon would not mili-
tate against the primacy and universal authority of Uie
Bishop of Rome. If it refers at all to the limits of his
jurisdiction, it relates only to his patriarchal or me-
tropolitan jurisdiction; for it is only of that kind of
jurisdiction that it speaks.
The Bishop of Rome had three kinds of jurisdiction.
1. A jurisdiction common to all bishops of the diocess
of Rome. 2. A jurisdiction common to other patri-
archs over his patriarchate. 3. A primacy of juris-
diction among the patriarchs, inherited from St. Peter,
by which he governed the whole church. This last
kind of jurisdiction is not affected by the canon under
consideration. For, first, no canon can affect a power
derived from Jesus Christ. And, secondly, the canon,
as understood by Protestants, does not even refer to
it. It speaks only of metropolitan jurisdiction. If it
be proved (as it is) from other sources that the Bishop
of Rome had a primacy of universal jurisdiction, jure
divino, no canon can touch it. How much less a
canon which alludes only to his metropolitan juris-
diction.
Let us now hear the testimony of a council held at
Sardica, a few years after that of Nice.
This council framed a canon recognizing the right
of bishops, when condemned in their own provinces,
; * A very ancient copy of this canon cited at the Council of Chal-
cedon, A. D. 431, contains this passage : " It is of ancient custom that
the Bishop of Rome should have the primacy." — Vide Percival on
Roman Schism, and Hammond.
196 SUPREMACY OP THE
to make appeals to the decision of the Bishop of Rome.
It says if the Bishop of Rome "judge that a new trial
be granted, let it be granted, and let him appoint
judges. But if he judge that the cause is such that
the proceedings should not be called in question, they
shall be confirmed." (Sardic. Concil. Can. 4.)
The fathers of this council sent their proceedings
to the Bishop of Rome, with an epistle in which they
beg him to .make its decrees known to the whole
church, and in which they bear the following con-
clusive testimony to his universal supremacy. " This
seems excellent and most suitable that the priests of
the Lord, from the respective provinces, should re-
port to the head, that is to the See of the Apostle
Peter" (Epist. Syn. Sardic. ad Jul.) This coun-
cil was attended by nearly three hundred bishops.
Among these bishops were some from Britain,* which
by the way is another proof that the early British
church recognized the headship of the Bishop of
Rome.
With regard to appeals an objection is urged on the
ground that certain bishops of Africa in the fifth cen-
tury manifested some opposition. But a careful exami-
nation of all the facts of that controversy will show that
these bishops did not deny the right of appealing to the
Pope. They merely opposed what they considered
its abuse in a particular instance. But had it been
otherwise, their opposition would not be a valid argu-
ment against a right which had been deliberately and
canonically recognized or confirmed one hundred
years before, by a council so numerously and gene-
rally attended as that of Sardica.
Our next witness shall be St. Basil, a metropolitan
bishop of a prominent See in the East. Writing to
St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, he says : " It
has appeared to us advisable to send to the Bishop of
* " There is reason to believe that British Bishops were present
at this Council." — Perceval's " Roman Schism." — (Council of Sar-
dica.)
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 197
Rome that he may look to our affairs, and to suggest
to him that if it be difficult to despatch some persons
thence by a general and synodicai decree, he himself
by his authority may act in the case, and choose
persons able to bear the journey, and endowed with
such meekness and firmness of character as would be
likely to recall the perverse to correct sentiments."
(Ep. 69.) He accordingly wrote to the Bishop of
Rome, styling him " Most Honored Father," and
begged him to exercise his authority in composing
the dissensions prevailing among the churches of Asia
Minor, as Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, had formerly
done. " Our affairs," says he, " are at present in a
more difficult and gloomy situation, and need greater
care." And again : " Wherefore, unless you hasten
to our relief, in a little while you will scarcely find to
whom you may reach the hand, since all will be
brought under the power of heresy." (Ep. 70.)
St. Basil is a witness in another way. In a letter
to the Western Bishops he relates a fact of the most
decisive nature. He states that Eustathius, a bishop
of Arminia, having been deposed by a synod, pro-
ceeded to Rome and obtained from the Pope letters
of restoration by which he was reinstated in his See.
St. Basil giving an account of it to the Western
Bishops says, " What things were proposed to him by
the most blessed Liberius (the pope) and what he con-
sented to we know not; but he brought back with
him a letter reinstating him, which being presented
to the Synod of Tyana, he was restored to his place."
(Ep. 74.) Thus did an Eastern Synod recognize
the authority of the Bishop of Rome, to restore a de-
posed Bishop of the East to his See. What could be
more conclusive?
Let us now hear the testimony of an African father,
St. Optatus, Bishop of Mela, A. D. 370. In a work
which he wrote against the Donatists, addressed to a
bishop of that sect, he says, "You cannot deny that
you know that the Episcopal See was first established
198 SUPREMACY OF THE
for Peter in the city of Rome, in which Peter sat at
the head of all the Apostles, whence also he was called
Cephas ; in which one See unity might' be preserved
by all : that the Apostles should not each defend be-
fore you his own See, but that he should be at once a
schismatic and a sinner who should erect any other
against that one See. Therefore that one* See which
is first in prerogatives, Peter filled first ; to whom suc-
ceeded Linus ; to Linus, (fee. ... to Damasus,
Siricius, who at this day is associated with us, to-
gether with whom the whole world is in accordance
with us in the one bond of communion, by the inter-
course of letters of peace." (De Schismat. Donat. L.
2.) Surely it is impossible for testimony to be more
decisive than this. Here is a bishop of Africa arguing
against a numerous and powerful sect of that country.
His object is to prove that his communion is the Ca-
tholic church and not the communion of the Dona-
tists. And what is the argument which he employs?
He simply affirms as a well known fact that one See
had been established at Rome, with which every one
should preserve unity or else be considered a " schis-
matic and sinner." With the bishop of that See he
says that he in common with " the whole world is in
one bond of communion." And since the Donatists
were not in communion with that See, he argues that
his communion and not that of the Donatists is the
Catholic communion.
Thus St. Optatus, of Africa, argued against Par-
menian the Donatist bishop, precisely as a Catholic
bishop of the present day argues against a Protestant
Episcopal bishop, that is, that he, in common with
Christians throughout the world, maintains unity with
the Holy Roman See, while the Protestant Episcopal
bishop does not.
We shall now pass to the writings of another emi-
nent father of the same period, St. Jerome, the most
* The original word is " unica" — one only See— implying at once
the idea of exclusiveness and universality.
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 199
learned and accomplished scholar of that early age.
In a letter written to the Pope from the deserts of
Syria, seeking his counsel with reference to the dis-
sensions then prevailing in the Eastern church, he
says : " Let it not appear invidious — let the pomp of
Roman majesty withdraw: I speak with the successor
of the fisherman, and a disciple of the cross. I who
follow no one first, except Christ, am united in com-
munion with your blessedness, that is, with the See of
Peter : on that rock I know that the church is built.
Whoever eats the lamb out of this house is profane :
if a man be not in the Ark of Noah, he shall perish
when the flood comes in its power. But forasmuch
as being retired into the desert of Syria, I cannot re-
ceive the sacrament at your hands. I follow here
your colleagues, the confessors of Egypt, and amidst
the merchant vessels I lie hid in a little boat. I know
nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius ; I care not for
Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you scat-
ters ; that is, whoever is not of Christ is of Anti-
christ." — (Ep. xv. Damaso.) Can any one after read-
ing this passage, doubt that this holy father regarded
the Roman See as the centre of unity and authority
in the Catholic Church ? He pronounces those who
are separated from it " profane." He compares them
to those who were out of the Ark when the flood came
upon the earth ; and he even denounces them as
leagued with Antichrist. Would a Catholic of the
present day employ stronger language than this? Has
even Bellarmine done so?
In another epistle, St. Jerome furnishes testimony
no less decisive. It is proper to observe by way of
explanation, that at this time there were three claim-
ants of the Patriarchal See of Antioch — Meletius, Vi-
talis, and Paulinus, mentioned in the passage just
cited. St. Jerome, being at a loss to decide with which
he should hold communion, he addressed a second
letter to Pope Damasus, in which he anxiously im-
plored his direction in the matter : " The church
200 SUPREMACY OF THE
here," says he, " being split into three parties, each
hastens to draw me to itself. The venerable authori-
ty of the monks who dwell around, assails me. hi
the mean time I cry aloud : Whoever is united
with the See of Peter is mine. Meletius, Vi-
talis, and Paulinus, affirm that they adhere to you : if
only one made the assertion, I could believe ; but in
the present case, either two of them deceive me or all
of them. Therefore I beseech you, blessed father, by
the Cross of the Lord, by the necessary ornament of
our faith, by the passion of Christ, as you succeed the
Apostles in dignity, so may you rival them in merit ;
so may you sit on the throne of judgment with the
twelve ; so may another gird you like Peter in your
old age ; so may you gain the franchise of the heavenly
city with Paul — declare to me by your letter with
whom I should hold communion in Syria. Do not
disregard a soul for which Christ died." — (Ep. xvi.
Damaso.) Here we see that each of these rival bishops
based his claims upon his professed adherence to the
Pope, and thereby shows that he regarded his sanc-
tion and authority as necessary to give validity to the
claim. St. Jerome evidently entertained the same
view ; for he beseeches the Pope in the most earnest
manner — yea, as if it were a matter of eternal salva-
tion — to declare which of them he approved of. But
in the midst of this perplexity and uncertainty, he is
careful, he tells us, to cling to the centre of unity. He
" cries aloud — whoever is, united with the See of Pe-
ter is mine." As much as to say, " I know not which
is the lawful claimant ; but the one that is indeed
united to the Pope, him I acknowledge." Thus did
this eminent Saint tenaciously cling to the Holy Ro-
man See ; thus did he plainly assert the absolute ne-
cessity of union with it, in order to Catholic commu-
nion. Here, then, is a rule for the perplexed of our
day. We cannot go astray if we follow the example
of these lights of the ancient church. In most of our
cities there are several persons claiming to be the law-
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 201
fill bishop of the place. How shall we decide between
these rival claimants ? How shall we determine the
momentous question ? — to whose authority shall we
submit? — whose communion shall we join ? Others
may guide themselves by plausible but fallacious rules
of modern invention ; but for our own part, we will
follow the rules by which God's ancient saints were
governed. We cry aloud with St. Jerome, " Who-
ever is united with the See of Peter is mine." We
have nothing to do but to inquire as did St. Jerome,
which of these claimants has the sanction of the holy
father — the occupant of the See of St. Peter. To him
we submit. To his communion we transfer our ec-
clesiastical allegiance — assured that it and it only can
truly claim to be the " Catholic" communion.
St. Ambrose having affirmed that the Novatians had
not the " keys of the kingdom," he continues, which
indeed is rightly acknowledged on their parts : "for
they have not Peter* s inheritance who have not Pe-
ter's chair" — (De. Posn. L. 1, c. vi.) The Nova-
tians, let it be remembered, had valid orders." But
this was not enough in the judgment of the fathers of
that early period. They must have also, says Am-
brose, "Peter's chair" — that is, the Roman See. Thus
does he affirm with Optatus, Jerome, and others, the
absolute necessity of union with that See, in order to
possess Catholic rights and privileges. We have al-
ready cited a passage from St. Cyprian, proving that
communion with the Roman See was considered iden-
tical with Catholic communion. We have the same
sentiment re-echoed by St. Ambrose. Speaking of his
brother, he mentions in his praise that having been
shipwrecked, he was careful to inquire on reaching
shore, whether the bishop of the place " agreed in
faith with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Ro-
man church." — (De Obitu Fratris.) Here again is the
same rule for the perplexed of our day. Would they
know whether the bishop of the place, or which bishop
of the place is the Catholic bishop, they have only to
10
202 SUPREMACY OF THE
ascertain whether he " agrees with the Roman church."
How simple and easy this rule is ! And do we not re-
quire a simple and easy rule? Certainly no other
rule can suit the mass of mankind. Consequently it
must be believed that the true rule is a simple and
easy rule, since God designs that " all should come to
the knowledge of the truth."
Let us now pass to the testimony of the great St.
Augustine, who perhaps is more generally known in
our day than any other father. " For if the order of
bishops," says he, " succeeding to each other is to be
considered, how much more securely and really bene-
ficially do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom,
bearing the figure of the whole church, the Lord said
'Upon this rock I will build,' &c. For to Peter suc-
ceeded Linus," &c, (T. ii. Ep. 53 ad Gen.) In another
place, he says, that one of the reasons that kept him
in the Catholic Church was " the succession of fas-
tors from, the very chair of Peter \ to whom the Lord
committed the care of feeding his flock down to the
present episcopate" (T. viii. Contra Ep. Fund.)
And again. Alluding to the opposition of the Do-
natists, he says that the bishop of Carthage "might
disregard the combined multitude of his enemies,
whilst he saw himself united by letters of commu-
nion with the Roman Church, in which the sove-
reignty of the Apostolic See always flourished, and
with other countries, from which the gospel came to
to Africa." (Ep. 43 ad Glorium et Eleusium.)
In another place he says to the Donatists, " Come,
brethren, if you wish to be engrafted on the vine. It
is a cause of affliction to us to behold you lying cut
off from it as you are. Count over the bishops from
the very see of Peter, and see how one succeeded the
other in that list of fathers. This is the rock against
which the proud gates of hell do not prevail." (Ps.
contra partem Donati.)* Elsewhere he says, " We
* The reader will bear in mind that Augustine was bishop of
Hippo in Africa.
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 203
communicate with this church, that we may be made
worthy to be united to the members of Christ." (Ep.
142, T. ii.) And in another place: "Shall we hesitate
to take refuge in the bosom of that church which,
from the Apostolic See, through the succession of
bishops, even by the acknowledgment of mankind
generally, has obtained supreme authority, heretics
raging around in vain." (De Util. Cred. c. 7.) Many
other passages might be adduced from this eminent
father, but we have not room. These, however, are
sufficient to satisfy a candid mind that he regarded
the Roman See precisely as Catholics of the present
day do.
Let us now hear the testimony of the eloquent
bishop of Constantinople, and cotemporary of Augus-
tine, St. John Chrysostom. The reader will see that
although a high dignitary of the eastern church, and
bishop of the imperial city, he did not hesitate to ac-
cord to the Bishop of Rome, superiority over all.
Having asked why Christ shed his blood, he replies,
" Certainly that he might purchase to himself the
sheep, the care of which he entrusted to Peter, and
to the successors of Peter" (L. ii. de Sacerd.)
And when Chrysostom's rights were invaded by
Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, he sent an
embassy to the Pope to implore redress at his hands.
" Lest so great confusion," says he to the Pope, " should
become general, I beseech you to write to the effect
that these irregular proceedings, which were carried
on in your absence, and from partial information,
whilst we did not decline trial, are of no effect, as
they are in fact null of themselves, and that the au-
thors of these illegal measures shall be subjected to
the penalty prescribed by the ecclesiastical laws.
Grant us, likewise, who have not been convicted, re-
proved, or denounced as guilty of crime, to enjoy your
letters immediately, and your love and that of all
others as hitherto." — (T. iii. Ep. i. ad Innoc.) The
Patriarch of Alexandria (as previously stated) was the
204 SUPREMACY OF THE
highest bishop in Christendom after the Bishop of
Rome. And Chrysostom, as bishop of the imperial
city, was but little inferior to the Patriarch of Alexan-
dria ; and yet the authority of the Bishop of Rome is
invoked to settle their differences. What could be a
stronger proof of his universal jurisdiction?
In the year 416, a numerous council of bishops was
held at Carthage. At the close of their proceedings
they drew up an address or synodal epistle to the
Pope, in which they besought him to confirm their
decrees by his authority. " Lord brother," said they,
" we have thought it necessary to communicate this
measure to your holiness, that the authority of the
Apostolic See may be added to our humble decrees, in
order to preserve many in the way of salvation, and
lead back some from perverse error, &c. The error
and impiety, which have many abettors every where
dispersed, should be anathematized even by the au-
thority of the Apostolic See. For let your holiness
consider, and with pastoral tenderness compassionate
us, <fec. We entertain no doubt that your holiness,
on examining the synodical proceedings which are
said to have taken place in the East, in the same
cause, will pass such judgment as to give us all cause
for rejoicing in the mercy of the Lord. Pray for us,
most blessed lord Pope." — (Labb. Con. Carthag. contra
Pelag. ii.)
In the same year a council was held at Mela (in
Africa) to oppose the errors of Pelagius. It was at-
tended by sixty-one fathers, among whom was St.
Augustine. They also addressed an epistle to Pope
Innocent, couched in similar terms. " Since it has
pleased God," said they, " by His special grace, to seat
you in the Apostolic Chair, and so to qualify you in
these our times, that it would be criminal not to lay
before you what is for the church's interest, we do
beseech you to use your pastoral care in looking after
the infirm members of Christ ; for a new heresy is
lately broached, &c. But we hope by the mercy of
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 205
our Lord, who helps you in the discharge of your
duty, and hears your prayers, that the abettors of this
pernicious doctrine will submit to the authority of
your holiness, which authority is derived to you from
the authority of the Scriptures, so that we may have
occasion rather of gratulation at their correction than
of sorrow at their ruin." — (Labb. Con. Milev. ii.)
Thus did both of these African councils acknowledge
their obligation to submit their proceedings to the
judgment of the Apostolic See ; one of them at the
same time bearing witness that it was also the province
of that See to examine and judge of the acts of East-
ern synods. Is not this the very course which is now
pursued by Catholic councils held in this country and
elsewhere ? Thus the great St. Augustine, and other
distinguished fathers and doctors of his age, esteemed
it both a duty and a privilege to refer their measures
to the judgment of the Apostolic See, knowing that
its " authority was derived from the Holy Scriptures."
The replies furnished by the Popes to the nume-
rous addresses sent to them from all parts of Christen-
dom, contain many passages proving conclusively that
they claimed for their See the same authority as their
successors of the present day. But in accordance
with the rule previously adopted, we abstain from
citing them. We have now reached the period of the
third general council, which was held at Ephesus A.
D. 431. It was assembled for the purpose of settling
the contentions which had been caused by the heresy
of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The pro-
ceedings in relation to this heresiarch, both before and
at the council, contain the most decisive evidence of
the Pope's supremacy. As soon as the novel errors
of Nestorius were reported at Alexandria, St. Cyril,
the patriarch of that See, immediately composed some
writings in opposition to them, well knowing that they
were manifestly contrary to the Catholic faith. And
although he vigorously opposed the errors of Nesto-
rius, as he was bound to do, yet he did not dare to
206
SUPREMACY OF THE
take any further action in the case until the Pope
should pronounce judgment. " We do not withdraw
from his communion openly," said he to Celestine,
"until we communicate the facts to your holiness.
Wherefore vouchsafe to declare to us your judgment,
and whether we should at all hold communion with
him, or openly forbid any one to communicate with
him whilst he holds and teaches such sentiments. It
behooveth the judgment of your holiness to be mani-
fested by letter to the bishops most reverend and
most beloved of God throughout Macedonia, and to all
the bishops of the Bast." — (Ep. Cyril, ad Caelest. apud
Labb. Con.) The Pope issued a sentence of excom-
munication against Nestorius, unless he should re-
nounce his errors within ten days. He also wrote to
the patriarch of Alexandria, charging him to see to
the execution of the sentence. " Wherefore you," says
the Pope to St. Cyril, " with the authority of this See
and acting in our name, place and power, shall exe-
cute this sentence with the utmost rigor, viz : that if
within ten days, to be counted from the day on which
this our admonition is signified to him, he does not,
in express terms, anathematize his wicked doctrine,
your holiness shall immediately provide for that See,
and he shall know that he is excommunicated." —
(Ep. ad Cyril. Labb. Con. Gen.) The patriarchs of
Constantinople and Alexandria were the highest in
rank in Christendom after the Bishop of Rome. And
yet the Pope pronounces against one of them a con-
ditional sentence of condemnation and excommuni-
cation, and charges the other to execute the sentence
in his name ! What could be a stronger proof of his
supremacy ?
But the case of Nestorius furnishes further evidence
of the most indubitable character. When the Pope's
letter with regard to Nestorius was read in the gene-
ral council of Ephesus, it was immediately recog-
nized by the two hundred bishops then assembled as
authoritative and decisive. Every one at once ex-
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 207
claimed, " This is a just judgment ; to Celestine, the
guardian of the faith — to Celestine, who harmonizes
with the synod — to Celestine the whole synod returns
thanks." '(Labb. Eph. Con. Act. ii.) The council,
in passing sentence upon Nestorius, in accordance
with the judgment of Celestine, used the following
terms : " Compelled by the sacred canons, and by the
e/iislle of our most holy father and fellow minister,
Celestine, Bishop of Rome, bathed in tears, we proceed
to pronounce this doleful sentence against him." (lb.
Act. 1.) This took place before the legates of the
Pope arrived, who were to preside in the council, to-
gether with St. Cyril, who was also acting in the matter
as the deputy of Celestine. When the legates entered
the council, one of the bishops inquired whether they
had read the sentence passed upon Nestorius. One
of them replied in the affirmative, adding that he felt
satisfied that all had been done in accordance with the
canons, but he requested that the acts should be read
anew in the council, " in order that they might con-
firm what had been decreed, in compliance with the
direction of Celestine." (lb. Act. hi.) This having
been done, the legates proceeded to confirm the de-
crees. The following is an extract from one of the
addresses delivered by the legates : " It is not doubted
by any one, but rather it has been well known in all
ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the prince
and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith, and the
foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of man-
kind, the keys of the kingdom ; and to him was given
power to bind and loose sins, who, down to the pre-
sent time, and forever, lives and judges in his suc-
cessors. His successor, then, in regular order, the
occupant of his place, our holy and most beloved Pope,
the Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this holy synod
to supply his place." (lb.) The same legate had
previously addressed the council in the following
terms : " We acknowledge our thanks to the holy and
208 SUPREMACY OF THE
venerable synod, that the letters of our holy and blessed
Pope having been read to you, you have united your
holy members, by your holy voices and acclamation,
to that holy head ; for your blessedness is not igno-
rant that the blessed Peter, the apostle, was the head
of all the faith, as also of the apostles." (lb. Act. ii.)
How can any one who attentively considers all these
proceedings, doubt that the Bishop of Rome, at that
early period, possessed the same authority as is now
claimed by his successors? That Pope Celestine
claimed such authority is proved by the authoritative
judgment and decisive sentence which he pronounced
against the patriarch of the Imperial City. That he
claimed no more than he actually possessed, is proved,
first, by the course of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria,
who appealed to Celestine as " holding the citadel of
the high priesthood," and awaited his judgment be-
fore taking any measures in the case ; secondly, by
the declarations of the legates, in the presence of the
council ; and thirdly, by the acknowledgment of the
two hundred bishops who composed the council, who,
in pronouncing sentence upon Nestorius, declared
that they were " compelled" to do so by the " epistle
of their most holy father," the Bishop of Rome. This
last circumstance is plainly the strongest proof that
can be reasonably asked. A general council, acting
under the direction of the Pope, and claiming his au-
thority in condemning and deposing one of the highest
dignitaries of the church, is surely the most conclu-
sive evidence of his supreme and universal jurisdic-
tion. Rome had then ceased to be the capital of the
empire. Its grandeur and power had been transferred
to Constantinople, and thus surrounded the see of the
very bishop upon whom this severe act of discipline
was exercised ; consequently it was no such influences
as these that led the council to act under the authority
of the Bishop of Rome. Moreover, this council was
held, not at Rome, but at Ephesus, a remote city in
the east ; consequently it was not under the operation
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 209
of local influences. It is evident, therefore, that this
manifest recognition of his supreme jurisdiction is to
be attributed to nothing else than the cause assigned
by the legates, in their addresses to the council, viz.
that St. Peter, "down to the present time, and forever,
lives and judges in his successors" — the Bishops of
Rome. But we shall presently see that the very next
general council recognized in a similar, and, if pos-
sible, still more striking manner, the supreme autho-
rity of the Roman See. But before we proceed to it,
we must exhibit the testimony of two or three eminent
fathers, who flourished between the two periods.
St. Vincent, of Lerins, author of the celebrated
dictum " Quod semper, quod ubique," &c, says :
" Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, the bishop of the
Apostolic See, in conjunction, indeed, with his col-
leagues, yet in a more conspicuous manner than they,
resisted innovation, judging it fit, as I think, that he
should excel all the rest in the devotedness of his
faith as much as he surpassed thern in the authority
of his station." (Commonit. c 8.) And again, allud-
ing to the letters of Pope Julius which were read in
the Council of Ephesus, he calls him the " head of
the world." Thus he says, " that not only the head
of the world, but also its sides might give testimony
for that judgment, the most blessed Cyprian, Bishop
of Carthage and Martyr, was brought forward from
the south, St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, from the
north." (lb. Cap. Penul.) Surely Catholics of the
present day are not accustomed to designate the Pope
by a stronger term than this of St. Vincent, "the head
of the world."
St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, em-
ploys with reference to the Pope an expression very
similar to that of one of the legates in the Council of
Ephesus. "In all things we exhorted you to attend
obediently to those things which were written by the
most beloved Pope of the Roman State, since beloved
Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, supplies
10*
210 SUPREMACY OF THE
the truth of faith to those who seek it." (Ep. ad
Eutych.)
St. Prosper, a learned layman of Aquitain, and
cotemporary with St. Augustine, in whose defence
he wrote several works, is another witness. He says,
"A council of two hundred and fourteen bishops be-
ing held at Carthage, the synodical decrees were sent
to Pope Zosimus, which being approved of, the Pela-
gian heresy was condemned throughout the whole
world." (In Chronico.) And again, speaking of the
condemnation of the Pelagians by the Pope, he ex-
claims, " See the rebels every where laid prostrate by
the thunderbolt of the Apostolic decision." (In Obtrect.
Aug.) And again, he calls Rome "the throne of
Peter," " the throne of Apostolic power," " the See of
Peter, which being made to the world the head of
pastoral honor, possesses by religion what it does not
possess by arms." (Carm. de Ingrat.)
Besides the facts already mentioned as proving the
supreme and universal authority of the Bishop of
Rome, many others, such as cases of appeal, &c, oc-
curred about this period, which ought not to be omit-
ted. But as it would be tedious to give an account
of each one with authorities, we will merely mention
those which are expressly acknowledged by Dr. Bar-
row, and in his own words. After mentioning the
appeal of Marcian, Fortunatus, and Felecissimus, in
the days of Cyprian, he thus proceeds: "So likewise
Martianus and Basilides, in St. Cyprian, being ousted
of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian pro-
fession, did fly to St. Stephen (the Pope) for succor, to
be restored. So Maximus, the Cynic, went to Rome
to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople.
So Marcellus, being rejected for heterodoxy, went
thither to get attestation to his orthodoxy, of which
St. Basil complaineth. So Apiarius, being condemned
in Africa for his crimes, did appeal to Rome. And on
the other side Athanasius being with great partiality
condemned by the Synod of Tyre ; Paulus and other
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 211
bishops being extruded from their Sees for orthodoxy;
Chrysostom being condemned and expelled by The-
ophilus and his complices ; Flavianus being- deposed
by Dioscorus and the Ephesine Synod ; Theodoret be-
ing condemned by the same, did cry out for help to
Rome. Chelidonius, Bishop of Besancon, being de-
posed by Hilarius of Aries, for crimes, did fly to Pope
Leo." (Pope's Sup. Sup. v, no. 12.) Here we see
that men of every country, including some of the
highest dignitaries of the church, those whose cause
was bad and those whose cause was good, when con-
demned at home made a final appeal to the Bishop of
Rome. What could be a stronger proof that the su-
preme authority of the Pope was universally acknow-
ledged. Men do not appeal except to tribunals of
acknowledged authority. Whether innocent or guilty
they do not flee for succor, except to those who have
power or authority to afford it.
One of the bishops above named, Theodoret, is a
strong witness for the supremacy, not merely by his-
appeal but also by the language which he employed
with reference to the Holy See. This father was
bishop of Cyrus in Syria, and author of the Ecclesi-
astical History before cited. Having been unjustly
condemned by a council in the East, he appealed to the
Holy See. Writing to Pope Leo he says : " I await
the sentence of the Apostolic See, and I implore and
entreat your Holiness to succor me who appeal to
your righteous and just tribunal." — (Inter. Ep. Leon,
52.) And writing to one of the Pope's legates he says,
" That most holy See has the headship over all the
churches of the world." (Ep. 116 ad Ren.)
Barrow gives another string of facts which are wor-
thy of weight in the discussion. He says, "Our ad-
versaries do oppose some instances of Popes meddling
in the constitution of bishops ; as Pope Leo saith, that
Anatolius did 'by the favor of his assent obtain the
bishopric of Constantinople.' The same Pope is al-
ledged as having confirmed Maximus of Antioch. The
212 SUPREMACY OF THE
same doth write to the bishop of Thessalonica, his
vicar, that he should ' confirm the elections of bishops
by his authority.' He also confirmed Donatus, an
African bishop : l We will that Donatus preside over
the Lord's flock, upon condition that he remember to
send us an account of his faith.' Pope Da-
masus did confirm the ordination of Peter Alexan-
drinus." (lb. Sup. 6.)
Here again are facts (and the number might be
easily multiplied) which afford conclusive evidence
that the jurisdiction of the Pope was universal. That
it was not mere usurpation is proved by the many
testimonies drawn from various sources, which have
been already spread before our readers, and particu-
larly the part which Pope Celestine performed in the
case of Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus.
But Barrow has prepared for our use another series
of facts equally conclusive. They are cases in which
the Popes appointed certain bishops in various parts
of the world to act as their vicars. The first instance
he names is that of Cyril, who, as we have already
informed our readers, was authorized by the Pope to
act as his deputy in the matter of Nestorius. Barrow
says, " Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his
room. Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constanti-
nople ; Pope Felix, Acacius of Constantinople ; Pope
Hermisdas, Epiphanius of Constantinople ; Pope Sim-
plicius to Zeno, bishop of Seville : ' We thought it
convenient that you should be held up by the vica-
riate authority of our See.' So did Siricius and his
successors constitute the bishops of Thessalonica to be
their vicars in the diocess of Illyricum. So did Pope
Zosimus bestow a like pretence of vicarious power
upon the bishop of Aries," (fee. (lb. Sup. 6.) Now when
we remember that the bishops who were thus constituted
for certain purposes the vicars of the Holy See, resided
in distant and various parts of the world, some in the
West and others in the East, and occupied (some of
them) the highest Sees, after Rome, in Christendom,
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 213
we cannot but recognize in these facts most indubitable
proofs of the Pope's supremacy. The reader must
feel curious to know how Barrow himself evades the
force of these decisive facts. He is content with de-
signating them a "fine trick of the Popes/' "very
serviceable,, to the enlargement of their power," by
which they " pretended to impart authority" to these
vicars.* But the absurdity of supposing that such
men as the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constanti-
nople would have allowed themselves to be the dupes
of a " fine trick," invented by the Bishop of Rome for
the increase of his own power, is too palpable to re-
quire exposure.
An impartial judge will view these facts as proving
beyond doubt, (especially when considered in connec-
tion with the many other proofs which have been
mentioned,) that supreme and universal authority was
both claimed by the Popes and practically acknow-
ledged by the highest dignitaries of the church in
every part of the world. We would take the liberty
of commending the case of St. Cyril to the considera-
tion of those Protestant churchmen who are so fond
of denouncing the Apostolic vicars of the present day
as the " vassals of the Pope." Surely if one so emi-
nent both in character and station as St. Cyril, and
one who flourished at so early a period, consented to
act in this capacity, it cannot, to say the least, be de-
rogatory to a bishop of our day. And indeed the
Council of Ephesus, as we have just seen, acted in a
similar capacity in deposing Nestorius.
About the year 450 all the bishops of the province
of Aries united in drawing up an address to St. Leo,
Bishop of Rome, imploring his interposition in behalf
of the privileges of the See of Aries. The address
* It is plainly a " fine trick" of Barrow's to affect to despise what
he cannot answer by sound logic. Even the testimony of the most
eminent fathers he passes by with a sneer. Thus speaking of their
testimony in favor of St. Peter's primacy, he says, they " common-
ly harp on the same notion !"
214 SUPREMACY OP THE
contains this remarkable passage : " The Holy Roman
Church, through the most blessed Peter, prince of the
Apostles, has the principality above all the churches
of the world." (Ep. 65, inter Leonis Ep.) Here is the
strongest testimony both to the fact of the supremacy
of the Holy See, and also to the fact that that supre-
macy was inherited from St. Peter.
About the same period the Emperor Valentinian,
writing to Theodosius, Emperor of the East, respect-
ing the heresies then prevalent, affords the following
strong testimony : " We are bound to preserve invio-
late in our times the prerogative of particular reve-
rence to the blessed Apostle Peter, that the most blessed
Bishop of Rome, to whom antiquity assigned the priest-
hood over all, may have place and opportunity of
judging concerning the faith and the priests." (Con.
Hard. 7. pp. 35, 36.)
It is very common for Protestants to urge against
the supremacy an objection founded upon a certain
passage in the writings of Gregory the Great, which
it may be well to notice in this place. The passage
alluded to is generally cited thus: "Whosoever calls
himself universal bishop is the forerunner of anti-
Christ. , ' But this cannot militate against the supre-
macy, for various reasons. For, first, it was merely
the title " universal bishop," that Gregory censured.
The Bishop of Constantinople had arrogantly assumed
this title. Gregory understood the title as implying
that the Bishop of Constantinople was the only bishop
in Christendom, which is evident from another pas-
sage ; thus he says, alluding to the use of this title by
John, Bishop of Constantinople, " It is a lamentable
thing" that he "despising all others endeavors to be
called the only bishop." (L, 5, Ep. 21.) Although the
Bishops of Rome claimed and possessed general juris-
diction over the church as inheritors of the prerogatives
of St. Peter, yet they carefully abstained from the use of
titles, savoring of pride and arrogance and disparaging
to their fellow bishops. They rather preferred to
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 215
style themselves " servant of servants." But, secondly,
Gregory lived at the close of the sixth century. Now
it is admitted by Protestants that the Pope exercised
universal authority long before that period, which is
shown indeed by the facts just cited from Barrow.
We have seen that Faber allows that a considerable
advance had been made in the days of Tertullian,
" that is four centuries before St. Gregory." And Dr.
Hopkins says, " Nor is it to be disputed, that in draw
ing to the close of the fourth century we find increas-
ing proofs of the advancement of those claims (of Ro-
man supremacy) towards the zenith of their maturity."
(Ch. of Rome, p. 295.)
And thirdly : That St. Gregory did not by this pas-
sage condemn the claims of the Papacy, is certain
from the fact that he himself, as successor of St. Pe-
ter, claimed and exercised universal jurisdistion over
the church. This is proved first by his own words.
Thus he says : " As to what they say concerning the
Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject
to the Apostolic See ? This is constantly avowed by
the most pious emperor, and by our brother the bishop
of that city." — (L. ix. Ep. xii.) And in another place,
speaking of a certain bishop who wished to be exempt
from the jurisdiction of his metropolitan, he says :
" If it be pretended that the bishop has neither a me-
tropolitan nor patriarch, I answer, that then his cause
is to be heard and decided by the See Apostolic, which
is the head of all churches" — (L. xi. Ep. 56.) It is
proved, secondly, by his actions. Thus in sending
Augustine to Britain, he gaye him jurisdiction over
the bishops who already occupied a portion of the
island. "We commit," said he, "the care of all the
British bishops to you, brother, that the unlearned
may be instructed, the weak strengthed by advice, the
perverse authoritatively corrected." — (Ep. 64.) Here
we may remind the reader that it was this same Greg-
ory, by the agency of Augustine, that founded the See
of Canterbury among the Pagan Saxons. And to this
216 SUPREMACY OF THE
day all the bishops of the Church of England are
subject to that See !
And again : Gregory exercised authority in Spain.
He directed his legate to examine the case of Janua-
rius, who had been deposed, and if found innocent,
to reinstate him in his See ; and further, to inflict due
punishment upon the intruder, and upon those who
had been guilty of deposing the innocent bishop. —
(L. xiii. Ep. 45.) He also directed the Bishop of Nu-
midia, in Africa, to investigate the case of a certain
deacon who had been deposed by his bishop, and if
found innocent, to subject the bishop to canonical
punishment. — (L. xii. Ep. viii.) Thus did Gregory
exert this supreme authority, which he possessed as
successor of St. Peter, in every part of the world,
in establishing order and government, in correcting
abuses, and in vindicating the oppressed. And thus,
indeed, in every age, the occupants of the Holy See
have performed the duties of their responsible office
as Vicars of Christ in the government of His church.
And it is a fact, which we cannot regard but as a
judgment of the Almighty, that among the many
"branches" (so called) separated from that See, there
is not one which is not at this moment suffering the
most direful evils from the want of that wholesome
superintendence and protection. We have already al-
luded to this subject in a note, and our limits will not
allow us to add much more. Among the Oriental
Christians, even the Patriarchal See is often sold to
the highest bidder ! And in the English Church, the
Sees are always filled by the choice and nomination
of the reigning sovereign, whether that sovereign be
man, woman, or child ! And the many scandalous
contentions which have been caused by the popular
elections in the Protestant Episcopal Church, are too
well known to require specification. We have no de-
sire to taunt our former associates with these lament-
able defects. We well know that there are many
among them who mourn over them, and would fain
^P*
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 217
see them rectified. But does not the history of the
last three hundred years conclusively prove that the
only remedy is to be found in reunion with the Holy
See?
For further testimony to the supremacy of the Pope
in the ancient church, we will now pass to the pro-
ceedings of the fourth general council, which was
held at Chalcedon A. D. 451.
We shall first consider the evidence which the acts
of this council are supposed to furnish in opposition
to the supremacy. A canon was drawn up at this
council, to which Protestant churchmen often appeal
with much confidence, but which, when candidly and
thoroughly examined, is found to be destitute of the
least weight in the controversy. The canon referred
to is thus given in a collection made by an Anglican
clergyman : " We, following in all things the deci-
sions of the holy fathers, and acknowledging the
canon of the 150 most religious bishops which has
just been read, do also determine and decree the same
things respecting the privileges of the most holy city
of Constantinople, new Rome. For the fathers pro-
perly gave the primacy to the throne of the elder
Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the
150 most religious bishops, being moved with the
same intention, gave equal privileges to the most holy
throne of new Rome, judging with reason that the
city which was honored with the sovereignty and
senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the
elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her
in ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her."
It then goes on to define what countries or diocesses
should be subject to this See. — (Vid. Hammond's " De-
finitions," &c, pp. 113, 114.) The " canon of the 150
bishops" alluded to, is the 3d canon of Constantino-
ple, which Hammond gives thus : ■ The Bishop of
Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after
the Bishop of Rome, because that Constantinople is
new Rome." — (lb. p. 65.)
218 SUPREMACY OP THE
Now it must be observed that neither of these can-
ons pretends to give the primacy to Constantinople in
preference to Rome. On the contrary, it is expressly
asserted in the canon of Constantinople, that it was a
primacy " after the bishop of Rome ;" and in the canon
of Chalcedon, it is expressly stated that they designed
merely to " determine and decree the same things" as
the fathers of Constantinople. Consequently, it is
evident that whatever was the nature of this " prima-
cy," it was a primacy in subordination to the Bishop
of Rome. It should be further observed, that the
word translated " primacy" is the same word as, in
other parts of the canon, is translated "privileges."
The object of the canon was to elevate the Bishop of
Constantinople, not above the Bishop of Rome, nor
even to a state of official equality with him, as any
one will see by inspecting the canon, but to the rank
of patriarch. This is expressly stated by Hammond,
•who remarks, upon the authority of Beveridge, that
" before the passing of this canon," the Bishop of Con-
stantinople, although possessing an " honorary prece-
dency," " had never been canonically raised to the
rank of patriarch." " By this canon, however, he was
raised to that rank, and his patriarchal power was ex-
tended over the three diocesses of Pontus, Asia, and
Thrace."— (lb. p. 123.) Hence it is evident that the
primacy referred to in the canon is merely a patriar-
chal primacy. But further : This canon, whatever
it prescribes, is destitute of oecumenical authority. It
was passed merely by Eastern bishops. This coun-
cil was composed of Oriental bishops, with the excep-
tion of four representatives from the Western church.
Constantinople having become the imperial city, these
Oriental bishops were anxious to have its See raised
to a higher rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. And
after its deliberations upon doctrinal points were con-
cluded, and after the representatives from the West-
ern church had left, these Eastern bishops drew up
this canon. On the following day the Western re-
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 219
presentatives entered their protest against the canon
on the ground that it was contrary to the sixth canon
of the first General Council of Nice.* That canon
declares that the ancient privileges should be preserved
to all the provinces ; which is plainly contravened by
the canon of Chalcedon, since it subjects to the Bishop
of Constantinople diocesses which were not formerly
under his jurisdiction, and thereby infringes the rights
of other patriarchs, particularly the Bishops of Alex-
andria and Antioch. Hence the canon was not only
opposed at the council by the Western representatives,
but was also afterwards condemned by the Pope, who
declared that " by the authority of the Apostle Peter
he annulled all that was contrary to the Nicene can-
ons." And since the canon has never been recognized
by the Western church, it is destitute of universal
authority.
But it is objected that this canon seems to attribute
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to its being the
imperial city. But as we have already observed, it
speaks only of a patriarchal primacy — such a primacy
as belonged to patriarchs in relation to other bishops,
and not to the office of general superintendence over
the church which belonged to the bishops of Rome
as the successors of St. Peter, and which being of di-
vine origin, could not be transferred, abolished, or
abridged by canonical regulations. The reader has
seen, in the testimonies which we have adduced
from the early fathers and councils, that this office
was based on the fact that the Bishop of Rome had
inherited the peculiar prerogatives of St. Peter the
ruler of the Apostolic Church.
But that this canon was not intended to interfere
with the primacy of the Roman See, is further evident
from the proceedings of the council. After a consider-
*An eminent Anglican writer, alluding to this protest, says, it
" seems to have been very generally responded to by the judgment
and feelings of mankind." — (Bowden 8 Life of Greg. VII., Church-
man's Library, p. 279. )
220 SUPREMACY OP THE
able discussion respecting this canon between the
eastern and western representatives, "the judges''
gave their decision, in which, while they approved of
the canon itself, they expressly declared, " That the
primacy and the chief honor should by ail means be
preserved, according to the canons, to the Archbishop
of old Rome." (For this and the other facts mentioned
above, see Hammond, pp. 122, 123, 124, 125.) But we
have yet to see that these Oriental bishops, although
led by the temporal grandeur of Constantinople to
exalt its see at the expense of Alexandria and Antioch,
yet gave forth the most conclusive testimony in favor
of the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole
church, derived jure divino from St. Peter. This
council contained (as we have already stated elsewhere)
about 630 representatives, all of whom belonged to the
eastern portion of the church, except four; conse-
quently, whatever evidence their acts afford in favor
of the claims of the Holy See, must be allowed to be
of the strongest nature. The legates of the Roman
See presided in this council. The very first act of
the council attests the supreme authority of the Ro-
man See. The legates announced at the opening of
the council that they were charged by the Bishop of
Rome, " the head of all the churches" to demand that
Dioscorus should not sit, on the ground that " he had
presumed to hold a council without the authority of
the Apostolic See, which had never been done, nor
was lawful to do." (Concil. Hard. T. 2. p. 68.) This
the council at once acceded to. It must be remem-
bered that Dioscorus was Patriarch of the great See
of Alexandria. The council referred to over which
he presided was the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449,
commonly called the Latrocinium, which professed to
be oecumenical. Thus the highest bishop (after the
bishop of Rome) in Christendom, was, by an injunc-
tion of the Pope, excluded from a seat in the fourth
general council, for daring to hold a council without
his permission ; and the exercise of this immense pre-
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 221
rotative is sanctioned by an assembly of more than
600 eastern bishops.
Again. Theodoret, who, as we have seen, had
been deposed at the Latrocinium, was admitted to a
seat in this council, on the ground that the Pope had
restored to him his See. When he presented himself
the fathers of the council exclaimed, " Let the most
reverend Theodoret enter in, to partake in the proceed-
ings of the synod, since the most holy Archbishop
Leo has restored to him the bishopric." (lb. p. 72.)
And afterwards, " Theodoret is worthy of his See.*'
"Leo has judged conformably to the divine judg-
ment." (lb. p. 499.)
Again. When the letter of Pope Leo, containing
his decisions upon the points of faith under discus-
sion, was read, the bishops exclaimed, " Anathema to
him who does not believe thus. Peter has thus spoken
through Leo." (lb. p. 305.) Although the formula
of faith proposed in this letter of St. Leo was stoutly
disputed for some time by a portion of the council,
yet it was finally subscribed by all ; and it has ever
since been regarded by the whole church as an autho-
ritative exposition. It was promulged by order of the
council, "as being agreeable to the confession of the
great Peter, and being as it were a common pillar
against those who are of wrong opinions." (lb. p. 456.)
Again. Dioscorus having been tried and con-
demned, sentence was pronounced upon him by the
legates of the Holy See, in the following terms : "The
most holy Archbishop of Rome, Leo, through us and
this present council, with the apostle St. Peter, who
is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church,
and of the orthodox faith, deprives him of the epis-
copal dignity, and every sacerdotal ministry." (lb. 345.)
Thus this great council, containing more than 600
bishops, did not venture to depose the Patriarch of
Alexandria, except in the name, and by the authority
of the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter. So entirely
did they regard themselves as only his agents in this
222 SUPREMACY OP THE
terrible act of discipline, that the Pope himself is said
to perform the act through them. We cannot con-
ceive of a stronger attestation than this of the supre-
macy of the Bishop of Rome. The reader will here
recollect that the third general council, in deposing
Nestorius, likewise Patriarch of Alexandria, acknow-
ledged themselves " constrained so to do by the
epistle" of the Pope. It is therefore evident that
the supremacy of the Pope has been plainly recog-
nized by two councils acknowledged by Protestant
churchmen as oecumenical. What more can be rea-
sonably demanded ? Although they enacted no canon
upon the subject, yet their testimony is not the less
weighty. Every one familiar with the acts of coun-
cils knows that it was not customary to frame canons
upon points of this nature ; and, indeed, rarely upon
any point until disputed. No council ever passed a
canon requiring an assent to the distinction jure
divino between a bishop and a presbyter. An im-
pugner of episcopacy might with as much reason de-
mand an ancient canon as an impugner of the papacy.
We are called upon here to notice a dishonorable
suppression of the truth on the part of Barrow. He
alledges as an argument against the supremacy that
the Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius, and that
the Council of Chalcedon, not Leo, deposed Dios-
corus. But if he had informed his readers, as honesty
required, that in both cases the deposition was per-
formed in the name and by the authority of the Pope,
they would have seen that the facts which he men-
tions were not only no proofs against the supremacy,
but the strongest possible proofs in its favor. We
are sorry to be compelled to say, that in the course of
our investigation we have discovered many misre-
presentations of this nature, and some much worse
in authors of high repute among Protestant church-
men. Whether they be intentional or not, they show
the necessity of our going to the original sources of
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 223
information, or if this be impracticable, of our reading
the other side of the controversy.
But we have not yet seen all the testimony of the
fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. After the con-
demnation of Dioscorus, they drew up an epistle to
the Empress Pulcheria, containing the following pas-
sage : " The governors (the bishops) have now re-
sumed the management of their ships, Christ being
the Pilot, who, through the admirable Leo, pointed
the way to truth. As He made use of the wisdom of
Peter, so has he used the wisdom of Leo." (lb. p. 381.)
And yet again. At the close of the council, they drew
up an address to the Bishop of Rome, containing the
following decisive testimony : " In the person of Peter,
appointed our interpreter, you preserved the chain of
faith, by the command of our Master, descending to
us ; wherefore, using you as a guide, we have sig-
nified the truth to the faithful." " Over these (who
composed the council) you presided as the head over
the members, by those who held your rank." " We
entreat you, therefore, to honor our decision by your
decrees ; and as we agreed with the head, so let your
Eminence complete what is proper for your children."
" Besides this, Dioscorus carries his rage even against
him, to whom Christ committed the custody of the
vineyard, that is, against your Apostolic Holiness."
(lb. p. 656, et seq.) Here, surely, we have the most
conclusive testimony in favor of the supreme head-
ship of the Pope, and that as derived, not from the
greatness of the Roman City, not from the regulations
of ecclesiastical canons, but from Jesus Christ, through
St. Peter. When it is remembered that here were
more than 600 eastern bishops, all naturally prone to
exalt the See of Constantinople, no impartial reader
can fail to recognize in the extracts furnished from
their proceedings, the clearest and strongest proof of
the doctrine under discussion.
We might easily go on to accumulate testimonies
after this period ; for as the ecclesiastical records from
224
SUPREMACY OF THE
this time have been handed down to us in greater
abundance, so likewise the proofs of the supremacy-
are found in every direction with overwhelming pro-
fusion. But we have already far exceeded our con-
templated limits, and we must bring our remarks to a
close. We have exhibited a chain of testimonies
drawn from the very best authorities of the ancient
church, and extending from the close of the apostolic
age down to the fourth oecumenical council, A. D. 451.
The testimonies produced from the earliest fathers
are as full as can be reasonably expected, when it is
considered how few of their works have come down
to us. They are as full as can be adduced in favor
of episcopacy, or infant baptism, and far more full than
such as can be adduced in favor of certain books of
Scripture which Protestants as well as Catholics re-
receive.* If, then, we hold to these, consistency as well
as truth requires that we assent to the supremacy. But
Protestant churchmen, in defending episcopacy, infant
baptism, or any article of faith, do not confine them-
selves to the testimony of the earliest fathers, that is,
those of the second century ; on the contrary, they
appeal to those of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries ;
and, indeed, they openly profess to acknowledge the
authority of the fourth general council. They can-
not, therefore, with the least consistency refuse to
allow the testimony of the fathers upon the supre-
macy as far down as that council. Some of them
maintain that councils are of authority only as wit-
nesses of the received doctrine of the church. This
is enough, so far as concerns the present discussion ;
for certainly the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon
* Of the 27 books contained in the New Testament, 14 are not
mentioned at all by any father until the latter part of the second
century ; and the remaining 13 are quoted by but one writer during
the same period. The Epistle to the Hebrews was not received in
the Western Churches until about A. D. 400. And on the other
hand, the Apocalypse was rejected by the Eastern Churches until
the same period; — and the Epistle of St. James was considered
doubtful in many parts until a still later period.
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 225
gave forth the most explicit witness in behalf of the
supremacy.
Even the Nicene creed was drawn up by the fathers
of the fourth century, not without opposition and con-
tinued resistance from many bishops. And the Atha-
nasian creed, which is received by the Anglican
church, was not drawn up until the fifth century;
and the canon of Scripture was not fully settled until
the fathers of the fifth century gave forth their verdict.
To receive the testimony of the fathers of the fourth
and fifth centuries upon these points, and yet reject it
upon the supremacy, is only to receive or reject it ac-
cording as it suits our own views.
It would surely be far more consistent to reject the
fathers altogether, with ultra-protestants, and abide by
the "private interpretation" of Scripture. Let the
fathers, from St. Ignatius down to the Council of
Chalcedon, be used and judged in this question as they
are by Protestants in the other points named, and the
proof will be overwhelming. Many learned Protes-
tant divines, especially Anglicans, of a more impartial
temper, have made acknowledgments in favor of the
supremacy, which serve to confirm the claims of
Catholics. A few of them shall now be added. The
learned Mosheim states in his Church History, that
the Bishop of Rome " is supposed by Cyprian to have
had at this time (third century) a certain preeminence
in the church ; nor does he stand alone in this opin-
ion." And again, in his account of the third century, he
says, " The preeminence of the Bishop of Rome in the
universal church, was such as that of Cyprian, Bishop
of Carthage, was in the African churches." (Vol. i.
p. 83, 84.) Now the preeminence of Cyprian was not
merely a preeminence of " honor" but also of autho-
rity and jurisdiction ; for he was a metropolitan, and
like other metropolitans, he exercised authority and
jurisdiction over the bishops of his province. (Vid.
Hammond, p. 26.)* Consequently, by the admission of
* This work is here and elsewhere referred to in preference to
11
226 SUPREMACY OF THE
this eminent Protestant, the preeminence of the Bishop
of Rome, in the universal church," in the third cen-
tury, must have been a preeminence of authority and
jurisdiction.
The admission of Faber has been already given,
viz., that " in the days of Tertullian (second century) a
considerable advance had plainly been made by the See
of Rome in the claim of the primacy ;" and also the ad-
mission of Bishop Hopkins, that a " beginning" of the
doctrine is found in St. Cyprian. And the historian
Gibbon says, " The bishops of Italy, and of the Pro-
vinces, were disposed to allow them (the Bishops of
Rome) a primacy of order and association." (Vol. ii.
p. 108.) In a note on this page he refers to the writ-
ings of Irengeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, in support
of this statement, adding that certain Protestants
"labor in the interpretation of these passages; but
the loose and rhetorical style of the fathers often
appears favorable to the pretensions of Rome."
The learned Hallam likewise acknowledges that
" almost as far back as ecclesiastical testimonies can
carry us, the Bishops of Rome had been venerated as
first in rank among the rulers of the church." (Mid.
Ages, ch. vii. p. 269.) And again, he says, " Ire-
riaeus rather vaguely, and Cyprian more positively,
admit, or rather assert, the primacy of the Church of
Rome, which the latter seems to have regarded as a
kind of centre of Catholic unity." (lb. p. 270.) Now
since these two historians were by no means partial to
the Catholic Church, and also since they were not
concerned in the controversy, the fact that they inter-
preted the testimonies of the early church in favor of
the supremacy, ought to have much weight with all
inquirers, especially such as cannot go to the original
sources. It ought also, we think, to lead those who
take a different view of these early testimonies to in-
quire seriously whether their judgment in the matter
original sources, because, while it is of authority among Protestant
Churchmen, it is at the same time easier of access to most readers.
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 227
has not been warped by the bias of education, or by
that repugnance to a change of sentiment which every
one feels when that change involves a change of posi-
tion, and, indeed, a complete revolution in one's course
of life.
Bowden, a distinguished clergyman of the Anglican
Church, admits that the "writers of these early times"
spoke of the " Roman See in language of unqualified
veneration ;" looked to its " occupants as to their na-
tural guides and commanders," and "expressing them-
selves as though agreement in doctrine with that cen-
tral point implied agreement with the general body of
Catholic Christendom. " (Life and Pontif. of Greg.
VII. — Churchman's Library, p. 22.) How one who
makes such admissions can be content to remain sepa-
rated from that " central point," we cannot easily con-
ceive; we must leave the problem to be solved by
our readers. However, conviction of the understand-
ing and consistent practice are too commonly di-
vorced by men in all matters connected with the sal-
vation of the soul.
We shall now give the acknowledgments of a few
of the Anglican divines of a former generation.
Thorndyke, a writer of much celebrity in his day,
was willing to allow to the Church of Rome such an
eminence over other churches " as is requisite for the
directing of such matters as might come to be of
common interest to the whole church, to such an
agreement as might preserve the unity thereof."
(Epilogue iii. p. 164.) And Archbishop Bramhall
admitted that " The Pope is above every creature,"
and that "the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St.
Peter, is principium unitatis, the beginning of unity,
and hath a principality of order above all Christians."
" To which primacy of order," he adds, "great privi-
leges are due. Itimplieth a headship as well as su-
premacy of order ; neither is it destitute of all power.
It has some power essential annexed to it, to congre-
gate, propose, give sentence — some power accessory,
to execute the canons, &c." (Apud Brit. Crit No. 64,
228 SUPREMACY OF THE
p. 352.) Hammond also allows, " the primacy and
dignity of order which belonged to Rome," and that
" in respect of order and priority of place, the Bishop
of Rome had it among the Patriarchs, as the Patriarchs
among the primates." (lb.) And even Archbishop
Cranmer, it seems, was willing to allow that the his-
torical or traditional evidence was in favor of the
primacy of Rome. " If traditions apostolic," said he,
" have the force of God's word, so that every one is
bound to the observation of them, the Bishop of Rome
hath the advantage thereby to establish his pri-
macy." (lb. p. 355.)*
We have cited these authors, as a confirmation, as
far as they go, of the view which we have taken of
the testimony of antiquity upon the supremacy.
Every impartial judge will allow that that testimony
must, indeed, be overwhelming, to extort such acknow-
ledgments from men in their position. "Who can
avoid the conviction that had they been differently
situated, that is, free from the bias of education, and
unconnected with an ecclesiastical system at variance
with the Holy See, they would have recognized in
that testimony, and recognized practically, as much
as even Bellarmine himself did ?
It is certainly a strong confirmation of the divine
origin of the supremacy, that its opposers cannot agree
as to when it first appeared in the church. Some of
them will not allow it to be older than the seventh or
sixth century; others admit that it can be traced back
as far as the fifth or even fourth century; and others
again allow it to be as old as the second century. In
this respect also there is a striking correspondence
between them and the impugners of episcopacy. Now
the supremacy involves prerogatives which, had they
not been transmitted from the apostolic age as divinely
ordained, could not have been claimed by any bishop
without causing the greatest commotion and disturb-
ance throughout the whole church. And this, of
* Cranmer, like a true Protestant, was for judging this and simi-
lar questions by " the Bible, and the Bible only."
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 229
course, would have formed a marked epoch in eccle-
siastical history* far more prominent than that of the
"Great Reformation." The truth of this remark
cannot be doubted, when we remember how stoutly
Protestant bishops oppose the supremacy as involv-
ing an infringement of their rights and of the laws of
Christ, and as leading to "vassalage," &c. Were
not the holy and venerable bishops of antiquity mind-
ful of those rights and laws ? Were they men that
would submit to usurpation and tyranny? And yet
we do not read of any such commotion and disturb-
ance as such a usurpation would have naturally pro-
duced ; consequently, no such usurpation occurred ; it
was but the exercise of divinely instituted preroga-
tives. Who is so credulous as to believe it possible
that all the " independent diocesses" of Christendom
were without a struggle consolidated into one univer-
sal monarchy, and that without our being able to de-
signate the period of this vast change ? Here we may
adopt, mutatis mutandis, with equal force, the reason-
ing of Chilling worth against the allegation that epis-
copacy was established by such a revolution. " When
I shall see all the fables of the metamorphosis acted
and prove true stories ; when I shall see all the de-
mocracies and aristocracies in the world lie down and
sleep and awake into monarchies, then will I begin
to believe that [parity among bishops] having con-
tinued in the church during the apostles' time, should
presently after, against the apostles' doctrine, and the
will of Christ, be whirled about like a scene in a
mask, and transformed into [the papacy."]
No one acquainted with the history of the Holy
Roman See, can fail to recognize in it a strong confir-
mation of its claim. Certainly Providence has watched
over it in a most remarkable manner. In the days of
St. Paul its "faith was celebrated in all the world;"
and in every subsequent age it has enjoyed the same
glorious characteristic. Of the 250 bishops who have
occupied, in regular succession, the See of St. Peter,
230 SUPREMACY OF THE
not one can be justly said to have lapsed into heresy.
If we remember rightly, the most strenuous opposers
of the Papacy among Anglican writefs do not even
accuse more than two of them of having erred in a
point of faith ; and these two can be satisfactorily
cleared from the charge. Thus the superior office as-
signed by our Blessed Lord to St. Peter, when he
commanded him to " strengthen his brethren," has
been fulfilled also in his successors in every subse-
quent age. And so also with regard to the declara-
tion, "that thy faith fail not."
The same remarkable Providence is seen in the
perpetuity and vigor of this See amid all the vicissi-
tudes of time, and amid the combined assaults of
schism, heresy, and infidelity. Where is the once
powerful See of Alexandria? Where are the other great
Sees of Antiquity? Alas! scarcely one remains. The
enemies of the Papacy exulted in the prospect of its
downfall when Napoleon laid sacrilegious hands upon
God's Anointed. But Napoleon has been brought to
naught ; and his august captive still lives in the
worthy and distinguished inheritor of his name and
place, to whom all eyes are turned with admiration
and rapture.
The continual growth of the Catholic Church, in
spite of every kind of opposition, is so remarkable that
even her enemies are struck with wonder. One of
the most celebrated Protestant writers of the age — T.
B. Macaulay — has paid the following beautiful tribute
to the venerable antiquity and indomitable vigor and
energy of the Holy See.
" The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday,
when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs.
That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from
the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth
century, to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the
eighth ; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august
dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable.
The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But
HOLY ROMAN SEE. 231
the republic of Venice was modern when compared
with tin 4 Papacy; and the republic, of Venice is gone,
and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not
in decay, not a mere antique, but. rail of life and
youthful vigor. The Catholic Church is still sending
forth, to the farthest ends of the world, missionaries as
zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine ;
and still confronting hostile kings with the same
spirit with which she confronted Altila. The number
of her children is greater than in any other age. Her
acquisitions in the New World have more than com-
pensated her for what she has lost in the Old. Her
spiritual ascendancy extends over the vast countries
which lie between the plains of the Missouri and
Cape Horn — countries which, a century hence, may
not improbably contain a population as large as that
which now inhabit Europe. The members of her
communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred
and fifty millions ; and it will be difficult to show that
all the other Christian sects united amount to a hun-
dred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign
which indicates that the term of her long dominion is
approaching. She saw the commencement of all the
governments, and of all the ecclesiastical establish-
ments that now exist in the world; and we feel no
assurance that she is not destined to see the end of
them all." (Ed. Rev. Oct. 1840.)
Let the reader who is really desirous to ascertain
the truth, make a review of the proofs which have
been presented in the course of the present treatise ;
let him consider them in their united force, and he
cannot but admit that the following propositions have
been fully established. First, that St. Peter possessed
in the Apostolic Church a primacy of universal juris-
diction. Second, that that primacy has been trans-
mitted to his successors in the Holy Roman See.
Third, that all the followers of Christ are under a
moral obligation to submit and adhere to that See, as
the centre of unity and authority in the one visible
church.
232 CONCLUSION.
CONCLUSION.
There are but few who are not painfully sensible
of the evils of schism. It is one of the hopeful signs
of the times that the great mass of Protestants are be-
ginning to lament their divisions and to yearn after
unity. But whither can they look for the remedy
but to the venerable See of St. Peter, in which Al-
mighty God has lodged the principle of unity ? The
history of Protestantism furnishes strong arguments in
favor of the divine institution of the Papacy. It has
demonstrated its necessity.
Protestant churchmen are accustomed to maintain
that they are not chargeable with the divisions of Pro-
testantism. But that this is an egregious mistake is
clearly proved by the reasons which we have spread
before our readers, in proof of the universal authority
of the Holy See. Having separated from that See,
they have cut themselves off from the visible church,
in common with other Protestants. But if the Suffi-
ciency of this argument be denied, it can be proved
upon other ground ; for it is undeniable that they have
acted upon the same principle — the principle of " pri-
vate judgment." The existing church, for the time
being, is the authorized guide of every individual, both
lay and clerical. He who sets aside that guide, fol-
lows his " private judgment," no matter whether he
appeals to Scripture or to antiquity, or to both com-
bined. The English Reformers, Cranmer, Henry VIIL,
&c, set aside the teaching of the existing church of
their day — that church which, as its members, they
were bound to obey — on the ground that it was cor-
rupt. Thus they plainly acted according to their
" private judgment," in opposition to the church.
Presbyterians, and others, in leaving the Anglican
church, did no more. They believed the Anglican
church corrupt, and like her appealed to Scripture
and the primitive church. One party may have re-
CONCLUSION. 233
jected a little more of Catholicity than the other, but
they both acted on the same principle ; and conse-
quently, Protestant churchmen nave no more right to
condemn Presbyterians than Presbyterians have to
condemn them. Hence it is evident that neither the
Anglican nor the Protestant Episcopal Church has
any authority to require her members to receive her
teaching. She was constituted by those who followed
their "private judgment;" consequently her claims
are only so far binding, as they accord with the "pri-
vate judgment" of her members. If they think her
teaching contrary to Scripture and antiquity, they
have a right to set it aside ; and Protestant churchmen
cannot justly or consistently censure them. Some of
their clergy are now insisting on the Catholic prin-
ciple, viz. of following the teaching of the church.
But this is utterly inconsistent and unreasonable in
their position ; for, first, as we have just remarked,
they themselves discarded this principle in the six-
teenth century; and, secondly, their church is con-
fessedly unworthy of the confidence of her members
as a spiritual guide ; for she acknowledges that she
may err, and if she may err, she may be teaching them
error instead of truth. How, then, can they receive
any doctrine merely on her authority? And again.
She not only acknowledges that she may err, but also
that her teaching has not always been the same. She
claims, as every one knows (or rather some of her
members claim it for her) to be the same church as
that which flourished in England between the ninth
and fifteenth centuries ; and yet she confesses that her
present teaching is not the same as during that period.
She now rejects many doctrines which she then re-
ceived and sanctioned. She was either wrong then,
or she is wrong now. She acknowledges that she
was wrong then ; but if she was wrong then, what
security have her members that she is not wrong
now ? They have nothing but her word, unless they
resort to " private judgment," which, if they do, they
234 CONCLUSION.
abandon the Catholic principle. But how can they
take her word ? for she not only acknowledges that she
may err, but she is also forced to admit that she has
erred. She admits that she was wrong for several
centuries, although she was telling her children that
she was right all the time.* If, then, she was wrong
for so long a time, while declaring that she was right,
how can they take her word now in declaring that
she is right? The witness contradicts herself, by
bearing different testimony now from what she did
then ; consequently, she is unworthy of the least con-
fidence. And when her clergy cry out, " Hear the
church P they call upon men to give credence to a
perjured witness. And when they refuse, as they are
plainly bound by every rational and moral principle
to do, is it not inexpressibly preposterous to denounce
them as "apostates," "perverts," (fee. Condemned
for refusing to hear, follow, and obey a church that
confesses that she was involved, with all her children,
in idolatry for eight hundred years, and that she is
liable every moment to err to the same extent ! Surely
the interests of an immortal soul are too vast to be
entrusted to such keeping. If she conduct her chil-
dren in the right path to-day, to-morrow she may lead
them into idolatry or Arianism, or some other destruc-
tive error. Such being the case, it is evident that
Protestant churchmen are without a competent and
authoritative guide ; and consequently without a solid
foundation for the exercise of faith. This they vir-
tually admit, when questioned as to the rule by which
* This she confesses in one of xthe Homilies in the most astound-
ing terms, thus : " So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned,
all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children, of whole
Christendom (a horrible and most dreadful thing to think) have
been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most
detested of God, and most damnable to man, and that by the space
of eight hundred years and more." (Book of Homilies, Phil. ed.
p. 216.) Thus does she affirm that she, in common with the rest
of Christendom, was drowned, with all her children, in abominable
idolatry for the space of 800 years and more. And yet men are now
told that they must submit implicitly to her teaching !
CONCLUSION. 235
they are governed. They do not dare to build their
faith upon the teaching of their own church. They
appeal not to the testimony of their church as they
plight, if she be an integral part of the Catholic Church,
but to holy Scripture and antiquity; although at
other times, with palpable inconsistency, they insist
that we must submit implicitly to her teaching. Now
it is one thing to make an appeal to Scripture and an-
tiquity, and another thing to sustain that appeal.*
And again. It is one thing to make an appeal to those
sources, and another thing to rest one's faith in this
or that dogma entirely upon that appeal. In the fore-
going treatise we have made this appeal, as Catholics
are willing to do, with those who prefer to abide by
this test ; but however satisfactory it may be to know
that Scripture and the fathers are on our side, yet we
have something additional on which to ground our
faith. The simple fact, however, that after diligent
and thorough inquiry we have discovered that Scrip-
ture and the fathers are on the Catholic side, is suffi-
cient to justify the step we have taken, since Pro-
testant churchmen allow that we are to be guided by
their teaching. It cannot be said with propriety that
the church to which we belonged, and not individuals,
is to decide as to the teaching of Scripture and the
fathers — that she, and not her children, is to make the
appeal ; for, first, this was not the doctrine of the Eng-
lish Reformers ; they would not allow the church to
which they belonged to decide this question for them
— and, certainly, others have as much right to decide
* Every one familiar with ecclesiastical history knows very well,
that in every age, heretics and schismatics have been accustomed to
appeal from the teaching of the existing church to the teaching of
Scripture, or to the teaching of the church of a former generation.
The fact that Cranmer and his followers have adopted the same
course, is one of the many tokens that their communion is no part
of the Catholic Church. The fathers may be useful among other
aids, in guiding an inquirer to the true church, but Cranmer and his
coadjutors did not need their guidance for this purpose, since they
were confessedly already in the true church.
236 CONCLUSION.
it for themselves as Cranmer had. And, secondly,
we have already shown that the Anglican church has,
by her own admission, falsified herself; and conse-
quently rendered her testimony unworthy of con-
fidence.
What advice do Protestant churchmen give when
an individual anxiously inquires how he shall ascer-
tain " whether Christianity, as taught by their church,
is genuine or corrupt?" They refer him to Scrip-
ture and the fathers. Now, although this rule, if
honestly and strictly carried out, would lead him to
the truth, yet it is liable to several fatal objections ;
first, it is not the ancient and Catholic rule, which re-
quired men to receive the fact upon the authority of
the church ; it is one of modern invention. Second,
it is impracticable to nine-tenths of mankind ; for if
it be allowed that all, or nearly so, can examine the
Scriptures, yet every one knows that it is only very
few that can make the appeal to the fathers. Now
what are those to do who cannot go to the fathers ?
It is manifest that the rule cannot be complied with
by one in ten. And how can that be the rule in the
great concerns of eternity which scarcely any can
carry out ? And third, if it were a practicable rule, still
it is by itself inadequate in matters of faith. After dili-
gent inquiry we may be satisfied that this or that doc-
trine is taught in holy Scripture, and that it was also
held in the primitive church ; but, after all, what is
this but " private judgment ?" If others examine these
sources, and draw a different conclusion, who is to de-
cide which party is right ? It is plain that an arbiter
is needed — and where but in the church shall we find
that arbiter ? The church is a divinely authorized
teacher ; and consequently what she teaches, and only
what she teaches, all men are under a moral obliga-
tion to receive. Her authority must be added to a
doctrine, in order that that doctrine may be received
with true faith. And, on the other hand, it is a re-
jection of her teaching that constitutes heresy. Hence
CONCLUSION. 237
it follows, that to refer men to Scripture, and to the
fathers, is to refer them away from their divinely ap-
pointed teacher and guide. In short, it is to direct
them to set aside the guide which God has given them,
and to constitute themselves their own guides. The
case is somewhat different as to the question, " which
is the church ?" The rule of which we speak may,
as already stated, be of service in solving this question
to a portion of mankind, but only to a portion ; for, as
we have just remarked, nine-tenths of the people can-
not go to the fathers. Hence the rule is inadequate in
this question also. The great mass of the people must
be guided in this question by outward notes or signs.
Many Protestant churchmen remain in their present
position, because they have been told that the fathers
are on their side, and against Catholicism. How far
this is true, those who have considered the testimonies
which have been presented in this volume can judge.
But a little reflection will show, that the mere fact
that certain persons of their own communion affirm,
that the fathers are in their favor, is not a sufficient
ground upon which to base their adherence ; for those
who are equally competent to decide, affirm the con-
trary. If learned men among Protestant churchmen
claim the fathers, so also learned men among Catholics
claim the fathers. The testimony of the latter is
surely as worthy of credence as the testimony of the
former — yea, more so ; for, first, they are not only in-
dividually as worthy of credence, but in point of num-
ber they are much more numerous. And secondly,
presumption is on their side ; for it will not be ques-
tioned, that when it is admitted that a doctrine has
been generally held in the church from a very remote
period, there is a strong presumption in favor of the
apostolicity of that doctrine ; and such it is well
known is the case with regard to the doctrines of the
Catholic Church.
Hence the testimony of Catholics in claiming the
fathers outweighs the testimony of Protestant church-
238 CONCLUSION.
men in claiming the fathers. But waiving this fact,
it will be allowed by every impartial judge that it is
at least equal. If then the assertion of Protestant
churchmen, that the fathers are on their side, be con-
tradicted by counter testimony equally entitled to
credence, how can that assertion be relied on by those
who are unable to examine the records of antiquity
for themselves ? Testimony which is contradicted by
testimony equally strong is no testimony at all. Hence
those who cannot go to the fathers for themselves
must find some other ground on which to base their
continuance in their present position. But what other
ground can they find? Their church is acknow-
ledged to be destitute of the usual ouhoard notes.
This was sensibly felt by those who have lately se-
ceded from her ranks, and is also now sensibly felt by
many still among them. It is notorious that it has
lately become common among them to dwell upon
the inward notes. It is usual to advise persons in
whose minds doubts have been awakened, to remain
where they are until they shall have fully reaped the
spiritual benefits which their present system affords.
And they are likewise reminded of those who have
attained to more than ordinary piety in their commu-
nion. This indeed is very plausible. But it is sadly
fallacious. This is evident from the fact that the
members of those Protestant denominations that dis-
card episcopacy can, with equal propriety, employ
this mode of reasoning to justify a continuance in
their present position. Who doubts that these deno-
minations have produced men as pious as any that
have been found in the ranks of Protestant church-
men 1* And who doubts that the members of these
denominations can become much more pious than
they yet are in their present position ? And surely
Protestant churchmen cannot consider that a sound
argument which would equally avail in favor of the
impugners of " prelacy." It is also common to tell
* Such as Summerfield, Howe, Doddridge, Edwards, &c.
CONCLUSION. 239
such persons that they are bound to remain where
they have received holy baptism, and where they have
been placed by Providence. But this is liable to the
same objection ; it would justify Protestants of every
name in remaining in their present position.
It is one of the chief evils of Protestantism that it
has unsettled questions which were long since deter-
mined by the whole of Christendom. This remark
applies to the question which has been discussed in
the preceding pages. The reader has seen that the
universal authority of the Holy See was recognized
by the ancient fathers and doctors of every part of the
world, and also by two of the earlier General Coun-
cils. But besides this, in later times the point has
been expressly decided by the General Council of
Florence, (A. D. 1439) assembled for the purpose of
settling the differences between the Greek and the
Latin churches. A decree was agreed upon at this
council declaring that the Holy Apostolic See " has
the primacy over all the earth ;" that the Bishop of
Rome is "the head of the whole church and the fa-
ther and teacher of all Christians ;" and that he has
derived from Christ, through St. Peter, " full power
of feeding, directing and governing the Universal
Church." (Hard. Con. Tom. ix. p. 9S6.) Surely
Protestant churchmen cannot reasonably hope, with
Archdeacon Manning, " to find once more their long-
lost heirloom," while rejecting a doctrine which has
been thus recognized by both East and West. They
may rest assured that a reunion without an acknow-
ledgment of this dogma will never be effected. And,
indeed, it can scarcely be considered desirable ; for
it could not last long. If the history of the church or
the history of Protestantism prove any thing, it clearly
proves that union cannot be preserved without such
an officer. So that even if the supremacy were only
of ecclesiastical appointment, there is sufficient reason
for submitting to it. When England acknowledged
this authority, all her people were of one religion.
240 CONCLUSION.
But now, alas ! how the scene is changed ! Instead
of one there are over a hundred, embracing heresies
of every name and degree ! That the Anglican church
is responsible for these divisions and heresies we have
elsewhere shown. But whether this be admitted or
not, it is certainly a significant fact that while in
England and other Protestant countries, divisions,
heresies, infidelity and indifference prevail to an
awful extent, in those countries which continue to
adhere to the Holy See there is almost perfect unani-
mity in the profession of Christianity. We must ac-
knowledge that we have never yet seen any plan pro-
posed by Protestant churchmen which promises to do
away these direful evils. Both in this country and
in England, where "church principles" have enjoyed
free scope for so long a time, divisions and heresies
have been multiplying every year. There is plainly
but one remedy. We are neither wiser nor better in
this respect than our forefathers were. Like them we
must submit and adhere to the See of Peter, " the root
and matrix of the Catholic church."
It is very commonly objected by Protestant church-
men that the Catholic church has added to the an-
cient creeds that of Pius IV., containing the supre-
macy, transubstantiation, &c. If by this it be meant
that that creed contains doctrines which were not for-
merly expressed in the ancient creed, the point is al-
lowed. But that it constitutes no valid objection is
easily shown ; for the creeds of the Anglican and Pro-
testant Episcopal church are liable to the same objec-
tion. The Athanasian creed, which is publicly recited
in the Anglican church, was not composed and set forth
by the church until at least one hundred years after
the Nicene creed. Here then was the addition of
another creed besides what was acknowledged by the
earlier church. And it is worthy of consideration by
those who object particularly or solely to the " dam-
natory clauses of the decrees of Trent, " that this creed
of Athanasius expressly asserts that those who reject it
CONCLUSION. 241
" shall perish everlastingly." Now since this creed
has not been retained in the American Prayer Book,
an American Churchman might argue against the
Anglican church just as he argues against those who
receive the creed of Pius IV. !
Again : Even the Nicene creed, in its present form,
contains several articles which were not in it when
first drawn up in the year 325. (Hammond's Def. p.
29.) The Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) en-
larged it by various important additions, which any
one will see by comparing the two. Besides this, the
clause affirming the procession of the Holy Spirit from
the Son, contained in that creed as now received both
by the Anglican and Protestant Episcopal church,
was not added until a much later period. Bishop
Pearson ascribes its insertion to Pope Nicolas in the
ninth century. (Expos, of Creed, p. 473.)
And again : Even the Apostles' creed contains two
articles which were not originally in it. Thus the
article of the "descent into hell" was added long
afterwards ; and indeed it is not to be found in any of
the " ancient creeds or rules of faith." — (Vid. Pearson
on the Creed, p. 332, note.) The same is true of the
article of the " Communion of Saints." — (lb. p. 508.)
From these facts it is evident, that if we confine our
faith to what was expressed in the earliest creeds, we
must reject much that is imposed both by the Angli-
can and P. E. Church. Hence it is no valid objec-
tion that this or that doctrine was not imposed by
the earliest creeds. It is a significant fact, that this
very objection is much relied on by Socinians in their
rejection of the orthodox faith. They maintain that
they hold the faith in its original purity, as set forth
in the Apostles' creed, and reject the additions of the
Nicene and Athanasian creeds as corruptions of a
later period. And certainly they cannot be consist-
ently condemned by Protestant churchmen, who pro-
fess to regulate their faith by a similar rule.
Every one familiar with ecclesiastical history, ought
242 CONCLUSION.
to know that during the first four or five centuries the
creeds of the church were gradually expanded to
guard against the errors of the times. A similar pro-
cess has taken place in later times. When the Arians
of the fourth century impugned the Deity of Christ,
the Council of Nice decided that that doctrine was
handed down from the Apostles, and therefore gave it
a place in the creed. So in later times, when indi-
viduals impugned the doctrines of the supremacy,
transubstantiation, &c, the church decided that these
doctrines were of Apostolical origin, and likewise
gave them a place in the creed. The Catholic Church
does not pretend to have authority to add one jot or
tittle to the " faith once delivered to the Sainls." She
claims only authority to decide whether this or that
doctrine formed originally a part of that faith, and to
require her children to receive or reject it accordingly.
And what churchman can deny that she has this au-
thority ? Even one of the 39 articles asserts that
the church " hath authority in controversies of faith."
It is wholly irrelevant, then, to affirm, that this or
that doctrine was not expressly declared in the creed
until the 13th or the 16th century. The question is,
whether it was not a part of the original Apostolical
faith? And with respect to this question, Catholics
are willing to appeal directly to the testimonies of the
early church with those who reject the authority of
the church. And whether or not they are sustained
by those testimonies, the reader can judge by the
proofs which have been presented in the preceding
pages in favor of the supremacy. After a careful ex-
amination we are satisfied that the doctrines of the
Catholic Church, rejected by Protestant churchmen,
may be as fully proved by the testimonies of the early
church as those doctrines which they acknowledge as
orthodox and Apostolical. The supremacy, however,
is the leading doctrine among the points of difference.
This being established, all the rest follow. For this
being true, the church is manifestly confined to those
CONCLUSION. 243
who acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Holy Roman
See. The communion of the Pope is the Catholic
Church of the present time. Consequently, if we are
bound to follow the teaching of the church, (which
no "sound churchman" can deny,) individuals have
no right to stand aloof until every point has been
clearly established by an appeal to antiquity: for such
a right is plainly subversive of the authority of the
church as a divinely appointed teacher and guide. In
a time when so many communions claim to be the
true church, private judgment must of course be ex-
ercised in ascertaining which of these rival commu-
nions is the genuine Catholic body. But this once
ascertained, it is then our duty to receive its teaching
and follow its guidance, with all the docility and im-
plicit confidence of children. " Verily, I say unto
you," said our Blessed Lord, "whosoever shall not re-
ceive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
not enter therein." — (Mark x. 15.) But we well know
that those who have been taught from childhood to re-
gard the Catholic Church as "fallen," "corrupt,"
"idolatrous," &c, find it difficult to surrender them-
selves to her maternal guidance even when the evi-
dence seems plainly in her favor. As we have not
room to discuss the particular points upon which
these grave charges are grounded, it may be well to
give the opinions of a few eminent Anglican divines
who appear to have examined the subject with some
degree of impartiality. Thus Archbishop Bramhall,
who has been already cited upon other points, seems
to have viewed the matter in a very different light.
After having remarked that many of the points of dif-
ference with Catholics " are mere logomachies, or
contentions about words without any just ground,"
&c, he says: "When all these empty names and
titles of controversies are wiped out of the roll, the
true controversy between us may be quickly mastered,
and will not be found, upon a serious inquiry, to be
244
CONCLUSION.
so irreconcileable as some persons have imagined." —
(Apud Brit. Crit., No. 64, p. 348.)
And Thorndyke says : " Yet I must and do freely
profess that I find no position necessary for salvation
prohibited, none destructive of salvation enjoined to
be believed in it ; and therefore must I necessarily ac-
cept it for a true church, as in the Church of England
I have always known it to be accepted. There re-
mains in the present church of Rome the profession
of all that which it is necessary to believe, either in
point of faith or manners. Idolatries I grant to be
possible, but not necessary, to be found in it, by the
ignorance and carnal affections of particulars, not by
command of the church, or the laws of iV And
with regard to communion under one kind, he allows
that Catholics " will have a strong plea for them-
selves at the day of judgment" — (Conclusion to
Epilogue.)
But as our limits will not permit us to cite their
opinions upon all the points disputed by Protestants,
we shall confine our citations to two or three doc-
trines generally considered as most repugnant to Scrip-
ture. One of them is the invocation of Saints, and
especially the devotion paid to the Blessed Yirgin
Mary. Thus Bishop Montague, speaking of the " per-
suasion that the Virgin Mary may have some special
patronage over Virgins," says — " which is no absurd-
ity ', much less impiety, and was grounded on a gene-
ral persuasion of the church that the Saints, though
in Heaven, had interest some way in the state of their
friends," &c— (Apud Brit. Crit., No. 64, p. 355.)
And Bishop Forbes says, " the invocation or address-
ing of Angels and Saints, that they pray unto God
with us, and for us, I can prove to be neither unlaw-
ful nor useless." — (lb.) And Thorndyke admits that
" the greatest lights of the Greek and Latin Church
have all of them spoken to the Saints departed, and
desired their assistance." — (Epilogue iii. p. 358.)
Another difficulty with Protestants is the Catholic
CONCLUSION. 245
doctrine and practice with regard to the Holy Eucha-
rist As to transubstantiation. Bishop Forbes allows
that it is not to be condemned as " impious or hereti-
cal ;" and also that it was " believed by many of the
faithful from the earliest times." — (Apud Brit. Crit.,
No. 64, p. 359.) And a^ain : " Many things that we
firmly believe are not less impossible and contradic-
tory on principles of reason than transubstantiation." —
(lb.) And again : " Most Protestants accuse Roman
Catholics of gross idolatry in adoring the bread ;
whereas, on this supposition that the bread is no
longer bread, but the body of Christ only — a supposi-
tion by no means impious or heretical — they are not
idolaters ; for the body of Christ is truly to be adored,
and that it is which they adore." — (lb. 360.) And
Archbishop Bramhall says : " I do not charge the
Church of Rome with idolatry." — (lb.)*
It would be easy to cite similar testimonies from
other Anglican divines upon these and other points so
strongly opposed by most Protestants. These, how-
ever, will answer our purpose. We have not under-
taken to prove these points. Our limits will not allow
of this. We merely wish to show that some of the
most distinguished Anglican divines have been far
from condemning them in the usual Protestant style.
We would now add one or two remarks respecting
the devotion which Catholics pay to the Mother of
God. The fact that thousands who have practised
this devotion have been conscious of receiving much
spiritual benefit thereby, is surely no small argument
in its favor. Indeed it. is altogether remarkable that
those who, by general consent, have attained the high-
est degree of sanctity, have even far surpassed the
♦ Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont, maintains that there is no im-
portant difference between the " Tiactarian" doctrine of the Eu-
charist and transubstantiation. " For assuredly," says he, "after
granting that the Eucharistic bread and wine contain the present
Deity of Christ, it would be very idle to quarrel about the question
whether they were not transubstantiated into the very substance of
his flesh and blood also." — (Third Letter on Novelties, &c, p. 9.)
246 CONCLUSION.
mass of Catholics in devotion to the blessed Virgin.
All will agree that St. Bernard, of the eleventh cen-
tury, carried this devotion as far as any other Catholic.
And yet hear what even Palmer says of him : " He
labored diligently with his hands, while at the same
time he was inwardly occupied in the worship of
God." " In the intervals of labor, he was always en-
gaged in prayer, reading or meditation. He studied
Scripture by simply reading it regularly through
many times." " His zeal, the extent of his learning,
the acuteness of his intellect, his dauntless courage,
and a piety which shed the splendor of sanctity over
all his great endowments, soon distinguished him as a
man who was calculated for a wider sphere than the
limits of his cloister afforded."— (Ch. Hist. pp. 121-2.)
Mr. Palmer has borne similar testimony to the emi-
nent piety of other Catholic saints, viz. St. Anselm,
St. Francis Xavier, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis
de Sales and St. Vincent de Paul, who were no less
devoted to the blessed Virgin. And the piety of Tho-
mas a Kempis is too well known among Protestants
to require any proof. But these and other eminent
Catholics who might be named, were not merely pious
in an ordinary measure ; they attained a degree of
sanctity which has been rarely equalled since the
days of the Apostles. No Protestant was better quali-
fied to form a correct judgment upon this point than
Archbishop Leighton, who was perhaps the most pious
divine that the Anglican church has produced. His
biographer tells us that among the regular clergy of
the Catholic church, Leighton "recognized a few
specimens of extraordinary growth in religion, and
thought he had discovered in the piety of some con-
ventual recluses a peculiar and celestial flavor, which
could hardly be met with elsewhere. Of their sublime
devotion he often spoke, with an admiration approach-
ing to rapture ; and much he wished that the sons of
a purer faith and discipline could match them in that
seraphic strength and swiftness of wing by which
CONCLUSION. 247
they soared to the topmost branches of divine contem-
plation, and cropped (lie choicest clusters of heavenly
fruitage." (Leighton's Works, N. Y. Ed. p. 36.) Now
can any one believe that Almighty God conferred
such extraordinary grace upon men who were guilty
of daily, yea hourly, practice of idolatry 7 Yet this
we must believe, if we hold that Catholic devotion to
the blessed Virgin is idolatry. It is true that very
good men through ignorance may be in serious error.
But the plea of ignorance would not avail here. For
it cannot be believed that Christians so eminent as
these, were ignorant of the nature of idolatry, espe-
cially since at least one of them, as Palmer states, was
in the habit of "studying Scripture by reading it
regularly through many times."*
But the extraordinary sanctity of these men proves,
not only that Catholic devotion to the blessed Virgin
is not idolatry, but also that it is proper and useful,
and therefore deserving of imitation. These eminent
servants of God did not hesitate to declare that their
attainments were to be ascribed in a great measure to
this very devotion ; consequently, it is not only right,
but it is also our interest to practice the same de-
votion.
Let us stippose, that in these times of perplexity and
confusion the blessed Virgin were certainly to appear,
accompanied by the apostle St. John ; and that this
apostle, at her bidding, were to reveal to the anxious
soul, which is the true form of Christianity, or which
is the true church, who would not regard this as an
unquestionable proof of her extraordinary power, and
as a vindication of the practice of invoking her assist-
ance I But, perhaps, the reader will regard this as a
* By the way, what will those Protestants say to this fact, who
erroneously suppose that the Bible was iinhwvm or unread in the
" dark ages?" Or who imagine that if Catholics would but study
the Bible they would soon be led to renounce their religion ? St.
Bernard doubtless found, as many before and since have found, that
the study of the Bible, free from bias, serves to confirm one in
Catholic faith and practice.
248 CONCLUSION.
very extravagant supposition, too improbable to be en-
tertained for a moment ; and yet it is no more than
has actually occurred. Jn the third century, the
blessed Virgin thus appeared to Gregory Thauma-
turgus, and delivered to him, by the hands of St. John,
a true exposition of doctrines at that time so much
controverted by heretics ; for the truth of this fact we
refer to two of the most learned divines of the Anglican
church. Dr. Cave has given an account of this won-
derful appearance, as well as of many other miracles
which occurred in connection with St. Gregory. He
states that it is "reported by persons of undoubted
credit and integrity, especially St. Basil and his brother
Gregory," and considers it as fully entitled to belief.
(Life of St. Greg. Thaumat.) And Dr. Bull also re-
lates the fact in his celebrated defence of the Nicene
faith, and allows that it is not to be questioned. " No
one," says he, " should think it incredible that such a
providence should befall a man whose whole life was
conspicuous for revelations and miracles, as all eccle-
siastical writers, who have mentioned him, (and who
has not 1) witness with one voice." (Def. Nicen. Fid.
Sec. ii. cap. 12.)
Now this fact being unquestionable, who can avoid
regarding it as a strong confirmation of Catholic doc-
trine and practice with regard to this most highly
favored, and most highly exalted of all creatures? It
plainly proves, that it is the prerogative of the blessed
Virgin to interpose even miraculously for the instruc-
tion, guidance, and salvation of the human race. But
we have not undertaken to exhibit the entire argu-
ment in favor of these points. Should the few re-
marks which have been made respecting them lead
our readers to examine further, our object will be
attained.
FINIS.
r - "^ ■ ■ ' ^ n'.
ERRATA.
P. 12, for appear read appoint', and for appeared read appointed. P.
16, for have read has. P. 46, for an invisible read a visible, and for any
read every. P. 55, for f/t^tV read the. P. 58, for American read -4r#i«-
rsok. P. 60, for there read tf/t&se. P. 106, for oihereupon read wherefore.
P. 121, for interpretations read interpretation. P. 123, for Epephanius
read Epiphanius. P. 171 ? for 7>otf«r read honor, and for promised read
possessed. P. 181, for Dionisus read Dionysiiis. P. 184, for o/read 4y.
P. 198, omit " a*" in the first line. P. 214, for Con. fiar^. 7 read Con.
Hard. T. U. P. 240, for formerly read formally.
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
RENEWALS ONLY— TEL. NO. 642-3405
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
fiEC'D U M.
'-■*& TO -
lOAH
AHC
iNTERHBRARY LQAh
AP R -Q 7 1993
J N IV.0F cw-nCR fe
AU 6 6 l970ag-_
23?(T8PM24
LD21A-60m-3 t '70
(N5382sl0)476-A-3i
General Library
University of California
Berkeley
y.. ^.BERKELEY LIBRARIES
CDfc I 133773D