5t^ 
 
 J 
 

 i 
 
THE 
 
 PRIMACY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 APOSTOLIC SEE, 
 
 AND THK 
 
 AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, 
 V I N D I C A T E D. 
 
 IN A SERIES OF LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 RIGHT REV. J. H. HOPKINS, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF THE TROTESTAST EPISCOPAL CHIRCH OF VERMONT. 
 nV THC 
 
 RIGHT REV. FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF ARATH, A5D COADJUTOR OF THE BISHOP oF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 "Omnia te video dixis.-je ronira Calholiram : inio iniilia pro 
 Catholica, cum Catln)liciis iioii sis."— (>/(<a/uj(, /. ],^:>,p.4. 
 
 I'im-.\I)i:i,l'III.\: 
 
 JAMES KAY, JUN. & BROTHER, 1^> CHESTNUT STREET 
 
 I'lTT.sni'RCM : JOHN I. KAY Sc CO. 
 Il.M.TIMOHF. : y. I.rtAS, JI.N. 
 
 1838. 
 
Entered according to the act of congress, in the year 1837, by Francis Patrick 
 Kenrick, in the office of the clerk of the district court of the United States in and 
 for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. 
 
TO THE 
 
 MOST REV. SAMUEL ECCLESTON, 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 Most Reverend Sir : 
 
 Your eminent station, and still more your zeal 
 for our holy Religion, encourage me to inscribe to 
 you the following Letters, directed to vindicate the 
 Primacy of the Apostolic See. The influence of 
 your example must be powerful with those who 
 reflect that you sacrificed early prejudice to truth, 
 and that whilst you yield to none in love of coun- 
 try, and attachment to its free institutions, you 
 cherish profound veneration for the high authority 
 which Christ established for the government of 
 his Church. With such a Prelate at the head of 
 the American Hierarchy, who recommends Reli- 
 gion by the exercise of the mild virtues which it 
 inspires, we may hope that many of those who lie 
 scattered throughout this vast and flourishing 
 Republic, like sheep without a shepherd, will 
 
soon be brought to the fold of Jesus Christ. This 
 is, doubtless, your highest ambition, and most 
 earnest prayer, as it is likewise the object dearest 
 to the heart of him who, with veneration and 
 esteem, subscribes himself. 
 
 Your devoted brother in Christ, 
 
 t FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, 
 
 Bishop of Arath and Coadj. Philadelphia. 
 Philadelphia, December 8, 1837. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The followinor Letters have been written in reply 
 to the work which has recently appeared from the 
 pen of the Protestant Episcopal bishop of Ver- 
 mont, in which "the Church of Rome, at the pre- 
 sent day, is compared with the Church of Jiome 
 in her primitive purity," and which is ''addressed 
 to the Roman Hierarchy." The investiiration 
 which has been thus opened is hii,dily interesting, 
 and the mode in which it is conducted sufficiently 
 novel to increase the interest. Thoui>h the early 
 writers of the Anglican Church made free use of 
 the Fathers, it was found by experience so difficult 
 to suit their testimony to the doctrines of the day, 
 that appeals to their authority have become com- 
 paratively rare in Protestant polemics, l^ishop 
 Hopkins has ventured anew on ground whence 
 many a chaminon of Protestantism had been forced 
 to retreat, and has advanced close to our camp, 
 brandishing weapons taken from our own armory. 
 Not confining himself, as some more cautious dis- 
 putants, to the earlic^st Fathers, styled Apostolic, 
 he has extended his researches to the nuddle of 
 the fifth century, and presented, in regular array, 
 a host of writers, with aj)|)areiit confidence in the 
 favoural)le character of their testimony. C^atholics 
 owe him a debt of Liralitude for directing public 
 attention to tlu^se venerable witnesses of ancient 
 faith; and Protestants must feel ilattcnd that so 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 plausible a defence of their principles could have 
 been made by their ingenious advocate. To in- 
 spire confidence in his proofs, Bishop Hopkins 
 cited at the bottom of the page, in many instances, 
 the original Greek and Latin, and in some cases 
 the received Latin version of some Greek Fathers. 
 I regret to be obliged to dispute the fidelity of the 
 English translation of several passages; and though 
 I willingly acquit him of intentional misrepresen- 
 tation of the meaning of the text, the learned reader 
 will admit, that it has been, in many places, greatly 
 mistaken. The frequency of my corrections, which 
 I have generally made in the notes, may appear 
 unkind, perhaps pedantic; but the errors sometimes 
 materially affected the sense, and w^ere made the 
 occasion or ground of false argumentation. It is 
 pleasing to find that a desultory mode of contro- 
 versy has not been pursued by Bishop Hopkins, 
 his arguments being directed almost exclusively 
 against one tenet of Catholic faith — the Supre- 
 macy of the Pope. It is, indeed, to be regretted 
 that the Bishop did not confine himself to that 
 tenet, which would have fixed attention so com- 
 pletely on it that the reader might have more 
 easily formed his judgment. The occasional ob- 
 jections introduced against General Councils have 
 called for a reply, but have not afforded an oppor- 
 tunity of a full development of the nature and au- 
 thority of these venerable assemblies. The Letters, 
 then, may be deemed the vindication of the Pri- 
 macy alone, though incidentally the authority of 
 General Councils is likewise vindicated. The 
 main subject has been somew^hat encumbered, in 
 the work of Bishop Hopkins, by the introduction 
 of supposititious works, and of passages having 
 little or no connexion with it: which render the 
 task of the writer and reader more tedious than it 
 
PREFACE. ni 
 
 would otherwise have been. By the repetition of 
 assertions of the same kind in numberless places, 
 the respondent has been k'd to repeat, with some 
 variety of phrase, what a dilVerent arrangement 
 would not have ref[uired. The plan, however, of 
 the original work is somewhat new and pleasing, 
 and well calculated for its end, uniting much art 
 vrith apparent simplicity. The style is that of a 
 gentleman and a scholar — and abounds in profess- 
 ions of kindness — in exhortation — in appeals — 
 and in prayer — but withal it conceals the bitter- 
 ness of reproach and accusation. In the answer, 
 great care has l)een taken to repress the strong 
 feeling which groundless imputations awaken — to 
 temper its expression — and to sustain truth with- 
 out violating charity. It has been deemed unne- 
 cessary to swell the book by giving all the })assages 
 in the original Greek, or Latin, or in the Latin 
 version of the Greek text, as most readers cannot 
 profit l)y the facility which it allbrds of judging of 
 the accuracy of the English version : but wherever 
 a doubt might be excited as to the meaning of the 
 words, or a correction was to be sustained, or the 
 words seemed peculiarly important, they have 
 been given in the notes. These Letters, wTitten 
 purely with a view to vindicate a divine dogma, 
 appear without any ])rctensions to adventitious or- 
 nament; and are submitted in the hope that they 
 may fall into the hands of some who are not as 
 yet of the fold of Jesus Christ, Imt whom his mercy 
 designs to bring, that they may be of the one fold, 
 under the one Pastor. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Promotion of Christian union. The Catholic principle. Canon law. 
 Fathers — Extent of their authority. Use and meaning of Anathema. 
 Apostolic Fathers. Apostolic Canons. Apostolic Constitutions. Coun- 
 cil of Florence. Pontifical rights and privileges. 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Scriptural proofs of the Primacy. Promise of Christ. Metaphor of 
 the Rock — Of the keys of the kingdom. Distinction between Petrusand 
 Petra abandoned. Greek text. Syriac version. Arabic, (/haldaic. 
 Bloomfield, Bishop Marsh, Rosenmiiller. In what sense is Peter the 
 foundation .' Supposed literary blunder. Vigilius. Charge of Christ 
 to Peter. Prayer that his faith may not fail. Pastoral commission. Ar- 
 nobius. Protestant interpretation. Exercise of the Primacy. Elec- 
 tion of Matthias. Chrysostom. Council of Jerusalem. Decree of Peter. 
 Jerome, Theodoret. Cave. Perpetuity of the Primacy. Peter, Bishop 
 of Rome. 
 
 LETTER in. 
 
 Objections. Christ the Rock, the foundation. St Leo. Bishop Marsh. 
 Bloomfield. Humility inculcated. Domination. Vanity. Power of 
 forgiveness. Peter and John sent. Peter vindicates himself Paul's 
 visit. Reproof of Ceplias. Order of the Apostles. Foundation of the 
 Church of Rome. St Francis de Sales. Scriptural allusions. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Spurious Documents. Canons of the Apostles. Apostolic Constitu- 
 tions. Decretals of Isidore. Sources. Letter of Hormisdas. John of 
 Constantinople. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius. Roman Church presiding. Clement 
 of Rome. Letter to the Corinthians. Irenanis. Splendid testimony. 
 More powerful principality. Agreement with the Roman Ciiurch. Pas- 
 chal question. Victor. Threat of excommunication. Ancient usages 
 Perpetuity of the Roman See. Undying sovereignty. Fanciful hypo- 
 thesis. Primitive views. Seat of ernpire. 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Tertiillian. Peter the Rock. Bishop of hishops. Church of I'oter. 
 Apostolic. Keys left tlirouijh I'eter to the Church. Ingenious inter- 
 pretation. Council of Jerusalem. Fal>er's acknowledgment. SucceiiB- 
 ion to Peter. Montanisin. Key of knowledirr. Apostolic Churches. 
 Vindication of TertuUian. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Clement of Ale.xandria. Hypotyposcs lost. Fracrment in F^usebius 
 Precedency of Peter. Ancient Church. Unity of the Church. Figu- 
 rative terms. Gospel of Mark. 
 
 LETTER Vin. 
 
 Origen. Keys of Scripture. Mystical interpretation. Privileges of 
 all the Apostles. Moral application. Gates of hell powerless against 
 the Rock and Church. Heterodox. Connexion not iinine(jiat<'. Claims 
 of the episcopacy. Capricious exercise of power. On Pet«'r the Church 
 is built. To him supreme power is given. Visit to Rome. Profession 
 of faith. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 St Cyprian. One Church. One Chair. Communion with Corne- 
 lius, tliat is, with the Catholic Church. Authority of the Roman 
 Church. Pl.ice of I'cter. Pag.iti eiii|Mror jealous of the Roman Bishop. 
 Acknowlednment of Bishop Hopkins. Iluman church. Liberty of 
 bishops. Scliismatics. Letter to Cornelius. One Bishop. One Judge. 
 Preventive of heresy and schism. Peter speaks for all. .M.ijesty of the 
 Church. Roman faith inaccessible to perfidy. Appeals to Rome. Right 
 not questioned. Root and parent of the Catholic Church. Power to 
 depose bishops. Unity of the Episcopate and Church. Peter its Guar- 
 dian. Letter to Quintus. Doubt raised as to the genuine character of 
 the writings on baptism. Incorrect translations. St Gregory the Great. 
 Mutual appellations. Greatness of Home. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Controversy concerning baptism. Narrative of St Vincent of Lerins. 
 Zeal of the Apostolic See. No innovation. Cyprian not mentioned. 
 Plea for liim by St Augustin. Kusebius. St Jerome. F'irmilian. Ad- 
 missif)n of the superiority f)f Stephen. Cause of excited feeling.^ Abuse 
 of authority. Political illustration. Supposed submission of Cyprian. 
 Victor and Stephen sustained by councils. Example of Cyprian 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 Lactantius. Catholic Church. Kusebius. Circumstantial evidence 
 Paul preceded all the Christian apologists. Silence of Mark.^ Pet<*r 
 the first— the most powerful and the great.'st of the Apostles. Fanciful 
 interpretation of this testimony. The priniacy of a skilful lawyer. Chair 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 of Peter. Roman Bishop successor of Peter. Paschal controversy. 
 Remonstrance of Irenaeus. Letter of Dionysius of Alexandria. Coun- 
 cil of Antioch. Ancient discipHne. Reference by Aurelian to the 
 bishops of Italy and Rome. Letter of Constantine. Judgment of Mel- 
 chiades. Council of Aries. New trial unnecessary. History of Euse- 
 bius. Offensive language of Bishop Hopkins. 
 
 LETTER XIL 
 
 General Councils. PontiiTs right of convocation. Of presiding. Dis- 
 tinction between doctrine and discipline. Council of Nice summoned 
 by Constantine, with the assent of Sylvester. Address of Constantine. 
 Untimely introduction of the Council of Jerusalem. Imperial convoca- 
 tion not suited to the divided state of Christendom. Letter of the orien- 
 tal bishops to Damasus. Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Osius 
 of Cordova. Order of Councils. Council of Constantinople. Unjust 
 reproach by Bishop Hopkins. St Cyril presiding by commission of Ce- 
 lestine. Second Council of Constantinople. Assertion of Bishop Hop- 
 kins refuted. Council of Chalcedon. Presidency of the emperor. 
 Western Councils. Right of confirmation. 
 
 LETTER XHL 
 
 Nicene Canons. Sixth Canon. Metropolitical rights. Patriarchates. 
 Primacy. Proceedings at Chalcedon. Exceptionable authority of Ques- 
 nel. Modification of ancient legislation. 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 St Athanasius. Mode of defending Councils. Authority of the Ni- 
 cene Council. False Councils of Arians. Nicene definition unchangea- 
 ble. Imaginary contrast. Real harmony of doctrine. Testimony of 
 Bishop Bull. Of Saywell. Regard for the Holy See. Efforts of the 
 Eusebians. Synod summoned by Julius. Athanasius acquitted. Judg- 
 ment of Julius. Historical facts. Eusebians acknowledge the pre-emi- 
 nence of the Roman Church. Literary criticism of Bishop Hopkins. 
 Judicial forms. Reversal of sentence. Letter of Julius. Splendid evi- 
 dence of the Primacy. Council of Sardica. Testimony to the Primacy. 
 Titles. Bishop of the Catholic Church. Liberius. Pseudo-Athanasius. 
 Letter of Pope Agatho. Acknowledgment of Whitaker. 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 St Cyril of Jerusalem. False translation. Peter the most eminent. 
 The Prince of the Apostles. Power of the keys. Overthrow of Simon 
 Magus. Primacy of jurisdiction. Irrelevant texts. Translator of Cyril. 
 Catholic Church. Shameful insinuation. 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 St Hilary of Poictiers. The Church built on Simon Peter. Power 
 of the keys. Faith of Peter. A rian heresy. Literary criticism. Apos- 
 trophe to Peter. Epitliets. Polity of the Church. Sense of Scripture. 
 Strong foundation. Bishop Pearson. 
 
CON TK NTS. 
 
 LETTER XV 11. 
 
 St Basil the Groat. l\'ter the foundation. Prayer for the I'atriarch. 
 Diptychs. Order of tile Church. Peter preferred Received tin- keys. 
 Letters to Athanasius. Implores tlie autliority of tlic Roman Rinliop. 
 Signal fact. Eustatiiius restored hy Liherius. Roman Chureli mother 
 of all cliurchea. Baptism administered by heretics. Nicene Council. 
 
 LETTER XVI II. 
 
 St GrejTory of Nazianzum. Peter called a rock, and entrusted with 
 the fountiations of the Church. False translation and false readinjj. 
 Mistake of Rishop Hopkins. Virtues of the elder CJreirory. Ri.shopof 
 the Catholic Church. Hackneyed objection. Unity of faith. Councils. 
 
 LETTER XIX. 
 
 St Ambrose. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Faith of Peter. 
 He is called a rock, and made the strength of the (Church. Received a 
 kingdom from Christ. Moral application. Peter Bishop of the Roman 
 Church. Powers common to the Apostles. Peculiar |)reroirative of 
 Peter. Unity of action in the three Divine Persons. Unfair use of iso- 
 lated expressions. Equality of merit in Peter and Paul. Peter the foun- 
 dation. Pastoral commission. Vicar of Christ. Pious usage. Council 
 ofAquileiat Record of trial. Splendid testimony. Council of Capua. 
 Satirus. 
 
 LETTER XX. 
 
 St Jerome. Letter to Damasus. Chair of Peter. Communion with 
 Damasus. Letter to Evagrius. Equality of the Episcopal character. 
 Peter the foundation. Abuse of the power of the keys. Confession. 
 City of Rome. Local usages. Jerome's motives and sentiments. Ex- 
 hortation to Demetrias. Roman faith. Adoption of Jerome's senti 
 raents. 
 
 LETTER XXI. 
 
 St Augustin. Hesitancy ns to the rock. Bishops Pearson and Beve- 
 ridge. l*rincipality of the Apostleship. Allegorical interpretation. Pri- 
 macy of Peter. Excellence of Peter. First among the A[)ostles. In him 
 unity is commended. Catholicity of the Church. Roman Church. 
 Apostolic Chair. Letter tr) Hesychius. Misrepresentation of its mean- 
 ing. Roman usages. Doctrinal tribunal. Acknowledgment of Casau- 
 bon. African Councils. Authority of ihe Holy See. 
 
 LETTER XXII. 
 
 St Chrysostom. Peter Prince of the Apostles. (Diarge given to him 
 and his successors. Power of binding and loosinjr. Commission to feed 
 the sheep. Peter the head of the .\postlc8. On him the Churrli is bjiMt 
 Divinity of Christ proved by his gif\s and promises to Peti'r. Petit 
 placed over tiie worM. Doctor of the whole world. Rock of faith. Ap- 
 peal of Chrysostom to Innocent. 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER XXllI. 
 
 St Isidore of Pelusium. Confession of Peter. Church not to be over- 
 thrown. St Prosper of Aquitaine. Authority of the ApostoHc See. 
 Condemnation of the Pehio^ians. E.xtraord nary assertion of Bishop 
 Hopkins. Vincent of Lerins. Pope Stephen. Ri^me head of the 
 world. Rule for Scriptural interpretation. Catholics follow it. Bishop 
 Pearson and Archbishop Potter. Primacy always, every where, by 
 ALL admitted. 
 
 LETTER XXIV. 
 
 General testimonies. St James of Nisibis. St Epiphanius. St Gregory 
 of Nyssa. St Asterius of Amasea. St Optatus of Mela. St Cyril of 
 Alexandria. St Peter Chrysologus. Council of Ephesus. Of Chalcedon. 
 
 LETTER XXV. 
 
 Interpolation of the Fathers. Jansenist Quesnel. Unjust charge. 
 Retort. Vigilius of Thapsis. St Maximus of Turin. 
 
 LETTER XXVI. 
 
 Claims of the primitive Roman Church. Admission of Hallam. Si- 
 ricius, Innocent, Zosimus, Leo. Council of Sardica. 
 
 LETTER XXVII. 
 
 Temporal power. Profession of faith. Sir Edward Sandys. Gre- 
 gory VII. Condition and compact. American independence. Depo- 
 sition by Innocent IV. Public opinion. Benefits of Papal power. Fo- 
 reign Quarterly and London Quarterly Reviews. Southey. Third 
 canon of Latran. Council of Trent. Council of Florence. French de- 
 claration. Opinions. Disclaimers of temporal claims. German empire. 
 False construction. Offensive assertion. General character of Pontifical 
 authority. 
 
 LETTER XXVIII. 
 
 Mode of election. Ancient form. Modifications. Coronation of the 
 Pope. Electors. Mistakes of Bishop Hopkins. 
 
 LETTER XXIX. 
 
 Catholic Church. Ancient respect for Papal authority. Questions 
 answered. St Cyprian on Unity. Jerome. Optatus. Obedience to 
 Pope. Creed of Pope Pius. Ancient rites. Anathema. Council of 
 Constantinople. Choice of words. Unjust accusations. Infallibility. 
 Failing and falling. Prayer of Christ. St Leo. Plan of reunion. In- 
 fluQUce of government. Groundless assertions. Ascendancy. Spiritual 
 triumph. Friendly discussion. Exhortation. 
 
INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 
 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 Your recent work, " addressed to the Roman Hierarchy" 
 and dedicated " to the cause of Catholic unity," has been read 
 by me with no small degree of interest and attention. As one 
 of the body addressed, which you are pleased to designate " nu- 
 merous, powerful, and august," I could not be insensible to 
 your very solemn appeal on a subject involving our eternal 
 interests, and those of the millions over whom we watch, being 
 to render an account for their inunortal souls : as a friend 
 to Catholic unity, I hail every overture for reconciliation 
 coming from the highly respectable and influential body to 
 which you belong. In the perusal of your work, I have been 
 afforded great gratification, no less by the method which you 
 have adopted, and which, if constantly followed, must lead to 
 the end we both have in view, than by the treasure of testimo- 
 nies which it contains, regarding the rights of the apostolic see, 
 which cannot be too highly valued. Some inaccuracies, how- 
 ever, have escaped you, which I feel warranted in pointing out, 
 although perfectly aware of the delicacy of the task, and of the 
 responsibility incurred by anticipating my more experienced 
 and more competent colleagues. I rely, however, on your 
 indulgence, and on theirs, and only plead sirjcere zeal for 
 the cause of Catholic unity. 
 
 You commence by stating that the principle on which you 
 proceed is our own principle ; and, by way of explanation, you 
 add, that you should make your appeal in every case to the 
 
14 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES. 
 
 authorities sanctioned by our own canon law. The use of such 
 documents as have the sanction of the Church is certainly 
 allowable, provided, however, they receive only that degree of 
 authority which she ascribes to them : but as the body of canon 
 law — especially that part styled the decree of Gratian — has re- 
 ceived no solemn sanction, no weight can be given to passages 
 extracted from it, beyond what the document to which it refers 
 may possess intrinsically, or derive from the usage of the 
 Church.* 
 
 According to Gibert, whom you quote, and to whose posi- 
 tion I willingly assent, the holy scriptures are the fountain of 
 law, both as to faith and morals, when expounded by compe- 
 tent authority, not by private interpretation, in accordance with 
 that faith which was originally delivered to the saints. From 
 it, he adds, we learn the necessity, utility and form of councils ; 
 the model of which is found in the council of Jerusalem, whose 
 proceedings are recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of 
 the Apostles. General councils are placed by him next; and 
 passing over the Pontifical decrees, which form a great portion 
 of the canon law, he gives us a list of Fathers mentioned with 
 approbation in a decree of a Roman synod, held towards the 
 close of the fifth century. St Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 
 and martyr, is the first on this list ; and it is said, in the origi- 
 nal decree, that his works are to be received in all things:! 
 yet as among his reputed works are some J in defence of what 
 is now acknowledged by all to be an error, — the invalidity of 
 baptism administered by heretics, — we must suppose that these 
 were rejected as supposititious, or that this general phrase ad- 
 mits a certain latitude of signification. Although St Augustin 
 was an ardent admirer of the great bishop of Carthage, he 
 
 * See Devoti institut. Juris Can. 1. I, § 79. 
 
 t " In omnibus recipienda." Cone. Rom. § iv. torn. 11. Cone. Hard. 
 Col. 939. 
 
 X Some learned men in Germany, and elsewhere, strongly contena 
 that these are not genuine. See Binterin's excellent work on the disci- 
 pline of the Church in the early, middle, and late ages. 
 
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS. 15 
 
 avowed his perfect freedom as lo such opinions as were not in 
 harmony with Scripture, "^ and expressly rejected those ascrib- 
 ed lo him against the validity of such baptism ; *♦ I do not ad- 
 mit, I say, the opinion of blessed Cyprian concerning the bap- 
 tizing of heretics and schismatics, because the Church does not 
 admit it, for which blessed Cyprian shed his blood. "t As you, 
 Right Reverend Sir, desire to proceed on our principles, I beg 
 of you to notice, that the general approbation of the works of 
 any individual father does not imply a solemn sanction of every 
 thing that may be contained in his writings. The Church re- 
 gards the Fathers as witnesses of ancient faith and tradition, 
 wherever they unanimously declare or vindicate some doctrine ; 
 but, as the enlightened bishop of Hippo remarked, in re- 
 gard to the writings of Cyprian, she does not consider their 
 works as canonical and divine.J Thougli their testimony be 
 worthy of credit, and their individual sentiments should be treat- 
 ed with respect, on account of their learning, piety, and their 
 connexion with tlie primitive church, yet Catholic principles 
 necessarily free us from the yoke of individual authority, and 
 subject our intellect to Christ alone, speaking by the tribunals 
 which He has established in his Church. 
 
 In the list which you give, as taken from Gibert, and found 
 in the canon law, you represent as " accursed, whoever does 
 not embrace the letter of the blessed Leo to Flavian, the 
 bishop of Constantinople, even to a tittle." Instead of the awe- 
 inspiring word "accursed," I could wish that you had retained 
 the simple "anathema" of the original, and left your readers 
 to learn its meaning from some one who might give it tKe less 
 odious, but more correct, interpretation, of "separation from the 
 Church of Christ." Baron de Starck, a professed Lutheran min- 
 ister, thoiigh almost a Catholic in sentiment — perhaps in the end 
 entirely Catholic, in liis profound essay on the reunion of the 
 
 * S. Aug. I. 11. contra Cresconiuin, c. 3'J. " Quod aulcm iion con- 
 gruit cum pace ejus rcspuo." 
 t Ibid. 
 X S. Aug. 1. II. contra ('n>sc(»iiiiun, r. 32. also Epist. 1 1 1 
 
16 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Christian Churches, gives the obnoxious word this milder signifi- 
 cation.* For the present, I will state why so great a penalty as 
 exclusion from the Church of Christ was decreed against such 
 as would not receive unreservedly this Epistle of Pope Leo, 
 whilst no such sanction is given to the rest of his admirably 
 writings, or to those of the other Fathers whose names are men- 
 tioned. That epistle was a solemn exposition of the faith of 
 the Church on the adorable mystery of the Incarnation, which 
 was then assailed by Eutyches, who denied the distinction of 
 the two natures of God and man in our Redeemer Jesus Christ. 
 It was read publicly in the great Council of Chalcedon, and 
 the assembled prelates of the Catholic world hailed it as the 
 voice of Peter speaking by the mouth of Leo. Anathemas re- 
 sounded throughout that venerable assembly against all who 
 did not hold the faith of the Fathers, so correctly and solemnly 
 declared by the successor of Peter. Before quitting this sub- 
 ject, it may be well to remind you that this '* anathema" is 
 borrowed from St Paul : " Though we, or an angel from hea- 
 ven, preach a gospel beside that which we have preached to 
 you, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. As I Said bcforc, SO I Say now 
 again, If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which 
 you have received, let him be anathema."! 
 
 Besides the works of the Fathers specified in the list which 
 you give, you use others, mentioned with commendation by 
 St Jerom, to whose discrimination and judgment great defer- 
 ence is deservedly manifested, without any prejudice, howev- 
 er, to our liberty of respectful dissent, wherever it is not corro- 
 borated by the positive sanction of the Church. With regard 
 to the works of minor character which you use, such as Pi- 
 card, Gibert, Tuberville's Catechism, Butler's "Book of the 
 Church," I can have no objection that you should use them 
 
 * '' L'anatheme n'emporte point un jugement de damnation." P. 415. 
 
 " Cette sentence ne designe pas une excommunication reunie aux ma- 
 ledictions." P. 421. Entretiens Philosophiques traduits de I'allemand. 
 2d ed. Paris, 1821. 
 
 t Gal. i. 8, 9. 
 
SPURIOUS WORKS. 17 
 
 for the elucidation of any point in dispute ; alilioufrh they do 
 not possess such wei«,dit of autliority as could make liieir testi- 
 mony conclusive. In an investigation of this kind, the highest 
 authorities only should iiave been selected. 
 
 WJien noticing the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, I regret 
 that you have introduced the " Apostolic Canons," and " the 
 Apostolical Constitutions," for, as all the learned agree that 
 these latter collections are not the genuine works of the Apostles, 
 reference to them is calculated unnecessarily to incumber and 
 embarrass the controversy. Truth, as it was anciently deliv- 
 ered and professed, being your object, you should have, at once, 
 set aside all documents of a questionable character, and still 
 more those which are known to be supposititious. The same 
 consideration should have determined you to leave unnoticed all 
 such works as, in passing through the ordeal of criticism, have 
 not stood the application of its legitimate tests ; such are 
 eome works falsely ascribed to the Fathers, and the decretals 
 attributed by Isidore to the Popes of tiie first three centuries. 
 This would have preserved you from the temptation of express- 
 ing yourself in a manner that might be thought offensive, and, 
 consequently, inconsistent as well with the very kind profess- 
 ions with which your letters abound, as with the altainnient of 
 ihat end you have so much at heart. It would have left the 
 sincerity of your search after truth beyond the reach even of 
 suspicion ; whilst the introduction of these literary forgeries 
 may be thought designed to convey the false impression that 
 they were contrived by the advocates of the primacy to supply 
 the want of better evidence. This course would have afforded 
 the reader greater facility in judging of the real merits of the 
 case, by concentrating his attention on documents of unques- 
 tionable authenticity, whose weight may now be diminislicd, 
 in his mind, from the connexion with false and forged testimo- 
 nies, which you likewise bring forward. For this I cannot give 
 you praise. 
 
 Instead of staling our belief on the primacy of the Apostolic 
 See in your words, or in those of Tuberville, I beg to sul)mii 
 
18 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES. 
 
 the definition of the General Council of Florence : " We define 
 that the holy Apostolic See and Roman Pontiffhasthe primacy 
 throughout the entire world, and that the said Roman Pontiff 
 is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, 
 and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the entire 
 Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians ; and that 
 to him, in the person of blessed Peter, full power was given 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule and govern the Uni- 
 versal Church; as is even contained in the acts of (Ecumenical 
 Councils, and in the Sacred Canons."* With this strong 
 expression of the power and authority of the Apostolic See 
 before us, we can easily dispense with the explanations of 
 TuberviUe's Catechism, and with the passages which you 
 quote as extracts from the Canon law. You seem to have 
 borrowed them from Gibert, to whose works you refer ; but 
 as these are not now within my reach, I cannot ascertain the 
 sources whence he has derived them. I shall observe, how- 
 ever, that the pompous phrases in which the Pontifical au- 
 thority may be occasionally expressed, are not the fair criterion 
 of its character, which must be ascertained by the solemn and 
 deliberate definition of the Church, such as that of the Fathers 
 of Florence. To adduce one instance, you quote a passage 
 which you thus translate : — " The Roman Pontiflf bears the 
 authority not of a mere man, but of the true God upon the 
 earth. "t Some one might imagine that the Pope was here 
 held up as the true God ; whilst the obvious meaning of the 
 text is, that he acts as vicegerent not of a mere man, but of 
 the true God, — our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. The 
 various privileges or rights ascribed to him should not be con- 
 founded with the primacy itself, since, as you yourself after- 
 wards state, a diversity of opinion exists among Catholics 
 themselves as to the extent of his prerogative, though the 
 
 * Cone. Flor. Collat. 22, p. 985. T. ix. Edit. Paris, 1714. Cone. Col. 
 Hard. 
 
 t " Romanus Pontifex non puri hominis ; sed veri Dei vieera gerit 
 in terris." Gibert, torn. 2. p. U. 
 
DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY. 19 
 
 divine institution of the primary is admitted by nil. Those 
 who seriously desire unity, should carefully distinguish be- 
 tween the defined doctrines of failii, in which all harmonize, 
 and those opinions which are tolerated by the Church. If we 
 could agree on the doctrine, we might, at our leisure, in the 
 bosom of the Church herself, consider the weight of authority 
 which may sustain each sentiment, and adopt or reject it as 
 our enlightened judgment would dictate. I recollect a very 
 interesting essay for Catholic communion written by a minister 
 of the church of England, in which was stated, with great 
 candour and accuracy, what Catholic faith essentially de- 
 manded, and how far Anglican divines had advanced on each 
 disputed point. The difference between us appeared very 
 small, when the concessions made by your divines were placed 
 at the side of the Catholic tenet. With a similar view the 
 great Bossuet composed his simple but profound exposition of 
 the doctrine of the Catholic church on matters of controversy. 
 In the same spirit I beg to state, that it is my design to main- 
 tain the doctrine and faith of the Catholic church on the 
 primacy, without entering into the vindication of any disputa- 
 ble claim : and if the authorities which I shall have occasion to 
 bring forward, or the expressions which I may use, should go 
 beyond these limits, I shall not be supposed to urge any 
 thing questionable, as a condition for Catholic communion. 
 The primacy which I mean to defend is the Spiritual Presi- 
 dency of the Church of God,* established by Jesus Christ, for 
 the maintenance of faith in its integrity, for the good order and 
 government of the church in things spiritual, and for all that 
 appertains to eternal salvation. Could I indulge the hope of 
 inducing you. Right Reverend Sir, to recognise this Catholic 
 dogma, as one plainly delivered in the Scriptures, acknowledged 
 by all the Fathers of the Church, solemnly admitted and declared 
 
 * I borrow the phrase from St Chrysostom, who says that Christ gave 
 to Peter " the presidency of the Church in tiie whole world:" — "per 
 totum orbem lerraruin ccclesio; proesidentiam tradidit." Ad pop. An- 
 tioch. horn. bO de pcenil. 
 
20 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES. 
 
 by the General Councils of the bishops of the Christian world, 
 I should undertake my present task with alacrity and joy. 
 But deep and strong as is my own conviction and faith on this 
 subject, I know, like Augustine, how difficult it is to rid 
 oneself of false opinions imbibed in infancy — and which too 
 frequently grow with our growth and strengthen with our 
 strength.^ Still I enter on the work as a duty which I owe to 
 truth — to the Apostolic See — to the Church of Jesus Christ. 
 May his Spirit guide my pen, and prepare our hearts for the 
 influence of his grace. 
 
 - Aug. I. 2, de civ. Dei. c. 1. Tom. III. 1. 7, p. 31. 
 
LETTER IT. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 Your fourth chapter commences the important investigation 
 of the claims of tlie Cliurcli of Rome, to what you, somewhat 
 ambiguously, call " universal dominion," but which would 
 more correctly be termed, Ijer claim to authority in defining the 
 doctrines of faith, and in maintaining religious unity. You 
 quote the celebrated passage of St Matthew, in whicli Catho- 
 lics believe Christ promised this authority to Peter, who died 
 bishop of Rome. The occasion on whicli the words were 
 spoken must be remembered, in order to perceive their full 
 force. Christ had asked tlie Apostles what opinions were en- 
 tertained of him, and had been told by them that some said he 
 was John the Baptist, others Elias, some Jeremias, or one of 
 the prophets. He then asked, who they themselves believed 
 him to be. Peter stood forward and said : " Thou art Clirist, 
 the Son of the living God."* He alone speaks, and to him 
 alone the Redeemer addresses his reply. " Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Bar-Iona ; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
 to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, 
 that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, 
 and tlie gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou 
 shah bind on earth shalt be bound also in heaven, and whatso- 
 ever tliou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." 
 Peter's confession of faith is declared to be divinely inspired, 
 and on account of it he is pronounced blessed. His name is 
 
 • Matt. xvi. IG. 
 
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 changed ; the son of lona is henceforth to be called Cephas, a 
 Syriac word,* which in Greek is rendered Petros, in English, 
 a rock.t As Jacob was called Israel, because in the mysteri- 
 rious conflict he prevailed over the angel of God ; — as Abratn 
 was called Abraham, because chosen to be the father of a count- 
 less multitude; — so Simon is called Cephas or Peter, because 
 made by divine grace a rock of faith. Nor is the firmness of 
 his faith a mere personal endowment; he is to become the 
 foundation-stone of the Church of Christ. That Church is the 
 house the wise man built upon a rock. Christ Jesus is the 
 architect : Peter is placed by Him as the foundation : the build- 
 ing is to be raised by the power of the divine Founder, and, 
 owing to the immovable nature of the foundation, is to be so 
 solid, so compact in its parts, that waves and winds may dash 
 against it, but cannot overthrow it. Time cannot crumble it 
 into dust ; no engine of human power can raze it ; hell itself is 
 powerless against it. Peter is to it what a strong foundation is 
 to a vast building, — its strength, its necessary and permanent 
 support. Take away the foundation, and the building tumbles 
 to the ground. He is, then, not merely the first to profess aloud 
 the divinity of his master, nor merely the first to preach the 
 Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, but he is the rock on which the 
 Church rests, and with which it is inseparably united. 
 
 To this striking and expressive figure, Christ adds another, 
 still more clearly designating the governing and supreme power 
 which he determined to impart to Peter. The keys of the 
 palace, or of the gates of the royal city, were the known em- 
 blems of power and authority.."}: Christ promises to give him 
 
 ^ Kiplia, the Greeks write KtitpAi. 
 
 t In three Arabic versions he is styled the rock : the definite article 
 being prefixed : thou art the rock. See Ecchellensis, par. 2. p. 195. 
 
 X Isaiah xxii. 22. " I will lay the key of the house of David upon his 
 shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and 
 none shall open." This is said of Eliacim, who was to be substituted to 
 Sobna in the high priesthood. Of Christ the same prophet foretells : 
 "the government is upon his shoulder," Is. ix. 6; making an allusion to 
 the manner of carrying the keys. 
 
PROMISE OF THE PRIMACY. 23 
 
 the keys of the kingdom of lieavcn, whicli, in the New Testa- 
 ment, means eillier tlie (.'hurcli of G'oil on earth, or llie celes- 
 tial kingdom itself. To Peter, then, was promised the govern- 
 ing power in the Church, — the power of opening heaven itself 
 to man. His relation to the (Jhurch is to be one of power and 
 authority. Whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, either by 
 unfolding the dilhculties of the law, as that phrase sometimes 
 was understood among the Jews, or by remitting the oflences 
 of the penitent, as the collation of the power of forgiveness ma- 
 nifests, shall be also loosed in heaven: whatsoever he shall 
 bind on earth, by his authoritative definition and decree, shall 
 be also bound in heaven. This surely conveys the idea of the 
 liighest degree of power which Christ could communicate for 
 our instruction, government, and salvation. The promise is 
 made to him distinctly, and that on account of his glorious con- 
 fession, and the privileges and power which it indicates are con- 
 sequently to belong to him. Christ afterwards, indeed, promised 
 to all the apostles the power of binding and loosing : still what 
 was promised in common to all, must be acknowledged peculiarly 
 and pre-eminently to have been promised to Peter, — else why 
 was it that he received in particular what in common with his 
 fellow Apostles he would equally have got ? Surely it was 
 not without the special view of marking his high authority and 
 essential relation to the Church, that he alone was declared its 
 fundamental rock — its ruler, bearing the keys of this heavenly 
 kingdom.* 
 
 I am surprised to find you. Right Reverend Sir, endeavouring 
 to weaken what appears to me the obvious meaning of the words 
 "upon this rock," by referring to the diilerent words, almost 
 similar in sound and signification, by which Peter and the rock 
 are expressed in the Greek text. Still more am 1 astonished at 
 
 " " As to tlio expression * the keys,' it may also refer to the power and 
 autljorily for tlie said work; especially aa a key was anciently an usual 
 8ynil>ol of authority, and presentinfr with a key was a common form of 
 invfstiniT with authority, insomuch that it was afterwards worn as a 
 bad^e of ollice. " liluomfield, a learned Protestant commentator, on tJiis 
 text. 
 
24 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 your objection to profit by the aid which the language spoken 
 by our Lord affords for the elucidation of this passage. Its 
 meaning is, indeed, equally clear in the Greek, and in our own 
 language ; but as the genius of the Greek induced a slight va- 
 riety in the terms, and as the English does not at all present 
 the force of the allusion, it is reasonable and necessary to exa- 
 mine what were the precise expressions used by our Lord. To 
 sustain your objection, you bring forward the authority of the 
 Vulgate, which, although we are forbidden to reject, we are 
 not prohibited from illustrating, by reference to the original 
 text, where it exists, or to the peculiar genius of the original 
 languages, to remove any ambiguity or obscurity that may be 
 in some term of that version. You ask us, *' do we mean that 
 the original Gospel, which is in the Greek, is not our only sure 
 authority?" We fully admit the authority of the Greek text; 
 but this admission does not in the least degree interfere with 
 our right to clear up any difficulty by reference to the language 
 in which many believe that Gospel to have been written, or in 
 which, at least, our Redeemer spoke. These are not, as you 
 suggest, ** imaginary words which our Lord might have used," 
 but they are the words which he really used. One of them is 
 known from the Gospel of St John to have been Cephas, and 
 the other is ascertained by examining whether there is the va- 
 riety of gender and termination in the Syriac term as is found 
 in the Greek. The Syriac term admits no such variation. The 
 very ancient Syriac version proves the correctness of this re- 
 mark, and modern learned Protestants are so far from contest- 
 ing it, that, according to the testimony of one of them, almost 
 every modern expositor of note has abandoned the distinction 
 between Peter and the rock as untenable.* The French trans- 
 lation fully exhibits the force of the allusion as it was made by 
 our Saviour ; because in French, as in Syriac, the same term 
 which signifies a rock, is also an appellative noun. Were we 
 to give a strictly literal translation of the sentence into English, 
 we would either say, " thou art a ROCK, and on this ROCK 
 
 * Bloomfield in locum. 
 
I'KOMI.^i: OF Tin: I'RIMACV. 25 
 
 I will build my (-iimi-Ji ;' or, thou art PETEH, and uj)on this 
 PE'l'ER I will build my (-'luin-h ; but, then, eiilicr tlie name 
 given to Simon is suppressed, or the strength and power wiiicii 
 it indicates do not appear to be properties of his name as well 
 as of his olliee. 'I'he same may be saiil of the CJerman, whilst 
 the Latin, Italian, and Spanish, as you remark, follow the 
 Greek, and retain, with the variation of gender, something of 
 the original allusion. t I am, then, perfectly unable to conceive 
 how you could speak of this reference to the original terms as 
 *» the fanciful notion of what our Saviour might have said in 
 Hebrew ;" and speak of the Greek *' as the actual record of 
 what he did say;" especially as afterwards, in your remarks on 
 a text of St John, you adopt the principle which in this instance 
 you reject. Christ certainly spoke not in Greek, but in the 
 language then generally spoken in Judea, whether you please 
 to designate it Hebrew, Syriac, or, more correctly, Syro-Chal- 
 
 * The Syriac version of the New Testament is deservedly of high re- 
 pute, on account of its early date, and of the near affinity between the 
 Syriac language and the Syro-Chaldaic, which our Lord used, and in 
 which, according to tlie most probable opinion, St. Matthew wrote his 
 Gospel. In this version, the words " Peter" and " Rock" are expressed 
 by the same characters : 
 
 Anath chipha, vehall hada chipua. 
 In the Arabian version, which, from its connexion with the language 
 in which Christ spoke, is well calculated to elucidate the present sul)- 
 ject, we read 
 
 Anath alsaciira, wahal hada ai.sacmha. 
 
 Another Arabic version translates Peter and rock by a different word 
 fiom that used in the above (jiiotation, but in both instances the same 
 word (Usaphu, is put for Peter and the rock. 
 
 A most ancient Chaldee manuscript of St Matthew's gospel, in thi' 
 collection formerly belonging to Cardinal JJarberini, written in charac- 
 ters long obsoh.'te, and professing to have b(>en made in Mesopotamia 
 in the year 330, uses but one word to express Peter and the Rock, :fciuha. 
 See the learned treatise of Ecchelensis, a Maronite de origine nominis 
 Papaj,&c. RomiD, MDCLX. 
 
 t iMtin. Tu C8 Pclrus et super banc prtram, &c. 
 Italian. Tu sei Pietro, e sopra questa pietra, &c. 
 Spanish. Tu eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra, &c. 
 German. Dm bist Pclrus und auf diesen Fclsen. 
 C 
 
26 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 daic. He certainly called Simon, Cephas, for we are assured' 
 of it by St John,* and he manifestly referred to him when he 
 said : " thou art Cephas (a rock), and on this Cephas (rock) I 
 will build my Church." 
 
 The reason why the Greek interpreter of St Matthew used two 
 distinct terms, was, because although the feminine noun properly 
 expressed the force of the original term, yet the Greeks never 
 applied a feminine noun to a man except in derision.t He chose, 
 then, a masculine noun, less expressive, but more appropriate. 
 No ambiguity could have arisen from this circumstance, had 
 not the ingenuity of controversial writers sought to wrest from 
 us this splendid proof of the prerogatives of Peter. Every rule 
 of correct interpretation has been recklessly trampled under foot 
 in the attempt; and although the preceding words were mani- 
 festly directed to Peter, and those which followed were also 
 acknowledged to regard him, still he was denied to be the rock 
 on which the Church was built, as declared in the intervening 
 words which were necessarily applied to him. Happily for the 
 cause of truth, Cameron,:}: Bishop Marsh, and many respectable 
 modern interpreters, have rejected this subterfuge, so unworthy 
 of literary men, and better calculated to show the weakness of 
 those who recur to it, than to invalidate or obscure the strong 
 argument supplied us by the text, in the only interpretation it 
 can consistently have. The most recent editor of the Greek 
 text in England, acknowledges that " almost every modern ex- 
 positor of note refers it to Peter himself;" " and with reason ; 
 for certainly," as is observed by Bishop Marsh, § " it would be 
 a desperate undertaking to prove that Christ meant any other 
 person than Peter. In fact, they can indicate no other, con- 
 sistently with the rules of correct exegesis. Moreover, the 
 words following x*/ croi ^^'7a> imply that there had been some 
 previous gift or distinction. In short, the sense is : Thou art 
 by name JRotk; (i. e. thy name means Rock,) and suitably 
 to thai will be thy work and office; for upon thee (i. e. upon 
 
 * John i. 42. 
 
 t Synopsis Crit. in locum. 
 
 t See Synopsis Crit. in hunc locum. 
 
 § Comparative View. App. p. 27. 
 
PROTESTANT INTERPRETERS. 27 
 
 thy j)reachin^, as upon a rock) shall the foumhition of the 
 church be laid." It may, indeed, seem straiifre, that so natu- 
 ral and well founded an interpretation shouUl liave been passed 
 over by any. — Hut that may be attributed parthj to the cause- 
 less fears into whicli Protestants have been betrayed ; lest, by 
 admittiui^ it, they should give a countenance to the Papal claim 
 of supreniacy ; and parthj to an idea that s-uch a sense would 
 be contrary to what is elsewhere said in Scripture, namely, that 
 Christ is the onhj fuumlation. See 1 Cor. iii. 11. Hut as to 
 the first, the fear is groundless: it being (as Hishop Middleton 
 observes) dilhi-ult to see what advantage coidd be gained ; un- 
 less we could evade the meaning of /ai5-a»c7-:< txV xm<o-, which 
 follows. "And as to the laiier fear, it is equally without founda- 
 tion ; since the two expressions are employed in two very 
 different senses."* You will pardon, Right Reverend Sir, this 
 long extract from a Protestant commentator of deservedly high 
 repute, who, whilst he asserts that the fears of Protestants were 
 groundless, and endeavours to explain away the force of the 
 text by referring it to a certain precedency of Peter in preaching 
 the Gospel, betrays the weakness of Protestantism, and shows 
 how the obvious meaning of Scripture has been obscured in 
 order to avoid the admission of an authority it so clearly indi- 
 cates. With regard to the interpretation of the entire passage, 
 given by those who acknowledge the keys to be the emblem of 
 power and authority, it is rather a bold stretch of ingenuity to 
 understand this, as well as the other no less strong metaphor 
 which precedes, of mere priority in announcing the Gospel to 
 Jews and Gentiles. The same may be observed of the interpreta- 
 tion of Rosenmiiller, who, however, renders a splendid tribute to 
 the Catholic explanation, and completely explodes your distinct- 
 ion between Pctros and Pitra, and all the various modes 
 whereby the manifest reference to Peter is sought to be evaded. 
 " The rock," says he, ♦' is neither the confession of Peter 
 nor Christ, pointing out himself by his finger, or by a shake 
 of the head (whicii interpretations the context does not admit), 
 
 • Bloomficld. Com. Mnt. xvi. Ir, !'.», p. TK. Edit. IJoston, 1-:}?. 
 
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 but Peter himself. The Lord, speaking in Syriac, used no 
 diversity of name, but in both places said Cephas, as the 
 French word pierre is said both of a proper and appellative 
 noun. He pointed out Peter therefore either by his finger, or 
 nod ; for that gesture suited his purpose to explain the reason 
 of giving him this name. So it was said of Abraham : Thy 
 name shall be Abraham, because I liave made thee father of 
 many nations. Of Jacob : Israel shall be thy name, for thou 
 actest as a prince with angels and men. So Christ says : 
 Thou art called by me Peter, because thou wilt be as a rock. 
 And he promises that he will build his Church on Peter. 
 Allusion is made to the custom prevailing in Palestine of build- 
 ing houses that are exposed to floods and whirlwinds, on a 
 rocky soil, that they may be able to resist the violence of 
 waters and winds. Mat. vii. 24, 25. Therefore whosoever 
 thinks of building a durable house, should above all look 
 around for a rock, or firm ground : the rock is the first thing 
 whence the work is to be begun."* 
 
 Although these observations, emanating as they do from men 
 adverse to the Catholic church, are sufficient for my purpose, 
 the two following extracts need no apology': 
 
 In *' Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism" is contained 
 the following justobservaiion — Canon 511 : "The most obvious 
 and natural sense is to be set aside only when it is absolutely 
 contradictory to something plainly taught in Scripture." He 
 then remarks that " the opposite way has been taken by all 
 sects;" and quotes the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of St 
 Matthew. " Thou, &c., building on Peter, is explained by- 
 some, as contrary to the faith that Christ is the only founda- 
 tion (1 Cor. iii. 2.), and as favouring the succession of Peter 
 and his successors ; but the connexion shows that PETER IS 
 HERE PLAINLY MEANT." Edition of Boston, 1823. 
 Such is the language of this text-book of many Protestant Col- 
 leges and Theological Institutions, both in this country and in 
 England. 
 
 ^ Scholia in Novum Test., Tom. I, p. 336. Norumb. an. 1815. 
 
LITERARY BLrNDER. VKMLIL'S. 29 
 
 The Reverend Mr Thompson of Cilastrow, in liis Munates- 
 saroHy reprinted at Baltimore, 1829, p. 194, on this text, gives 
 three interpretations. He thinks the two first unfounded, and 
 thus quotes the third : 
 
 " Tlie third opinion is, that both the words petros iiud pftra 
 are here used as appellations of the Apostle ; and, consequently, 
 Peter was the rock on which Christ said liis Church should bo 
 built. To this the connexion and scope of the passage agree. 
 There seems to be something forced in every other construc- 
 tion, and an inaptitude in the language and ligure of the text in 
 every attempt to construct the words otherwise. Protestants 
 have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have, therefore, used all 
 the HARDIHOOD of LAWLESS CRITICISM in their at- 
 tempts to reason away the Catholic interpretation." 
 
 Although not immediately connected with my present sub- 
 ject, I must notice what you call " a strange error based upon 
 a text in the Gospel of St John, which several of the popes of 
 Rome have advanced in their solicitude to find authority for 
 their favourite doctrine." It is thus slated by V'igilius in a 
 letter to Eleutherius: *' Although the election of all the Apos- 
 tles was the same, yet it was granted to blessed Peter that he 
 should be raised above the rest; whence ho was called Cephas, 
 because he was the head and the fust of all the Apostles, and 
 what precedes in the head, must necessarily be followed in the 
 members."* You smile at this supposed literary blunder, be- 
 cause you imagine that Vigilius confounded Cephas, a Syrian 
 term, with the Greek word, of somewhat similar sound, t«9a>^''. 
 signifying t/ic hrud, and that he thence inferred that Peter was 
 the head of the Apostles, 'i'he text which you bring forward 
 does not, however, prove this mistake, for though the writer 
 argues from Peter's name that he was head and first of all the 
 Apostles, he does not say that the name signified " a head." 
 We make a like inference from the same appellation ; yet we 
 know the meaning of the term Cephas to be not *' a heoil,'^ but 
 
 ' Mansi, Tom. 1, p. 77 Cul. Cone. •' Unde ct Cephas vocatur. 'juia 
 caput et primuri ost omnium apostolorum." 
 c* 
 
30 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 *' a rock.^^ The relation of a foundation to a building may be 
 compared to the relation of the head to the body, and conse- 
 quently of a ruler to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. 
 
 The letter in question, as well as the other passage quoted 
 by you, is, at best, of doubtful authenticity. The publisher 
 of the collection of the Councils gives it as a part of some 
 tract on the primacy, which came to light in the early part 
 of the sixteenth century ; and he avows that his object is to 
 preserve the various writings on that subject, whatever be 
 their character. It has no place among the writings of Vigilius, 
 given in their regular order, but is placed in the first volume 
 with other documents confessedly spurious. In the genuine 
 writings of that pontiff we find that he assumes higher ground 
 than a mere verbal allusion. In his letter to the whole Catholic 
 Church, speaking of the part which his predecessors Celestine 
 and Leo took in the condemnation of heresy, he observes : " Our 
 God from heaven armed the pastoral ofiice against these fierce 
 errors : recommending which office to blessed Peter, with thrice 
 repeated injunctions, he says. Feed my sheep : and justly was 
 the charge of feeding them committed to him, whose glorious 
 confession of faith was praised by the mouth of God. For 
 when he confessed in a saving manner, and said : Thou art 
 Christ, the Son of the living God, perpetual blessedness is 
 given him in return, and he is called the son of the dove, and 
 receives the keys of the heavenly kingdom.* You perceive, 
 that Vigilius, addressing *' the whole Catholic Church," does 
 not rest his authority on a " literary blunder," but on the pro- 
 mises of our God and Saviour. To account for the supposed 
 blunder, you observe that the name of this apostle " appears to 
 us in two shapes, indeed, because the Saviour spoke in He- 
 brew, and St John wrote in Greek, but they have the same 
 signification." What, Sir, refer to the language used by our 
 Lord, after having, a few pages before, condemned such a 
 reference as no better than '* a fanciful imagination calculated 
 to prostrate the authority of the whole word of God ?" 
 
 * Vigilii, p. ep. ad univ. Eccl. Tom. III. Cone. Hard. Col. 5. 
 
CHARGE OF CHRIST TO PETKR. 81 
 
 The promise made by Jesus Christ to Peter was to be ful- 
 filled after his resurrection. At the last supper, a contention 
 having arisen among tlie Apostles which should be tlie greater, 
 Christ took occasion to inculcate to all the necessity of humility 
 and mutual condescension. Addressing Peter in a special man- 
 ner, he apprised him of the violent efforts of Satan against them 
 all, but gave him the consoling assurance that he had prayed 
 for him in particular,* that his faith might not fail. He re- 
 minded him of the obligation which his office would impose of 
 confirming his brethren in the faith, and urged him to its per- 
 formance : *' Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have 
 YOU that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for 
 THEE that THY faitli fail not: and thou being once converted, 
 CONFIRM THY BRETHREN. t An addrcss of this kind on such 
 an occasion shows that Peter was to be the superior of the 
 rest, and on that account was the special object of the prayer of 
 his divine Master — that being himscll' strong in faith, he might 
 be able to confirm liis brethren. That prayer did not prevent 
 his grievous fall on that very night, although Christ be " al- 
 ways heard for his reverence ;" but it was directed to a sub- 
 limer object than the personal perseverance of Peter : it regarded 
 the office which he was to exercise towards others, and the 
 performance of which was so earnestly enjoined. When ele- 
 vated to the pastoral dignity, he was to look around, from time 
 to time,± to the various portions of his great charge, and 
 
 * ty/wic — 5-K. Thechangeof number, more apparent in the Greek text 
 than in the English translation, shows that while Satan directed his 
 efforts against all the Apostles, Christ prayed especially for one — Peter. 
 
 t Luke xxii. 32. 
 
 t o-u irort iT/r^i^flic. The learned Clrotius discovers in Uiis express- 
 ion a Hebraism, denoting the repetition of an act : " tu quoque olim 
 vicissini fratrcs confirma:" "do thou also, on thy part, from time to 
 time confirm thy brethren." The Septuagint U8e this Greek verb for 
 the Hebrew DIBT*, which, when united with anotiier verb, may be ren- 
 dered by the adverb, again. Thus : iTTir^i^atc <ra.»cri/c */Ufltc, "Thou will 
 again save us." Pb Ixxxv. G »See Synopsis Sac. Crit. in hunc locum. 
 Also, John xxi. 20, tTnr^*<ptis^ means turning toirards. Many eminent 
 
32 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 strengthen, by his teaching and authority, those who might be 
 weak in faith. 
 
 It is worthy of observation, that our Lord prepared the Apos- 
 tles for his most important institutions by a promise made long 
 before their actual establishment. Thus, in the course of his 
 life, he promised to them all the power of binding and loosing ; 
 and, after his resurrection, he gave them the power of forgiving 
 and retaining sins, which he had previously and principally de- 
 signated by that of loosing and binding. He had made a spe- 
 cial promise to Peter that he would give him the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven ; and he accordingly gave to him, in an 
 especial manner, the charge of feeding his lambs and sheep, 
 thereby constituting him shepherd of the entire flock. The 
 fact is thus related by the Evangelist St John: " Jesus saith 
 to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more 
 than these ? He saith to him : Yea, liOrd, thou knowest that 
 I love thee. He saith to him : Feed my lambs. He saith to 
 him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to 
 him : Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to 
 him : Feed my lambs. He saith to him the third time : Simon, 
 son of John, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved, because he 
 said to him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said to 
 him : Lord, thou knowest all things : thou knowest that I love 
 thee. He said to him : Feed my sheep."* 
 
 There were present on this occasion, at least, Thomas the 
 Apostle, and John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and two 
 other of his disciples, besides Nathaniel, of Cana in Galilee.t 
 Christ addresses Peter alone, questions him as to his love, but 
 is not satisfied with a declaration of ordinary love. He asks 
 whether he has a special love for Him, greater than that which 
 the others cherish ; " Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more 
 than these ?" He must then mean to confer a special preroga- 
 tive, — to constitute him Pastor in a sense more sublime than 
 
 writers, however, explain it of the duty to be performed after his con- 
 version, when he was to be constituted Pastor of the fold, and to receive 
 the grace necessary to discharge faithfully his office. 
 * John xxi. 15. i John xxi. 2. 
 
GRANT OF THE PRIMACY. 33 
 
 that in which Thomas, or John, or James, were Pastors. Peter 
 having declared liis greater love, and having appealed to the 
 Saviour himself, as knowing his aflection, receives the charge 
 to feed the tender lambs of Christ : " Feed my lambs." ' The 
 question is again and a third time repeated, not to ascertain what 
 Christ so well knew, — not merely to require the three protesta- 
 tions of love as an atonement for the three denials, and a condi- 
 tion for elevating him to the pastoral oihce, since he receives the 
 authority and commission on his first declaration of love, — but 
 to point out in a strong manner the peculiar and sublime cha- 
 racter of his pastoral authority. He is first commanded to feed 
 the lambs of Christ, and the term used denotes strictly tlie act 
 of giving them food or pasture, that he may understand that his 
 duty is to give the pastures of eternal life — tlie divine doctrines 
 of faith — to the weakest, lowliest of the faithful, that their souls 
 may be therewith nourished. On his second protestation of love, 
 the nature of his office is more fully developed. He is told to do 
 all the duties of a shepherd ;t not only to give them salutary pas- 
 tures, and lead them to the refreshing streams, but to tend, to 
 watch over, to restrain, to bring back the stray sheep to the 
 fold, to cast away the contagious, and in all things to imitate 
 Him whose place he holds, whose sheep he tends, whose name 
 he bears — the one Shepherd of the one fold. Again, the Sa- 
 viour demands the declaration of his love, and the alllicled 
 Apostle appeals to Him, as the searcher of hearts, to whom all 
 things lie open, and who consequently knows the sincerity of 
 his love: '♦ Lord, thou knowest all tilings : thou knowest that 
 I love thee." The pastoral charge is then extended to the 
 sheep of ('hrist — to those who are as the parents of the tender 
 lambs — those who bring them forth in C'hrist: "Feed my 
 sheep. ":{: The term by which this exercise of pastoral care is 
 
 t wii/xAiit Tat fr^i0AT» fxou. The Vulgate road apvisL. The Greek 
 term is taken for governinj;, aH kinjrs were called shepherds of the peo- 
 ple : ^ti/uiric Aato»r. Se»r IltJiner, pasHiiii. 
 
34 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 expressed, signifies to give food, because it is the chief duty of 
 the great Shepherd to phice in salutary pastures the sheep, that 
 they and their tender offspring may be nourished. Dropping 
 the metaphor, he must communicate to them, in its integrity, 
 the divine doctrine, such as he received it from Christ, that they 
 may be fit to teach others. His duly towards them is chiefly to 
 instruct them, though, as shepherd of the entire flock, he can 
 wield, even in their regard, the staft' of pastoral correction. 
 Hence it is manifest that blessed Peter, and in him his success- 
 ors, received from Christ full power to feed, to rule, and go- 
 vern the Church of God; that is, the entire flock of Christ, as 
 the Council of Florence defined. 
 
 The character of this authority is beautifully represented by 
 the image of a Shepherd, which is presented in so tender a man- 
 ner in the Old as well as the New Testament; and the accom- 
 plishment of the divine design is indicated of uniting Jews and 
 Gentiles in one fold under one Shepherd. Arnobius, a French 
 writer of the fifth century, thus expatiates on the appointment 
 of Peter to the office of Pastor : " Behold the penitent Apostle, 
 who is the bishop of bishops, is relieved, and a higher dignity 
 is given to him after his tears, than was taken away from him at 
 his fall. This I prove from the fact that none of the Apostles 
 was styled Shepherd : for the Lord Jesus Christ alone said : I 
 am the good Shepherd, and again my sheep follow me. He 
 granted, then, after his resurrection, this holy name to penitent 
 Peter; and he who was denied, gave to him who had denied 
 him, the power which he alone had."* 
 
 The justness of our interpretation is fully sustained by some 
 eminent Protestant annotators on this place. " The true inter- 
 pretation," says Bloomfield, in reference to the comparison made 
 in the first interrogation, " seems to be that of the ancient, and 
 many of the most eminent modern commentators, as Lampe, 
 Campbell, Kuinoel, and Tittman, who assign the following 
 sense : Dost thou love me more than those do? It is proper to 
 observe, that though our Lord asks the question thrice, yet the 
 
 * Arnobius in finem, Ps. cxxxviii. 
 
EXERCISE OF TMF PRIMACV. 35 
 
 admonition, which each time follows it up, is not quite the 
 same ; for /S-.a-Ktn signifies simply to feed, provide willi pasture ; 
 rroifJiaLirtiv both to feed and to tend ; the former being especially 
 applicable to ifu* (meaning young, raw professors), and the lat- 
 ter to rrpcfixTx, OT the morc advanced and mature professors. 
 And the notion of tending necessarily carries with it that of 
 guiding and governing."* 
 
 I submit these critical remarks of the learned vicar of Bis- 
 brooke, to show that, although many Protestants, from a dread 
 of findinor the privileges of Peter in these words of Christ, have 
 given to them a forced, inane, and even ridiculous inter])retalion ; 
 yet that others, who have a character for learning and impar- 
 tiality, admit the substantial correctness of our interpretation, 
 whilst they deny the necessary consequence of their own ad- 
 missions, and, to use the words of St Hilary, ofTer violence to 
 the glorious words of our Redeemer. 
 
 I know not in what more solemn manner Christ could have 
 manifested his will that Peter should govern the Church by his 
 authority. He declared him the rock on which it was built — 
 he gave him the keys, the emblem of power and authority, 
 thereby clearly api)ointing him the ruler of his spiritual king- 
 dom. Of him, especially, he declared, that what he should bind 
 on earth would be bound in heaven ; what he should loose on 
 earth would be loosed in heaven. For him, especially, he 
 prayed that his faith might not fail — and to him alone he gave 
 the charge to confirm his brethren. In fine, after exacting from 
 him a protestation of special love, he commissioned hiin lo feed 
 his lambs and sheep ; to perform towards both all the duties ol 
 a Shepherd. 
 
 The actual exercise of the pastoral and governing authority 
 of Peter is clearly marked in the divine Scriptures. One of the 
 most solemn acts of authority is to create subordinate pastors, 
 and especially to communicate the Apostolic power and cha- 
 racter. Judas had left his place vacant in the Apostolic col- 
 lege, and l^eter took the earliest opportunity to fill tiie vacancy. 
 
 " Notes on Greek ttxt of John x\i. Jo. 
 
36 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 Whilst the Apostles and other disciples of the Lord, to the 
 number of about one hundred and twenty, were persevering 
 with one mind in prayer, awaiting the Holy Spirit, who was 
 promised them, " Peter, rising up in the midst of the brethren,"* 
 urged the necessity of choosing one " to take the place of this 
 ministry and Apostleship." Though he did not act at once and 
 of himself, but sought the advice and concurrence of the bre- 
 thren, yet, by originating the measure, he showed that his office 
 imposed on him the duty of seeing that the vacancy was filled, 
 whilst he manifested condescension and regard for the sugges- 
 tions and wishes of his inferiors in authority. He could, doubt- 
 less, as St Chrysostom observes, have acted with entire inde- 
 pendence, but he had been educated in the school of humility, 
 and learned to imitate Him whose power he was commissioned 
 to exercise : " How fervent he is," exclaims Chrysostom, 
 "how he manifests that the flock was committed by Christ to 
 his charge, — see how he is the prince of this band, and every 
 where is the first to speak. — Why did he not alone ask of 
 Christ to give him some one to be substituted in the place of 
 Judas ? Why do they not rather of themselves make the choice ? 
 Peter had already become better than he was. — Consider 
 how Peter does all according to the common wish of the 
 disciples — nothing by his own authority, nothing in an im- 
 perious manner. — Men, brethren, he says : since the Lord 
 called his disciples brethren, it is still more becoming that 
 Peter should thus address his fellow disciples, wherefore he 
 spoke to all present; Behold the dignity of the Church: be- 
 hold the angelic state of harmony and love. — Why does he 
 consult them on this matter ? liCst it should become an occa- 
 sion of dissention and dispute. — But he himself points out those 
 from whom the choice should be made : ' of these men who have 
 been with us all the time.' Was it not lawful for himself to 
 make the choice? It was, and, indeed, pre-eminently lawful::}: 
 
 * Acts i. 15. 
 
 t Quid ? an non licebat ipsi eligere ? licebat, et quidem maxime. — 
 P. 182, Vol. 111. St Chrys. edit. Par. 1C87. 
 
COUNTIL OF JERUSALKM. 37 
 
 but he abstains from it, lust lie should appear to favour any 
 one. Justly he first of all takes to himself authority in tliis 
 matter, as having them all under his control ; for to liini (.'lirist 
 said : " thou being onee converted, conlirm thy brethren."" It 
 is pleasing to be able to sliow in what light this act was viewed 
 by so bright an ornament of the Greek Church in the fourth 
 century. It is not, then, as you assert, we who strive to find 
 Scriptural authority for the Primacy, but one of the most il- 
 lustrious men of antiquity, — one occupying the chair of the 
 rival city, the new Rome, who recognises a splendid instance of 
 the (uoderate use of supreme power in the conduct of Peter on 
 this occasion. 
 
 A still more illustrious exercise of his high office, as "guar- 
 dian of the faith, "t occurs in the history of the first Council 
 of Jeru^falem. Great excitement was caused at Antioch by cer- 
 tain Judaizing Christians, who insisted that the converts from 
 the Gentiles should be subjected to circumcision and the legal 
 observances. " Paul and liarnabas had no small contest with 
 them,"]: but were unable to induce all to acquiesce in their judg- 
 ment; wherefore it was determiiuHl that they ''and certain 
 others of the other side, should go up to the Apostles and 
 j)riests to Jerusalem about this question." " The Apostles and 
 ancients came together to consider of tliis matter, and when 
 there was much disputing, l*eter, rising up, said to them : 
 Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made 
 choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear 
 the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knowetli 
 the hearts, gave them testimony, giving to them the Holy 
 Ghost as well as to us : and made no diflerence between us and 
 them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why 
 
 * St Clirys. hotn. III. in 1 cap. Act. pp. li?l, \t2. 
 
 t TIh' appellation givfii to Cclcstint', as successor of Petor, in the 
 Gen»'ral Council of Ephesus, an. i'M : Kixir<'r» tc* >Ja«x/ tmc TiTimc, 
 one of the acclamations after the public reading of his doctrinal exposi- 
 tion of tlic faith against the heresy of Eutyches. Cone. Eph. Act. 11. 
 T. I. Cone. Hard. Col. HTii. 
 
 t Acta XV. 'J. 
 
38 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, 
 which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But by 
 the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved even 
 as they." I pray you to observe the result of this discourse: 
 " All the multitude held their peace."* Previously there had 
 been at Antioch great opposition and contest, notwithstanding 
 the reverence due to the Apostolic character in Paul and Bar- 
 nabas : the collision of sentiment Ivad been renewed in the Coun- 
 cil with considerable feeling. Peter authoritatively speaks, re- 
 minds them that he had been chosen to announce the Gospel to 
 the Gentiles, that God had given evidences of his favour 
 towards them, reproaches his brethren with seeking unne- 
 cessarily to burden them with the multifarious observances of 
 the ceremonial law: and declares the great principle of faith in 
 Jesus Christ as the only foundation of hope for Jew or Gen- 
 tile. No sooner has he spoken than all acquiesce : no dissent- 
 ing voice is heard, no murmur : all opposition ceases ; and who- 
 ever rises to speak only confirms, like Paul and Barnabas, by 
 the narrative of miraculous facts, what Peter had declared of 
 the favour shown by God to the Gentiles ; or, like James, 
 refers to the prophecies, adding the suggestiont of the mea- 
 sures to be decreed, that the principle might be carried into suc- 
 cessful execution. I do not see how any man can read the sim- 
 ple history of this controversy, by the inspired writer, and not 
 perceive the great weight of Peter's authority in its termination. 
 The letter of the Council, drawn up in the name of the Apos- 
 tles and ancients, expressive of the principle laid down by Pe- 
 ter, and of the practical measure suggested by James, is declared 
 to emanate from the Holy Ghost : " it hath seemed good to the 
 Holy Ghost, and to us. "J The writers of antiquity speak of 
 it as the sentence or decree of Peter. In the third century, 
 
 * Acts XV. 12. 
 
 t K^tvce "I judge," is the simple expression of sentiment, whether 
 authoritative, or void of authority. See Thucydid. iv. GO. It corresponds 
 to the Latin censco. 
 
 i lb. v. 28. 
 
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. 39 
 
 Terlullian describes it as the exercise of liis power of binding 
 and loosing : " liie decree of l*eler loosed such things of the law 
 as were set aside, and bound fast such as were retained."' In 
 the fourth, St Jeroni says that Peter was the author of this de- 
 cree,! and the celebrated Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, speaks 
 of the controversy, as a matter referred by Paul to Peter, thai 
 by his supreme authority it mi^dn he definitively settled. ♦• If 
 Paul," says he in his letter to Pope Leo, " who was the herald 
 of truth, the organ of the Holy Spirit, had recourse to the great 
 Peter, in order to obtain a solution from him concerning the 
 observances of the law for those who disputed at Antioch on 
 this subject, with much greater reason we, who are abject and 
 weak, iiave recourse to your Apostolic Sec, that we may receive 
 from you remedies for the wounds of the churches. For it is 
 tit that you in all things should be first. "J Cave explains the 
 words of Paul, that *' he went to Jerusalem to see Peter," of 
 his going up on this occasion. § 
 
 Your assertions that this Council was not called by Peter, 
 that Peter did not preside in it, and that its decrees were not 
 confirmed by him, are, to say the least, perfectly gratuitous. He 
 was evidently the leading character in the Council, as Cave ad- 
 mits. Chrysostom calls our attention to the wisdom with which 
 he permitted the discussion, and then authoritatively interposed : 
 ** See," says he, " he permits the inquiry and dispute to go on, 
 and then he himself speaks :"|| and he observes it as an evidence 
 of the harmony and condescension which prevailed, that Paul 
 was allowed to speak after Peter had pronounced judgment: 
 ♦' See, Paul speaks after Peter, and no one closes his mouth. "f 
 
 * TortuUian, 1. do pudicitia. 
 
 t " Princippin hujus fuisso docrcti." S. Ilicron. Aug. Ep. 75, alias 
 xi., inter August. S. b, col. 172. Tom. II. 
 
 t Theodorot. ad Leonem. 
 
 § Pelruin ibi convenit occaaionc, utvidctur, Concilii Apostolici — cu- 
 JU8 Pclrus pars magna fuit." Sn'C. Ap. p.G. 
 
 II S. Chrys. horn, xxxii. inc. xv. Act. Ap. p. 2r.O. Tom. III. Edit 
 Paris, HW7. 
 
 IT Horn, .xxxiii. p. 200. 
 
40 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 To establish the primacy of Peter, it is not necessary to prove 
 that he exercised, at all times, and in every circumstance, his 
 prerogative to its utmost extent: since moderation, condescen- 
 sion and humility, had been prescribed to him by his divine 
 master; and Chrysostom testifies, that in this spirit he abstain- 
 ed from appointing the Apostle to fill the place of Judas, ^vhich, 
 nevertheless, he was fully authorized to do. The performance, 
 however, of any act which supposes superior power, is a proof 
 that he possessed it ; because an Apostle of Christ was not likely 
 to usurp a power not communicated by the Redeemer. When, 
 therefore, we see him stand forward, and silence the disputants 
 by his meek rebuke, we cannot fail to recognise him as the high 
 judge of religious controversy. 
 
 It has pleased the Holy Spirit to leave on record but a few 
 of the circumstances connected with this model of councils : 
 but these few sufficiently show that Peter was there, that he 
 either called the council, or assented to its convocation, that 
 he spoke with authority and effect, silencing all disputation by 
 his discourse, and that the decree was in strict conformity with 
 his judgment. The forms are of little importance where the au- 
 thority is fully respected and admitted. To be Prince and Primate 
 in the Church of God, it was not necessary that he should stand 
 alone, separated from his colleagues in the apostolate and episco- 
 pacy, and resting solely on the prerogative of his station. It is 
 delightful to see him in the council of his brethren, causing 
 the ardour of disputation to subside by authoritative instruction, 
 and enlightening the minds of his colleagues, and of the faithful, 
 by unfolding to them the oracles of God. The decree which ex- 
 presses his judgment, and that of his colleagues, and the faith of 
 the whole Church, is no way derogatory to his high prerogative. 
 
 The perpetuity of the privileges of the Prince of the 
 Apostles in the Church is a necessary consequence of the 
 divine institution of the Primacy. It is the foundation 
 which must remain as long as the edifice which it supports 
 subsists — it is the governing power, without which the king- 
 dom of Christ would be divided and brought to desolation 
 — it is the pastoral office, by which the sheep of Christ are 
 
PERPETUITY OF THK PRIMACY. 41 
 
 to be for ever preserved in uniiy, ami lo be one fold under one 
 Sheplierd. As llie perpcluily of the Apostolic commission 
 to teach, baptize, and perform the other functions of the sacred 
 ministry is admitted, though the words were addressed lo the 
 Apostles only, with the assurance, however, that Christ would 
 be with them till the consummation of ages; so must the per- 
 petuity of the governing power and pastoral oftlce, originally 
 conferred on Peter, be acknowledged, especially since, in im- 
 mediate connexion with it, the assurance was given that the 
 gates of hell should not prevail, — a promise which at least in- 
 directly regards the rock on which the Church is built. 
 *' Neither against the rock on which the Church is built, nor 
 against the Church s1il\11 the gates of hell prevail."* 
 
 That Peter founded the Church of Rome, and in conjunction 
 with Paul exercised there his Apostolic ministry, and that both 
 Apostles died martyrs for the failh in that city, are facts at- 
 tested by all antiquity, and freely adiniltcd by tlie most respect- 
 able Protestant writers. " We intrepidly aflirm," says Cave. 
 ** with all antiquity, that Peter was at Rome, and for some 
 time resided there. "t You deny that he was Bishop of Rome, 
 because the Apostolic commission was general ♦' to the whole 
 world :" but the government of that particular Church did not 
 prevent his discharge of all the duties of the Apostleship.J 
 The early writers, as Irenajus, speak conjointly of Peter and 
 Paul, as founding the C/hurch of Rome, because of their joint 
 labours, and tl'.eir martyrdom in that city at the close of their 
 apostolic ministry: some, as Epiphanius, designate them both 
 its bishops, as Cave remarks ; but whenever the Roman See is 
 spoken of in reference to one Apostle as its first bishop, thai 
 Apostle is uniformly Peter, and not Paul. Hence, it is called 
 
 • Origen, in C. xvi. Mat. Tom. XII., p o"J(). 
 
 t Cave Stcc. Apost. S. I'ctrus, p. 5, col. 1 Edit. Gcnevm, an. 170G. 
 
 t " All, both ancient and modrrn, will, I think, agree with me that 
 I'eter may be called Hisliop of Rome in a less strict sense, inasmuch as 
 111- laid the foundations of this Church, and rendered it illustrious by his 
 martyrdom." This admissir)n is made by Cave, lhou;T|i he questions 
 whether Peter should be styled IJishop of Home in a strict sense. V 'i 
 D* 
 
42 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY. 
 
 by St Cyprian, " the place of Peter,"* by St Jerom, " the chair 
 of Peter,"! and the succession from Peter in that See is avow- 
 ed, by St Aiigustin, to be one of the great evidences of truth 
 which retained him in the Catholic communion. " I am kept," 
 says he, " by the succession of bishops from the very See of the 
 Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after his resurrection, in- 
 trusted the feeding of his sheep, down to the present bishop."! 
 Ambrose, the master of Augustin, styles Peter " Bishop of the 
 Roman Church. "§ Whatever share the Apostle Paul may 
 have had in the government of that Church, it must have ne- 
 cessarily had one bishop, since the general practice of antiquity, 
 and the positive testimonies of the ancients, unanimously teach 
 that there can be but one bishop of one Church. To suppose 
 that neither Apostle governed it as bishop, is to create an 
 anomaly in the organization of the churches, by leaving one 
 without a special ruler. In whatever way we view the matter, 
 and whatever share in the administration we may ascribe to St 
 Paul, the Church of Rome is the heiress of both apostles, sanc- 
 tified by their labours, and enriched by their doctrine and their 
 blood. She claims all the privileges and powers which either 
 enjoyed or exercised ; and if she rests with peculiar emphasis 
 on those of Peter, it is because his privileges were more sub- 
 lime, and of a more enduring character, than those of the 
 Apostle of the Gentiles. I care not then to insist on the ap- 
 plication of the term " bishop," to Peter as governor of the 
 Roman Church, although it is perfectly applicable : it is un- 
 questionable that he governed it, at least in his apostolic cha- 
 racter, and died whilst so governing it. The authority with 
 which he was invested was a fundamental principle of Church 
 organization, which could not cease without the destruction of 
 the Church itself. It must then continue, in the bishops who 
 succeed him in the government of that Church, over which 
 he presided up to the time of his martyrdom. 
 
 * S. Cyprian, Ep. ad Antonian. t Jerom. ep, ad Damas. 
 
 t Aug. 1. adv. ep. Man. fundam. C. IV. Tom. VIll.,p 153. 
 § S. Ambros. 1. 3 de Sac. c. 1, §. (5. Tom. II. 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE 
 PRIMACY. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 Having reviewed the Scriptural evidence of the Primacy, 
 which you pass over rather slightly, it is but just to meet the ob- 
 jections which you derive from some passages of Scripture. You 
 say that the rock was the Redeemer; for " no one can lay ano- 
 ther foundation, but that which is laid, whicii is Christ Jesus." ' 
 To have the true meaning of this passage, and to perceive the 
 weakness of the objection grounded on it, the context must be 
 attended to, from wliich it will at once appear, that the founda- 
 tion of which St Paul speaks is different from that mentioned 
 by Christ. The Apostle addressing the Corinthians, whom he 
 had brought to tlie knowledge of Cliristiaii faith, says: *'You 
 are God's building. According to the grace of God that is given 
 me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, and another 
 buildclh thereon. But let every man take heed how he build- 
 eth thereupon. For no man can lay another foundation, but 
 that which is laid — which is Christ Jesus.'* The Apostle, 
 anxious to maintain his spiritual children in the integrity of 
 faith, compares them to a building erected, by his own hands, 
 on faith in our divine Redeemer; and he declares that no other 
 foundation can be laid. In Him we must believe; in Him we 
 must hope; Him in all things we must obey; for, as St Peter 
 expresses the same idea in clearer terms, "there is not salvation 
 in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to 
 
 • 1 Cor. ii. 11. 
 
44 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY. 
 
 men, whereby we must be saved."* This is the obvious mean- 
 ing of St Paul.t The text has no relation whatever to the pro- 
 mise of Christ to Peter, except the illustration of a different 
 truth by a similar image. Christ wished to signify to Peter the 
 reward of his faith by the authority which he would enjoy in 
 his Church, and with this view he likened the Church to a 
 building, himself to an architect, Peter to a rock on which the 
 foundation of the building would be laid. The similitude is apt 
 and expressive in both cases, but confusion is necessarily pro- 
 duced when the two similitudes are confounded together, and 
 what is said of Christ in the one place, where he is represented 
 as the foundation, is applied to him in the other, where he 
 speaks of himself as the architect. The passages are parallel 
 in their character, but different in their object: in both, the 
 foundation is distinguished from the architect. Where Paul is 
 the architect, Christ is the foundation : where Christ is the 
 architect, he makes Peter the foundation. Do we then reject 
 Christ ? God forbid ! He is for us also the foundation of faith, 
 — the basis on which our hopes of immortality are built. Our 
 sentiments are correctly and eloquently expressed by one of 
 the most distinguished of Peter's successors, the first Leo, with 
 whose name posterity has associated the appellation of " Great." 
 Paraphrasing the address of Christ to Peter, recorded in the 
 sixteenth chapter of St Matthew, he says : " As my Father has 
 manifested my divinity to thee, I make known to thee thy dig- 
 nity : for thou art Peter, that is, as I am the inviolable rock, 
 the corner-stone, who make both one, — I the foundation, other 
 
 * Acts iv. 12. 
 
 t The rule prescribed by the Protestant critic, Gerard, should here 
 be attended to, 45G : " Every term should be considered as it stands, in 
 the proposition of which it makes a part, and explained, not by itself, 
 but so as to bring out the real sense of that whole proposition." He 
 shows the violation of this rule by an Antinomian, who should under- 
 stand the rock on which the wise man builds his house. Matt. vii. 24, 
 to be Christ, the Rock of Ages. The rule is equally violated, when the 
 rock, of which Christ speaks, Matt. xvi. 18, is understood to be himself 
 See Gerard's Institutes, p. 134. 
 
DOMINATION FORBIDDEN. 45 
 
 than wliich no one can lay — nevertlieless thou also art a Rock, 
 because thou art strengthened by my power, so that what things 
 belong to me by nature, are common to thee with me by far- 
 TiciFATioN."* Every prerogative then wjjich we acknowledge 
 in Peter is the gift of his bounty; all authority emanates from 
 him. In fact, Bishop Marsh, and, after him, Bloomfield ad- 
 mit that there can be no real difficulty in reconciling these two 
 passages, because Christ and Peter are called the foundation in 
 a very different sense. *' The Apostles, generally, are in other 
 parts of the New Testament called the foundation on which the 
 Cliurch is built ;t but Peter is specially called such, and even 
 designated a rock, to denote his peculiar strength and connexion 
 with the Church." 
 
 You adduce various passages of Scripture in which pride and 
 domination are condemned, and humility is prescribed : and you 
 assert that ♦' all these instances are related as occurring subse- 
 quently to the gift of the keys to Peter." You suppose, that 
 if die words of Christ had the meaning which we assign them, 
 he would have reproved his disciples when contending about 
 superiority, and *' have reminded them that he had constituted 
 Peter tiie governor and chief already." Allow me to observe, 
 that Peter did not receive the power which was promised to 
 him, until after the resurrection, when Christ gave him the 
 commission to feed his lambs and sheep. It is not wonderful 
 that the AposUes did not at tliat time fully understand the sub- 
 lime promise of the Saviour, for, as yet, they were slow of un- 
 derstanding, and had no adequate idea of the institutions whicli 
 Christ meant to establish. Already, indeed, they saw a mark- 
 ed preference manifested for Peter, since Christ paid the tri- 
 bute for him as well as for himself, and gave other indications 
 of peculiar favour: but he was known to cherish a tender love 
 for John, and his kindness towards all rendered it still a matter 
 of (juestion which was the greatest favourite with their divine 
 master. He took occasion from this, and other circumstances 
 
 • S. Leo. Maij. Scrm. 3, dc a.ssurnptionc sua ad I'ontificatuin. 
 
 t Bloomfield Coin. Matt, xvi., and quotes Eph.ii. 20, and Rev. xxi 1-1. 
 
46 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY. 
 
 which showed his disciples' imperfection, to teach them — 
 notequahty, but liumility. Thus, when the mother of the sons 
 of Zebedee sought for her children, that they might sit, one on 
 his right hand, and the other on his left, by his throne, " the 
 ten hearing it were moved with indignation against the two bre- 
 thren." He called them to him, and observed, that lordly do- 
 mination characterized the rulers of this earth, but that, if they 
 wished to be great in his sight, they should humble themselves, 
 and become as servants to each other : " Even as the Son of 
 man came not to be ministered, but to minister, and to give his 
 life a redemption for many."* In this surely was implied, that 
 there was to be amongst them a difference of rank ; but, never- 
 theless, that the highest should imitate the humility of their 
 Lord and Master, so that the exercise of authority, however 
 great, should be marked by kind and fraternal feeling. This 
 divine lesson was inculcated by Peter, when, addressing his 
 colleagues in the sacred ministry, he bade them " feed the flock 
 of God" entrusted to their charge, not domineering over the 
 portion of the Lord's inheritance committed to them, " but 
 being made a pattern of the flock from the heart."! The exer- 
 cise of power is, in all circumstances, to be tempered with hu- 
 mility; but the power is not, on that account, less real or effi- 
 cacious. 
 
 In the second passage objected by you, Christ forbids pha- 
 risaical vanity and ostentation, which delights in " salutations 
 in the market-place," and in titles of distinction : " be not you 
 called Rabbi. For one is your master, and all you are bre- 
 thren.":}: If this passage be alleged to prove that no one of the 
 Apostles was superior to the other, it may be, with equal pro- 
 priety, used to show that the Apostles were in no respect supe- 
 rior to the multitude, for the discourse was not addressed to the 
 Apostles alone, but " to the multitude and to his disciples. "§ 
 You are scarcely prepared for this perfect equality. You admit 
 superior powers in the Apostolic college, and you consequently 
 
 * Matt. XX. 28. t 1 Peter V. 2, 3. 
 
 t Matt, xxiii. 8. § Matt, xxiii. 1. 
 
POWERS OF THE APOSTLES. 47 
 
 cannot urge this passage farther than to show that vanity is re- 
 preliensible in all, wheliier they he the tilled dignitaries of the 
 churcli, or the less conspicuous members of the laity. 
 
 The ninth chapter of Luke aflbrds you another objection. 
 " There entered a thought into them which of them should be 
 greater;" and their divine Master " took a child, and set him 
 by him, and said to them : whosoever shall receive this child in 
 my name, receivelh me: and whosoever shall receive me, re- 
 ceiveth him that sent me. For he that is the least among you 
 all, he is the greatest."* The Lord thus beautifully insinuates 
 humility, which is the best disposition for elevation to the high 
 ollice of the Apostolate. He says nothing to exclude the supe- 
 riority of one above the rest in dignity or rank ; but teaches all 
 that the lowliest in station may be greatest in merit before God, 
 provided he be profoundly humble. 
 
 The objection derived from the twenty-second chapter of 
 Luke is similar to that which you have before advanced, from 
 the twentieth chapter of Matthew, and which I have already 
 explained. It regards the mode in which superior power is to 
 be exercised : " he who is the greatest among you, let him be as 
 the least, and he that is the leader as he that servelh. For 
 which is greater, lie that sittelh at table, or he that servelh ? Is 
 not he that sittelh at table ? But I am in the midst of you, as 
 he that servelh. "t There was then a leader, there was one 
 greatest among them, but he was to imitate Ilim who was above 
 all, but wIjo nevertheless humbled himself as the servant of all. 
 He sufliciently indicated the leader, when, addressing Peter on 
 that occasion, he told him to " confirm his brethren. "J 
 
 You found the next objection on tlie twentieth chapter of St 
 John's Gospel, wherein (Jhrist, addressing all the Apostles, 
 says : ♦♦ Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, 1 also 
 send you. Receive ye the Holy (Jhost. Wliose sins you shall 
 forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall re- 
 tain, they are retained.") You argue that, as no distinction is 
 
 • Luke xxii. 2G. t Ibid. xxii. S*). 
 
 t ibid. 3*J. § John. XX. -JI. 
 
48 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY. 
 
 made between Peter and the other Apostles, the power confer- 
 red on all was alike, and that *' as the character of his office is not 
 to be determined by the time when it was first promised, but 
 by the rights actually conferred, it seems abundantly evident 
 that this passage decides the whole controversy." There might 
 be something more than plausibility in this reasoning, had the 
 same Evangelist neglected to record the special commission to 
 feed the lambs and sheep of Christ, given to Peter alone, after 
 a thrice repeated protestation of loving his Lord more than the 
 others loved him. Peter received, with the others, the power 
 of forgiveness, which he and they were to exercise ; but sepa- 
 rately and apart from them, he received the pastoral commission 
 to govern all the sheep of Christ, and, as the vicegerent and 
 visible representative of Christ, to be the one shepherd of the 
 one fold. The character of his office is determined both by the 
 promise, which was special, and by the rights actually confer- 
 red, which fully corresponded with the sublime promise. Peter 
 had powers common to the whole Apostolic college ; he had, 
 besides, authority peculiarly his own. 
 
 I have already shown that the Apostolic commission pre- 
 sented no obstacle to the administration of a particular Church 
 by an Apostle. He had privilege to exercise his power every 
 where, but he was not necessarily obliged to be witliout any 
 fixed residence or See, as is evident from the case of the 
 Apostle James, who occupied the See of Jerusalem. As you 
 here promise presently to prove from Irenaeus that Linus, and 
 not St Peter, is set down as the first bishop of that city, it is 
 but just to observe that you labour under a misconception of 
 that writer's meaning, as will appear when we shall come to 
 the examination of his testimony. 
 
 You observe, that on some occasions Peter appears, in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, " like one more ruled than ruling." The 
 chief instance which you give is, that when the conversion of 
 the Samaritans, through the ministry of Philip, was made 
 known to the Apostles who were in Jerusalem, they sent to 
 them " Peter and John,"* But, surely, this is too slight a 
 
 * Acts viii. 14. 
 
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 40 
 
 ground for questioning the superior authority of Peter, esta- 
 blished by so many and such strong Scriptural proofs. A 
 superior cannot, indeed, be authoritatively sent by his subjects, 
 yet he is said sometimes to be sent when he is induced to go 
 at their solicitation. Were we to rely on a similar argument, — 
 the equivocal meaning of a word ; were we to oppose it to 
 solemn and clear and express testimonies of Scripture, convey- 
 ing power and authority, you would surely regard us with a 
 feeling of pity, if not of indignation. 
 
 After the baptism of Cornelius, when Peter went up to 
 Jerusalem, they who were of llie circumcision disputed against 
 him," and Peter explains the wliolc matter, concluding in 
 the 17lh verse by saying: *' Who was I, that I could oppose 
 God?" "Neither he nor his accusers on this occasion," you 
 observe, ** seem to have had any notion of his superior dignity." 
 But is it a matter of surprise that a people so attached to their 
 religious traditions as the Jews, and so recently converted to 
 Christianity, should have viewed with displeasure a measure 
 so novel, and so repugnant to their ideas, and should have been 
 wanting in due respect for the auliiority of the first Pastor ? 
 You need only call to mind the frequent murmurings of their 
 forefathers against Moses, even shortly after many and stu- 
 pendous prodigies had convinced them that he was the chosen 
 servant of (lod, and was acting in obedience to the divine will. 
 Peter was not unconscious of iiis authority, but did not deem 
 it unworthy of his high dignity to explain the motives of his 
 conduct, and thus take away from their weak minds the occa- 
 sion of scandal and dissention. 'I'he recognition of the hio^h 
 authority of l^elcr, even by the converts from Judaism, as well 
 as his own sense of that authority, is manifest from the history 
 of the Council of Jerusalem, of which I have already treated. 
 I must refer you to my remarks for the solution of the objec- 
 tion which you seek to draw from it. 
 
 You mention, as something unfavourable to the prerogative 
 of Peter, that " the whole of liu; remaining chapters of the 
 
 ' Arts xi. "2. 
 
50 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY. 
 
 book of the Acts, is devoted chiefly to the labours of the great 
 Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter is hardly named again." 
 Is it possible that you seriously object this circumstance ? St 
 Luke, the writer of the Acts, was the companion of Paul in his 
 travels, as the Apostle himself testifies.* He gives a com- 
 pendium of the chief events which marked the rise of the 
 Church until the conversion of Saul, and thence confines him- 
 self, almost exclusively, to the subsequent history of St Paul, 
 having been himself an eye witness of many of the events 
 which he records. 
 
 The arguments which you produce to prove that St Paul 
 -acknowledged no superior authority in Peter, are, to say the 
 least, weak indeed. To convince the Galatians that his gospel 
 was divinely revealed, St Paul observes that, on his conversion, 
 lie had not gone to Jerusalem, to the Apostles who had pre- 
 ceded him in the faith : but what he adds is worthy of your 
 most serious consideration: "Three years after, I came to 
 Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days."t 
 Can we suppose that this was a visit of mere courtesy, and not 
 rather an official act of respect to the authority of the prince of 
 the Apostles, with whom Paul wished to consult on the im- 
 portant concerns of the Church? The Greek verb suggests 
 the idea of consultation, or inquiry .J " Peter," says Chrysos- 
 tom, " was the organ and prince of the Apostles: wherefore 
 Paul went up to see him in preference to the rest."§ Cave 
 himself, as you have seen, believes that the visit was made 
 with a view to obtain the decision of the controversy about the 
 observance of the ceremonial law. 
 
 The reproof given by St Paul to Cephas, I| is alleged by 
 you, after most Protestant writers on the subject, as evidence 
 that he recognised in Peter no superior authority. The Fathers, 
 ho\yever, discovered in it nothing more than the liberty w^hich 
 an inferior may use in admonishing his superior, when the 
 
 * 2 Cor. viii. 18. Col. iv. 14. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24. 
 
 t Gal. i. 18. 
 
 t <ri§«?A', to confer with. See Jones's Greek Lexicon. 
 
 § S. Chrys. horn. 87 in Joan. || Gal. ii. 11. 
 
CEPHAS AT ANTIOCH. 51 
 
 conduct of the latter is such as is likely to bo prrjudirial to 
 the interests of truth. No station, liowever elevated, places 
 man beyond the reacli of respectful admonition, or even strong 
 reproof, if his conduct ilescrve it. " Paul," says Tcrtullian, 
 *' reproved Peter, for no other reason, however, than the change 
 of his mode of livinjj;, wliich he varied according to tlie class of 
 persons with whom he associated, not for any corruption of 
 divine truth."* In regard to this fact, Augustiu ol)serves : "a 
 just liberty is to be admired in Paul, and holy humility in 
 Peter."t ; 
 
 You avail yourself of tiie statement of St Paul, that to" him 
 " was committed the Gosjiel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter 
 
 * Tertullian, 1. v. contra Marcion,c. 3. 
 
 t Aujr. Ep. 6^2. n. 22. Nov. edit. 
 
 t I have granted to Bishop Hopkins that Cephas here mentioned is 
 the same as Peter, as I do not wish to encumber the investigation 
 with a question of a mere critical character. The Fathers of the Church 
 generally take him to be the same, but in a question of this kind, totally 
 independent of doctrine, a mistake may be supposed without disrespect 
 to their venerable authority. It is certain that Clement of Alexandria 
 maintained that Cephas, who was reproved by St Paul, was one of the 
 seventy disciples, and Euscbius has recorded this testimony, wiUiout 
 any indication of dissent. Eusebius, 1. i. c. 12. In all ages liiis sentiment 
 of Clement has had advocates, although the contrary opinion has been 
 always more general. Among modern writers the learned Feller, in his 
 historical dictionary, manifestly favours the less generally received 
 opinion. Hardouin expressly defends it. Kerkherdere in his cojuitus 
 noTus de Ccpfui riprrhoiso, published at Louvain in 1713, maintains it, 
 and Molkcnbuhr, in 17-;.'), published a Scriptural critical dissertation to 
 the same effect. The authors, both Catholic and Protestant, who have 
 confounded the two, are strangely embarrassed to find a time at which 
 the reproof of Peter can be supposed to have happened, some placing it 
 before, some after tlio Council of Jerusalem. The simple fact seems to 
 be that Cephas, one of the disciples, being reproved sharply by Paul for 
 tergiversation of conduct, " no small contest" ensued, which led to the 
 reference to Prter and James and their colleagues at Jerusalem. Tlic 
 conduct of Peter in defending his reception of Cornelius into the 
 Church, and his bold reproof of the Judaizing Christians in the Council, 
 pivc us a view of his character totally inconsistent with the dissimula- 
 tion of the weak disciple. 
 
52 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY. 
 
 was that of the circumcision ;"* but surely you know that these 
 expressions do not signify that the exclusive charge of Gentiles 
 or Jews was given to either apostle. The universal character 
 of the apostolic commission regards not only places, but classes 
 of men: and the Apostle only intimates that the chief exercise 
 of his own ministry was to be among the Gentiles, whilst Pe- 
 ter was chiefly to exert his zeal for the conversion of the Jews.t 
 Peter was the first to receive the Gentiles into the Church, in 
 the person of Cornelius and his family; and you cannot sup- 
 pose that he, or any of the Apostles, had not full authority to 
 exercise his ministry in favour of ail classes of men. Besides, 
 there were at Rome many Jews, amongst whom Peter no doubt 
 especially laboured, whilst Paul more particularly devoted 
 himself to the conversion of the Gentiles. Each, as opportunity 
 was offered, extended his zeal to Jew and Gentile ; but the 
 general superintendance of all still remained in him whom 
 Christ had commanded to feed his lambs and sheep, and con- 
 firm his brethren. 
 
 The order observed by St Paul in the mention of those who 
 were regarded as pillars of the church, "James, Cephas, and 
 John," seems to you evidence against the primacy of Peter. 
 To the learned Hardouin and others it appeared to favour the 
 opinion that Cephas here mentioned was a disciple, and not 
 the Apostle ; because in all the Gospels, and in the writings of 
 St Paul, wherever Peter is named, he uniformly precedes all 
 others, unless where the latter place is the more honourable 
 from the nature of the subject,;}: and by St Matthew he is ex- 
 pressly styled " the first."§ This, though the least proof of 
 
 * Gal. ii. 7. 
 
 t " St Peter was chiefly but not entirely occupied by the Jews, and 
 St Paul chiefly, but not wholly, with the Gentiles," says Bloomfield on 
 this passage. See also Synopsis Grit, in locum. 
 
 t Gal. i. 12 , iii. 22. 
 
 § Mat. X. 2. TT^atTo?, "the first." That this is not a mere ordinal 
 adjective is proved by the fact that no such adjective is placed after the 
 names of the other Apostles enumerated in this list. It is remarkable 
 that the Evangelists observe no order injthe catalogues they have given, 
 except in regard of two — Peter and Judas. The first of whom always 
 
PREACHING OF PETER AT ROME. 53 
 
 his superiority, afl'ords no slight presumption of it. Waiving, 
 however, whatever advantage might he derived from this 
 circumstance, I shall beg, in reply to your objection, to 
 state that the name of Cephas is altogether wanting in tliis 
 place in a mo:it ancient manuscript, which Grotius judges to 
 be correct.* Moreover the incidental mention of the name 
 of the Apostle, without regard to the precedency of his office, 
 cannot render questionable his authority. 
 
 You labour to prove that Paul, and not Peter, was the first 
 founder of the Church of Rome, and you do not hesitate to 
 assert that 'on this point the book of the Acts is clear and posi- 
 tive.' But, sir, all that is clear from that divine history is that 
 Paul was brought to Rome in chains, and that during his stay 
 there, whicli lasted two years, he instructed those who liad 
 recourse to him at his own hired lodginji.t Before he had 
 seen that city,J he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, in which 
 
 is placed at the head of the catalogue ; tlic last uniformly occupies the 
 lowest place. The eloquent bishop of Mcaux presents, at one view, the 
 various circumstances in which Peter appears foremost in the Gospels : 
 " Peter," says he, " appears the first on all occasions : tlie first to confess 
 the faith ; the first to express his obligation of love ; the first of all the 
 Apostles who saw Christ after his resurrection, as he was th«' first to 
 bear testimony to this fact before all the people. We find him first, 
 when there was question of filling up the number of the Apostles ; the 
 first wh(j confirmed tiie faith by a miracle, tiie first to convert the Jews, 
 the first to receive the Gentiles; in short, every thing occurs to estab- 
 lish Ixis supremacy. The power divided among many, imports its re- 
 striction : conferred on one alone, ozcr all and without exception, it bears 
 the evidence of its plenitude. All receive the same power, but not in 
 the same degree, nor to the same extent. Jesus Christ commences by 
 the chief, and in the person of the chief developes all his power — in 
 order that we should learn that the ecclesiastical authority, being origi- 
 nally centred in one individual, has been diffused only on the condition 
 that it sliould always be reflected back on the princij)]e of its unity ; and 
 that all they who share in it should be inseparably connected with that 
 See, which is the common centre of ail churclics." — Bossuet. Disc, sur 
 lunit^ de I'Eglise, premiere partie. 
 
 ' See Critic. Sac. Synop. in hunc locum. 
 
 t Acts xxviii. 30. 
 
 I Five or six years before his imprisonment, about the year of C^hriul 
 E* 
 
54 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY. 
 
 he declares his earnest desire to see them, to be consoled by 
 the evidence of their faith, the fame of which had already 
 spread to the utmost limits of the empire.* You have fallen 
 into the strange mistake of quoting this epistle in proof of the 
 success of his preaching in that city, whilst he declares in it 
 that he had never been there : " I would not have you ignorant, 
 brethren, that I have often purposed to come to you (and have 
 been prevented hitherto), that I might have some fruit among 
 you also, even as among other nations."! 
 
 You complain that " after all this St Paul should be made to 
 act a secondary part to St Peter in founding the Church of 
 Rome, and that the Sacred Oracles should thus become subor- 
 dinate to the testimony of tradition." But it is manifest, from 
 the passage of Scripture just quoted, that St Paul was not the 
 original founder of that Church, and that it was flourishing and 
 celebrated before his eye had ever rested on that magnificent 
 city. Tradition comes to our aid on a point not stated in Scrip- 
 ture, by informing us who it was that first entered the seat of 
 Paganism to preach salvation in the name of the crucified Re- 
 deemer : it does not set aside the Sacred Oracles, but gives us 
 information for which they had prepared us. Chrysostom, in 
 regard to the establishment of religion by Peter in the capital 
 of the empire, observes : " The fisherman Peter, because he 
 practised virtue, and occupied the imperial city, shines, even 
 after death, brighter than the sun. "J TertuUian, at the close of 
 the second century, speaks of those whom Peter baptized in 
 the Tyber.§ 
 
 You " remind us, that in the two epistles of St Peter, there 
 is not one word of intimation on the supreme rule and govern- 
 ment supposed to be conferred on him." But it is enough 
 that he writes to his colleagues in the ministry with the dignity 
 and authority that becomes the prince of the Apostles ; and such 
 
 57 or 58. See Bloomfield, Notes on the Acts and on the Epistle to the 
 Romans : also Macknight on the Epistles. See also Cave, Saec, Apost. 
 
 ^ Rom. i. e. t V. 13. 
 
 t S. Joan. Chry. in Ps. 48, p. 370, Tom. I. 
 
 § Tertull. 1. de bapt. 
 
SCRIPTURAL ALLUSIONS. 55 
 
 is the judgment which an eminent Protestant critic has passed 
 on his style.* He speaks as one to wliom pastors and people 
 were alike entrusted ; and whilst, with the humility which his 
 divine Master inculcated, he regards himself as a fellow-labourer, 
 he prescribes to the dignitaries of the Church the spirit in which 
 they should exercise their power.t 
 
 In fine, you ask us, as you delight in interrogatories, " have 
 we never wondered that the supremacy of Peter has been 
 passed by in all the Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles?" 
 We reply that we have no cause for this supposed wonder, as 
 we see ils exercise very distinctly marked in the Acts, and its 
 divine origin strongly declared in the Gospels. Great, indeed, 
 is our astonishment, and deep our regret, that many read these 
 divine writings and perceive not these truths, but prefer vain 
 conjectures and weak reasonings to the plain and solemn 
 words of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, sir, you may not have per- 
 mitted your attention to be directed to the various passages in 
 the Gospels, in which the Primacy of Peter is indirectly, but 
 significantly intimated. ♦' Is the Church," says St Francis de 
 Sales, J " likened unto a house ? It is placed on the foundation 
 of a rock, which is Peter. Will you represent it under the 
 figure of a family ? You behold our Redeemer paying the 
 tribute as ils master, and after him comes Peter as his repre- 
 sentative. Is the Church a bark? Peter is its pilot; and it is 
 our Redeemer who instructs him. Is the doctrine by which 
 we are drawn from the gulf of sin represented by a fisher's 
 net? It is Peter who casts it: it is Peter who draws it; the 
 other disciples lend their aid ; but it is Peter that presents the 
 fishes to our Redeemer. Is the Church represented by an 
 embassy ? Saint Peter is at its head. Do you prefer the figure 
 of a kingdom ? Saint Peter carries its keys. In fine, will you 
 have it shadowed under the symbol of a flock and a fold ? 
 Saint Peter is the shepherd and universal Pastor under Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 • Grotius. Sec Synops. Grit. Proleg. Ep. 1, Petri. 
 
 t 1 Ep. Peter, c. v. 
 
 t Controvcrses de S. Franc, de Sales, disc. 42. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 From the Scriptural proofs of the Primacy of Peter, you pro- 
 ceed to the ancient canons, styled, of the Jipo sties ; and you ob- 
 serve, that in them no evidence of it is discoverable. That they 
 are not regarded by us as the true productions of the Apostles, 
 you candidly acknowledge ; and hence I can see no reason why 
 you should bring them forward in this investigation, especially 
 as all learned Protestants agree with us in rejecting them.* 
 Allowing you, however, the privilege of using them, you can- 
 not find a single expression in them which impugns the Pri- 
 macy of Peter and his successors. The prohibition of the trans- 
 fer of bishops from one see to another, unless by the judgment 
 and earnest recommendation of many bishops, does not prove 
 that there was then no Primate, because the present discipline 
 requires his consent for so important a change ; this being a 
 matter entirely dependent on positive enactment. In the first 
 three ages espef*ially, when persecution raged, the communi- 
 cation between the prelates, scattered abroad over the empire, 
 and even beyond its limits, was necessarily difficult; and it 
 cannot be matter of surprise, that recourse to the chief Pastor 
 was enjoined only in cases of vital importance to the general 
 interests of the Church. Besides, the See of Alexandria, found- 
 ed by Mark, the disciple of Peter, and that of Antioch, founded 
 by Peter himself, had extensive jurisdiction, afterwards deno- 
 
 * See Cave Sa^c. Ap. Op. Sup. p. 19. Gen. cd. He thinks that they 
 were collected together chiefly from the usage and regulations of the 
 Church about the end of the second age. 
 
CANONS OF THE APOSTLES. 57 
 
 minated patriarchal, according to the beautiful order established 
 from the comraencement. The general affairs of these vast 
 districts were committed fully to their authority, as appears by 
 the sixtli canon of Nice. If the bishops of the east, whose dis- 
 cipline is thought to be represented by tiiose canons, authorized 
 episcopal translations, whenever judged expedient by many 
 neighbouring bishops, it was an enactment no wise derogatory 
 to the supremacy of Peter's chair. At a later period, the ex- 
 pediency of further restrictions to prevent ambition became 
 manifest, whilst the facilities of communication were increased, 
 and the patriarchal sees having failed, occasion was oflercd for 
 the more direct and frequent exercise of pontifical authority, 
 even in the most distant provinces. An absolute prohibition 
 of all translations has been made, whereby they became unlaw- 
 ful, except by the dispensation of the general ruler of the 
 Church. The thirty-third canon exhibits that order which is 
 to be maintained in the respective portions of the Christian 
 world ; the bishops of each province or nation looking up with 
 reverence to their local head, or metropolitan, as continues to 
 be enjoined even unto this day: but who can thence conclude 
 that there is no common head, whom even metropolitans should 
 reverence and obey ? In the enactment of canons, the Coun- 
 cils of the three first ages, which were all local, intended to re- 
 gulate local concerns, not general discipline ; and consequently 
 legislated without the remotest intention to interfere with the 
 general organization of the Church. In this spirit, provincial 
 Councils were to be held twice a year, and local controversies 
 were therein examined and determined : but when the general 
 interests of religion were at stake, their acts were sent to the 
 chief guardian of the divine deposite, as we shall see in the case 
 of Paul of Samosata, and in the celebrated controversies con- 
 cerning baptism administered by heretics, and the necessity of 
 grace. These fretjuent Councils were advisable, in consequence 
 of thediflicullies for which no legislation had yet provided, and 
 were practicable among neighbouring bishops, whose dioceses 
 were generally small. Such Councils are still prescribed to be 
 lield, at least every third year, and, within the last ten years, 
 
58 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 
 
 they have been thrice held in our ecclesiastical province. Thus 
 our practice is substantially the same as that of the early a^es, and 
 neither interferes with the prerogative of the Pope. The judg- 
 ment of bishops, accused of grievous delinquency, was some- 
 times left to their colleagues of the province, except the bishops 
 of Alexandria and Antioch, whose patriarchal dignity gave them 
 the privilege of being judged by the Pope ; but when aggrieved, 
 they raised their voice from the East, and from the West, to 
 the father of bishops, whose power was often exerted in their 
 behalf. The extinction of those patriarchates, and a desire to 
 protect the episcopal dignity from unjust and rash aggression, 
 subsequently induced the reservation of all such cases to the 
 mature examination and impartial judgment of one whose ele- 
 vation raises him above the partial influences to which other 
 bishops might be exposed. 
 
 I have thus offered an explanation of difficulties which have 
 no direct bearing on the subject of our investigation, and which 
 I could have justly passed over without notice, because taken 
 from supposititious documents. Your assertion, that these ca- 
 nons are directly adverse to our doctrine, is surely not easy to 
 be sustained. I hope you now see how perfectly they har- 
 monize with the admission of a governing power, watching 
 over the general interests of religion, and interfering more or less 
 in local concerns, according to peculiar exigencies and circum- 
 stances. As to our evading evidence, as you insinuate, it is as 
 far from our thoughts as it is foreign from our practice to seek 
 it in spurious sources. 
 
 In your progress among these impure sources, you next come 
 to the *• Apostolic Constitutions," which, although confessedly 
 spurious, you bring forward to bear evidence against us, de- 
 claring that " you have searched them in vain for any trace of 
 our doctrine on the Primacy." 1 regret. Right Reverend Sir, 
 that you should have occupied yourself in examining docu- 
 ments of this character, from which no conclusive evidence 
 could, in any case, be derived ; but, as I am obliged to follow 
 you in the path you have chosen, I will proceed, although re- 
 luctantly, to consider the justness of your conclusions, ^rn n 
 
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 59 
 
 what is or is not contained in these unimportant writings. You 
 observe that these Constitutions apply to all bishops, in the plural 
 form, the very language addressed to Peter. This is a niislakc. 
 The words which you cite are those which were addressed to 
 all the Apostles.* No where do you find all the bishops styled 
 the rock on which Christ built his Church. Even from these 
 spurious decrees the pre-eminence of Peter is apparent. They 
 are drawn up chiefly in his name, and he is represented as 
 speaking throughout the most of them. He is named and styled 
 first, as is apparent from the passages which you quote, in the 
 translation of one of which you have rendered ihis particularity 
 less apparent to the reader. The text should be thus translated: 
 " I therefore tbe first, Peter say ;" which you have rendered : 
 ** I therefore Peter say, first. "t Wiicn Peter and Paul are 
 united in the decree, the precedency of Peter is still maintained : 
 •* I Peter, and I Paul, ordain. "J 
 
 You have, at last, reached a class of spurious documents 
 which you avow are highly favourable to the claims of the 
 Roman Pontiff, the decretals of Isidore xMercator. You dwell 
 on these with peculiar emphasis;, and not only do you charge 
 the forgery of them on Kiculphus, bishop of Moguntum, about 
 the year 787, but, at one fell swoop, you make the Popes ac- 
 complices of the fraud by their countenance and sanction. 
 The compliment you pay to the Catholic literati of the present 
 day for their honourable rejection of these false decrees, but 
 badly compensates for the wound which you endeavour to in- 
 flict on the religion which they have defended, when you repre- 
 sent bishops and Popes as *' paltering with every principle of 
 truth, whilst they boasted of infallibility." The facts of the case, 
 however, do not warrant these reproaches. The collection 
 was not certainly framed at Home, but in Germany: and its 
 author is still problematic, though you unhesitatingly pronounce 
 liim to have been a bishop, 'i'lic literary fraud did not consist 
 
 • Matt, xviii. 18. 
 
 f TTfmroi «r »>»' fn/jii riiT^sf. ** Ego igitur primus Tetrus dico. 
 
 t E^M niTjic «, iyei Ilai/Aoc Ji*rx((o/unfiit. Const. 1. viii. c. 33. 
 
00 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 
 
 in forging the documents altogether, with a view to introduce 
 new doctrines, or a new system of ecclesiastical polity, for the 
 calvinist Blondell h'mself acknowledges that genuine docu- 
 ments were used as the materials of this imposture ; whilst 
 false inscriptions and clumsy combinations gave to the collec- 
 tion an air of remote antiquity. It is a curious fact that "the 
 Apostolic Constitutions," which you have read with intense 
 interest, and which you describe as rich in doctrine, in elo- 
 quence, and in forms of devotion, have been used freely by the 
 compiler of these false decretals. Large extracts are taken 
 from them, sometimes word for word, sometimes with some 
 slight variation, and given in the name of some Pope of the 
 first three centuries. The Recognitions of Clement, another 
 work of the same spurious character, was also used by Isidore ; 
 and even works of undoubted authenticity, such as the writings of 
 Saints Leo and Gregory, were employed in the same manner. You 
 ask: *' does not the existence of such a fraud bring a dark cloud 
 upon the very character of the claim itself?" I answer confi- 
 dently, it does not. As well might an unbeliever argue against 
 the divine character of the Christian religion, because spurious 
 gospels and other literary frauds were circulated at a very early 
 period by some whose zeal was not according to knowledge. 
 If you can speak in raptures of the Apostolic Constitutions, ac- 
 knowledged by all to be a literary imposture, why are you so 
 vehement in your invectives against the compilation of Isidore, 
 founded in a great measure on these Constitutions, or on w^orks 
 undoubtedly authentic? You say, that this imposture was exe- 
 cuted by a bishop ; but surely you must know that this is quite 
 uncertain : you add that it was patronised by successive Popes ; 
 but you are aware that the usage of three centuries had given 
 the decretals the force of law before the Popes admitted them 
 into the body of laws used in the Roman Church. Nicholas I., 
 in rebuking Hincma, bishop of Rheims, for having rejected 
 them, assumed, as certain, the fact of their being such as they 
 were represented, — the decrees of the early PontiflJs, whose 
 authority was not dependent on their insertion in the general 
 collection of tlie canons : but he had not examined, and did not 
 
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 61 
 
 pronounce, on the alleged fact of their aullienlicily. If you 
 will take llie pains of comparing the decretals with their sources, 
 you will lind how very easy it was, at a lime when critical in- 
 quiry was almost unknown, to he mistaken in regard to a fad 
 of this nature. But there are documents, the authenticity of 
 which is admitted by the most enlightened critics, not excepting 
 those adverse to our faith, which so fully establish the Primacy 
 and its privileges, that 1 am almost teni])ted to imitate your 
 language, and tell you that they force a sigh of deep regret 
 over the shame of men who, by ascribing the origin of the 
 pontifical privileges to these false decretals, trifle with every 
 principle of truth, wiiilsi they boast of impartiality. You say 
 that '* it is undf.iicd and undeniable that forgeries so extensive 
 were actually palmed upon the churches for many ages, by the 
 successors of Nicholas the 1st." The decretals of which you 
 speak being presented by their author, presumed to be Bene- 
 dictus Levita, in connexion with authentic decrees and canons, 
 got credence and currency first in Germany, where they were 
 contrived, afterwards in France, and subsequently in Rome 
 itself, wIk'm usage had given them the force of law. They 
 were forgeries, because ascribed to the ancient Popes : but they 
 were for the most part the expression of primitive faith and of 
 the received discipline of the Church. The question of their 
 authorship was a matter of minor importance, when their con- 
 formity to primiiive tradition was known in regard to the great 
 principles of faith, and the organization of the Church ; and 
 their suitableness to existing circumstances in disciplinary 
 regulations was proved by experience. It mattered little 
 whether a decree purporting to be of Pope Fabian contained 
 his sentiments and injunctions, or those of St Leo, St Celes- 
 tine, or St Gregory, from whose works the compiler borrowed 
 his materials : and the prerogatives of the Apostolic See, as 
 explained by Innocent and Siricius, were equally sacred, as 
 when declared by Evaristus or Alexander, 'i'he Popes, who 
 admitted these decretals into tlie body of canon law, after they 
 had been j-lsewhere adopted during three centuries, did not 
 study the inlercols of their See, so much as uniformity of ilis- 
 
 F 
 
62 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 
 
 cipline. The special object of the contriver of the fraud was 
 most probably to shield bishops against their accusers, for to 
 this much of what may be considered original in the decretals 
 is directed. The scheme of imposition was certainly not con- 
 cocted by the Roman Pontiffs, nor can a shadow of evidence 
 be offered of this injurious assertion. In the progress of this 
 work I shall have occasion to adduce documents of undoubted 
 authenticity, long prior to the ninth century, which gave birth 
 to the false decretals ; and I shall prove from them that the 
 Primacy, with great amplitude of prerogative, was acknowledged 
 in all ages. For the present I shall give you one specimen 
 from the false decretals, with reference to the genuine docu- 
 ments which have been copied or imitated. A letter purport- 
 ing to be of Pope Eusebius, directed to the bishops of Tuscia 
 and Campania, is found in the collection of Isidore. The 
 exordium is with some slight variation a copy of the com- 
 mencement of the genuine letter of Pope Hormisdas to all 
 the bishops of Spain, written at the beginning of the sixth 
 century: the continuation is borrowed from the letter of John, 
 bishop of Constantinople, to Hormisdas, in which the authority 
 of the Hol}^ See is set forth in the strongest terms. I willingly 
 forego the advantage to be derived from the view of the Papal 
 prerogative given by the pseudo-Eusebius : but is not the loss of 
 two centuries in date amply compensated by the weight of 
 authority derived from the acknowledgment of one who might 
 be considered most likely to question the privileges of the 
 Bishop of ancient Rome ? Hear then John of Constantinople, 
 giving an account of his faith to Hormisdas. "The first thing 
 necessary for salvation is to observe the rule of sound faith, 
 and to deviate, in no respect, from the tradition of the Fathers, 
 for the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be disre- 
 garded : * Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my 
 Church.' What was said is proved by the event: for the 
 Catholic religion is always inviolably maintained in the Apos- 
 tolic See. Being desirous, therefore, not to fall away from 
 this faith, and following in all things the decrees of the Fathers, 
 we anathematize all heresies. Wherefore, following in all 
 
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 63 
 
 tilings the Aposlolii; Sec, we also preach all things decreed by 
 it: and for that reason I hope iluit I shall he united with you 
 in the communion of that laith which is proclaimed hy the 
 Apostolic See, in which is the entire and perfect solidity of 
 the Christian religion. We promise that hereafter the names 
 of such as are separated IVoiii the communion of the Apostolic 
 Church, that is, such as do not in all things harmonize with 
 the Apostolic See, shall not be recited in the celebration of 
 the sacred mysteries."* Compare this with the false decretal, 
 and say candidly, whether the clumsy contrivance could have 
 been needed to establish the rights of the Apostolic See.t 
 
 Candour then will admit that the compilation of Isidore, 
 changed nothing in the principles of the Church, or in the or- 
 ganization of the hierarchy, and induced few, if any, variations 
 in the established discipline, as may be inferred from the very 
 fact of the success of the imposture. In no age can men be so far 
 duped as to surrender, without reluctance, their acknowledged 
 rights to any claimant. As well might an impostor hope to 
 change the principles of common law, by the pretended dis- 
 covery of Dome-day book, or of the Code of Edgar, or of Ed- 
 ward, as Isidore could expect, even in the ninth century, to 
 effect any essential change in the organization or polity of the 
 Church, by the pretended decretals of the Popes of the first 
 three centuries, which, even if authentic, would liave been 
 disregarded as obsolete, had not actual usage sustained them. 
 The belief of the divine institution of the Primacy, so clearly 
 expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, was deeply seated in the 
 minds and hearts of the faithful long before the days of Isidore, 
 as was solemnly declared four centuries before by the Council 
 of Carthage. J 
 
 • Act. Cone. Hard. Tom. II. lulT. 
 
 t Ibid. Tom. I. col. 241. 
 
 ; Kp. 17(5. oliin. 1)2, p. (522, Tom. II. op. Aug. cd Ven., " arhilrainur — 
 aucloritati sanctitatis tucc dc sanctarum scripturarum aucloritatc dc 
 pompta; fncilius cos ense ccssuros" ad Innocent. 
 
LETTER V. 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND IRENiEUS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 From the examination of spurious works, we pass to the ge- 
 nuine writings of those venerable men, who, from their close 
 connexion with the Apostles and the Apostolic age, are styled 
 Apostolic Fathers. They claim our respect, from the charac- 
 ter of their authors, the station they occupied in the Church, 
 the sanctity of their lives, and their sufferings for religion. You 
 observe, that *' nothing positive can be derived from them on 
 the point in question:" yet you seek to make them appear ad- 
 verse to the Primacy. Thus, you object that, " in one of the 
 epistles of Ignatius, addressed to the Romans, his entire silence 
 on the supposed pre-eminence of their Church, and the derived 
 supremacy of Peter, looks altogether adverse to your claims." 
 Yet he is not altogether silent. The address of his epistle is 
 strongly expressive of the pre-eminence of the Roman Church. 
 It runs thus : " Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church 
 that has obtained mercy through the magnificence of the most 
 higli Father, and of Jesus Christ his only begotten Son ; the 
 Church, beloved and enlightened through his will, who wills 
 all things that are according to the charity of Jesus Christ our 
 God ; which PRESIDES in the place of the Roman region, 
 being worthy of God, most comely, deservedly blessed, most 
 celebrated, properly organized, most chaste, and PRESIDING 
 in charity, having the law of Christ, bearing the name of the 
 Father." I know not in what more emphatic language the di- 
 vinely bestowed privileges and pre-eminence of the church 
 WHICH PRESiDi: s could be expressed. The source of its prero- 
 
K.NATH .S AM) CLEMKNT. 05 
 
 galives is also iiulicaled in llie boily of llie Idler, in wlut-li allu- 
 sion is made to its I'oinulation by Peter and Paul : " 1 do not 
 command you, as Peter and l^iul : iliey were Apostles, I am 
 a condemned man ; they were Tree ; 1 have hitherto been a 
 slave."* Ignatius, who succeeded Evodius in the See of Anti- 
 och, notwithstanding the prior foundation of that See by the 
 Apostle Peter, proclaims the presiding character of the Roman 
 Church, and regards it as peculiarly beloved and enlightened 
 by God : and yet to you he appears entirely silent on its pre- 
 eminence ! 
 
 The letter of Clement, IJishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, 
 is the next document to which you direct our attention. He 
 was a cotemporary of Peter and Paul, and his letter is supposed 
 by some to have been written about the year 90 ; by others, at 
 an earlier period. It is written in the name of the Church of 
 God, dwelling at Rome, to the Church of God dwelling at Co- 
 rinth. t The revolt of the Corinthians against their ecclesias- 
 tical superiors was the occasion of lliis " most powerful letter," 
 as Irenmus designates it, which was intended to " recall them to 
 peace, and to renew their faith."; 'I'he inscription, you ob- 
 serve, is ♦' an humble beginning ; lor Clement, instead of atlect- 
 ing to rule the Corinthians by his ollicial power, unites with his 
 Church in a fraternal expostulation." Hut, sir, il was the cus- 
 tom of antiquity to consider affairs of great importance in an 
 assembly of the bishop, with the leading members of the 
 clergy, and the result of the deliberation was given in tiie name 
 of the whole Church ; for, according to Cyprian, " the Church 
 is the people united with the priest, and the (lock following its 
 pastor; wlicnce, you should know that the bishop is in the 
 
 t '• Ecclcsia Dei quoB incolit lloinain :" 7r«^:<jciir«- In the work of 
 Hisho|) Hopkins it is translaUd : " worships at " This unimportant niis- 
 l:ikt' would not bi* noticed but for llu' scviTity of llie bisljop towards otin r 
 translnlors. Of all men, he ought to be tlie most indulgent in this regard 
 
 t Irr:r'>'' h'' in ."Iv hr>'r. r. ill. 
 1 * 
 
bb APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 Church, and the Church is in the bishop."* Notwithstanding 
 that inscription, you yourself, after the early writers, speak of 
 the letter as of Clement. His interference in the local concerns 
 of this distant Church is inexplicable, if his superior authority 
 be not admitted. John the Apostle was still alive, and both 
 from his character and proximity to Corinth, was the most 
 likely to display his zeal on such an occasion, if zeal only, and 
 not the order of Church government, were the moving princi- 
 ple. But Clement makes no mention of his supremacy. — It 
 was not called in question, and therefore it was unnecessary to 
 assert it : he proved it by his interference, and exercised it most 
 effectually by paternal remonstrance, mild rebuke, and sublime 
 instruction. Why, you ask, does he not complain of the dis- 
 regard of the rights of the Apostolic See, by the violent depo- 
 sition of the bishop of Corinth without its concurrence ? He 
 does complain of the deposition as a violation of the order esta- 
 blisshed by Christ in his Church — the divine law by which the 
 laity are bound to obey those who are set over them. This 
 was their crime ; this was the evil to be cured by salutary ad- 
 monition. The rights of the Holy See had only been indirectly 
 and remotely invaded, inasmuch as that See is the guardian of 
 the order divinely established. Had the discipline then prevail- 
 ed, whereby the deposition of bishops is reserved to the Pope, 
 still reference to that circumstance would have been unneces- 
 sary, because no form of judgment had been observed. The 
 expulsion or deposition of the bishop and clergy was not an act 
 of an inferior tribunal taking cognizance of a cause reserved to 
 a higher power, in which case Clement might have complained 
 of an aggression on his own authority ; but it was an act of po- 
 pular violence, in which the divine law itself had been trampled 
 under foot. Though, then, the letter of Clement makes no men- 
 lion of his supremacy, it is a precious and splendid evidence 
 of that "solicitude of all the churches" which belonged to his 
 Apostolic office, and of the salutary influence of that authority 
 
 * S. Cyprian, Ep. 60, ad Pupianum, p. 220. Edit. Wirceburg. 
 
ST IREN.EUS. G7 
 
 which Christ wi-i'ly eslablislicd, to preserve the faith, and re- 
 store to peace the discordant members ot^ the Cluirrli. The 
 want of such a presiding power is deeply felt in modern sects, 
 who have no remedy for tliose evils which the passions of men 
 so often indict on religion, and sec their preachers and ministers 
 either obliged to court favour, at the sacrifice of the independ- 
 ence which becomes the ambassador of Christ, or to yield to 
 the violence or intrigue, which the enemies of order and authori- 
 ty are ever ready to employ. 
 
 Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, about the middle of the second 
 century, a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evan- 
 gelist, bears splendid evidence of the powerful principality of 
 the Roman Church, — of the high authority of her tradition, — 
 and of the succession of her bishops, from her glorious found- 
 ers, Pelor and Paul. Every elTort to explain away his testi- 
 mony must always prove vain. You admit tiiat " he grants to 
 that Church an important rank." 'I'iiis admission is important, 
 since we shall see that at so early a period, when her bishops 
 were constant objects of persecution, she could have derived 
 that rank only from her Apostolic founders. Writing against 
 the Gnostics, Irenoeus says: " All who wish to sec the truth, 
 may see in all the Church the tradition of the Apostles, mani- 
 fested throughout the whole world : and we can enumerate the 
 bishops who have been ordained by the Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors, down to our own time, who taught, or knew no such 
 doctrine as they madly dream of. — But since it would be very 
 tedious to enumerate the succession of all the Churches in thi:? 
 work, by pointing to the tradition of the greatest, and most an- 
 cient Church, known to all, founded and established at Rome 
 by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her 
 lailh announced to men, coming down to us by the succession 
 of bishops, we confoiind all those who in any injproper manner 
 gather together, either through self-complacency or vain-glory, 
 or through blindness and perverse disposition. For with this 
 Church, on account of the more powerful principality, it is nc- 
 ceesary that every Church, that is, the faithful, w ho are in every 
 
68 ST IREN^rS. 
 
 direction, should agree, in which the Apostolic tradition has 
 been always preserved, by those who are in every direction."* 
 Much ingenuity has been exercised to destroy the force of 
 so solemn a testimony. You ask : " Does he not make the 
 establishment of the Church of Rome the joint act of both Peter 
 and Paul, saying, in positive terms, that they set Linus over 
 that Church as its bishop, and not intimating, in the slightest 
 degree, that Peter ever established himself as bishop there?" 
 We grant that both Apostles concurred in its establishment, 
 and the Popes are accustomed in all their solemn acts to unite 
 both, not only as patrons whom they invoke, but likewise as 
 Apostles whose authority they inherit. These holy Apos- 
 tles acted in concert, without jealousy, labouring for the glory 
 of their common Master, though the prerogative of Peter was 
 special. What regards Linus is tlius expressed by Euse- 
 bius, in the original words of Irenseus : " The blessed Apos- 
 tles, having foimded and built up the CImrch, delivered to 
 Linus the ministry of the episcopate."! You infer hence that 
 Linus was the Bishop of Rome, even in the lifetime of Peter 
 and Paul : but were this the case, how could the succession be 
 counted from the Apostles ? Thus Irenaeus tells us that on the 
 death of Anaclelus, Clement succeeded, " in the third place 
 from the Apostles. "J Linus tlien must not have been Bishop 
 of Rome, until after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, though 
 he received the episcopal character in their lifetime, and was 
 appointed to be the bishop of that city after their decease, and 
 probably exercised many acts of his order before it, with their 
 assent, and under tlieir direction. Tfiere is no reason to sup- 
 pose that whilst tlie two Apostles continued in Rome, a bishop 
 was created to govern it with independent authority. 
 
 * S. lrena)us, lib. iii adv. lia'r. c. iii. 
 
 iHKh)f'^iiv >.ivrf) T«v Tii^f iTrtCKOTrH; hinov^yiav ivi^ii^i^xx'. Euscb. 1. v. 
 hist. c. G. The Latin version as given in Irenceus is : " Fundantes igitur 
 et instruentes beati apostoli ecclesiam Lino episcopatum administranda? 
 ecclesioe tradidernnt." 
 
 t Tpiru Ti/Ta) t'ri tuv u-TiTi^ctV . (lt>.) 
 
ST IRENiEUS. CO 
 
 ♦•With respect to the more powerful prinripnlily of wliich 
 Irenaeus speaks, he does not," you sny, ♦♦ use one word which 
 connects Uie principality wiih the Church, or wiih ils hishop ; 
 hut refers simply to its location in that city, which was then, 
 and for many centuries before and after, the acknowledged 
 mistress of the world." For my part, after an attentive exa- 
 mination of the passage, I am perfectly unable to find the least 
 mention whatever of the city, or ils imperial greatness, but 
 solely and exclusively of the Church founded by the Apostles. 
 On what ground, then, do you assert, that the more powerful 
 prinripnlily ilc>ignaled the civil dominion ? Suppose it for a 
 moment, and insert the explanatory words. '* By pointing to 
 the tradition of the greatest and most ancient Church, known 
 to all, founded and established at Kome, by the two most glo- 
 rious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her faith announced to 
 men, coming down to us by the succession of bishops, we 
 confound errorists of every kind : for with this Church {be- 
 cauae the city in icliich it is situated is the seat of tJie Roman 
 empire) every Church must agree."* Would you admit such 
 a reason ? Substitute the words which explain the more power- 
 ful principality of spiritual authority, and you will find the 
 reasoning forcible and coherent. IJy referring to the tradition 
 of the Roman Church founded by the Apostles, — to its faith 
 perpetuated through the regular succession of its bishops, we 
 •;onfound all sectarists, because with this Church {on account 
 of the supreme authority ivith which its Bishop is divincfy 
 invested)^ every other Church must agree." 
 
 " " MaximoB et antiquissimo?, ct omnibus cognito;, a gloriosissimis 
 (Juobus apostolis Petro et Paulo fundatin et constitula; ecclesicR earn 
 <{uam habct ab apostolis traditionem, ct annuntiatam hominibus fidein 
 per successioncB cpiscoporuin pervenientcra usque ad nos indicantes, 
 confundiiuus omnes eos (jui quocjuo xnodo, vel per sibi j)laccntia, vrl 
 vanatn gloriarn, vol per ccecitatein ct inalam sententiam, pra'lcrquain 
 oportnt colligunt. Ad banc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem prin- 
 cii)alitateiu necegsc est oinnem convcnire ecclesiain, hoc est, cos qui 
 sunt undique fidclcd : in qua semper ab liis <jui sunt undiquc, conservala 
 est ca qua; < st ab apostolis traditio." S. Iren. 1 iii. c. iii. 
 
/U ST IREN.EUS. 
 
 Though you are "not fond of resting any religious question 
 on mere verbal criticism," you cannot forbear observing that 
 Irenaeus does not say : on account of " its" more powerful 
 principality, whence you conceive yourself authorized to infer 
 that he referred to the principality of the city, not of the 
 Church : as if when the relative is omitted, as is frequently 
 done by writers in every language, what is said must be re- 
 ferred, not to what immediately precedes, but to something not 
 before spoken of in any way ! Few will be inclined to adopt this 
 canon of interpretation. In the present instance the preposition 
 propter determines the relation : for with this Church on ac- 
 count of the more powerful principality every Church must 
 agree : just as in the following chapter the Son of God is stated 
 to have submitted to be born of a virgin, on account of ihe most 
 extraordinary love towards his creatures.* As well might it be 
 said that the love spoken of v/as not his love, because the rela- 
 tive is wanting, as that, in the other instance, the powerful 
 principality is not the principality of the Church. 
 
 You think that the scope of Irendeus, which was to refute 
 the Gnostics, ^ho boasted of wisdom superior to the Apostles, 
 and of secret traditions, will serve to illustrate his meaning. 
 "He had been employed," you observe, " in refuting the wild 
 absurdities of the Gnostic heretics from the authority of Scrip- 
 ture, and now he desires to put them down by the authority of 
 tradition." Undoubtedly ; but he points to the tradition of the 
 Roman Church especially, because the greatest of all Churches ; 
 because with it all the genuine disciples of Christ every where 
 had always harmonized ; and consequently its tradition, authori- 
 tatively declared by its Bishop, was the solemn attestation of 
 what the Apostles had originally taught. 
 
 But you object that the Latin term " convenio,"t used by 
 the translator of Irenaeus, cannot be rendered to " agree" with- 
 out a want of grammatical accuracy, and that the idea conveyed 
 
 " Qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem.' 
 S. Irenaeus, 1. iii. 4, p. 242. Edit. Col. Agrip. an. 159G. 
 
 t " Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem 
 necesse est oninem convenire ecclesiam." Irenseus, supra. 
 
I 
 
 ST IREN.F.rS. 71 
 
 by it would have no connexion wiili ilic argument. I refer 
 ilie reader to llie dictionaries, and to the note'' for tlie meaning 
 of tlie disputeil term. If there were any ambij,aiiiy in the 
 phrase, its meaning should be determined by lljc context, 
 wliicli necessarily expresses agreement, and not resort to the 
 j)lace, as will appear by the paraphrase according to this latter 
 exposition. — " To this Church, on account of the imperial do- 
 minion, it is necessary that the whole Church, that is, the 
 failliful from all quarters, should come up." 'I'he greatness of 
 the city might give occasion to some of the faithful to visit 
 Iconic, but it never could impose such a necessity on all. Nay, 
 it was a circumstance in most cases unfavourable to their visit- 
 ing it, because the public authority was there more vigilant, 
 and more hostile to the Christian profession. You forget the 
 limes in which Irenanis wrote, when persecution raged at 
 Rome against the Churcli, and every successor of Peter was 
 a martyr. Was the political pre-eminence of tlie city likely 
 in such circumstances to attract the clergy and the faithful of 
 nil the surrounding cliurches, to sec its lowly and persecuted 
 IJishop ? I am astonished at the fanciful conjectures which 
 men seriously put forward to evade the force of a j)lain and 
 powerful testimony. 
 
 The fact whicji you allege to justify your interprc't:uion of 
 this passage, shall now be considered. During the lifetime 
 of Irena^us considerable excitement was occasioned in the 
 churches of Asia, by an eflbrt to bring them to conformity 
 with the oilier cliurches of the world, in the observance of 
 the Paschal festival. They were accustomed to celebrate it 
 
 * Bishop Hopkins is not accurate in stating, tliat when convenio 
 refers io place, it is usually followed by the accusative, but when to sen- 
 timent, as when it means to consent or agree, it generally lakes the da- 
 tive." The nearest phrases I can find in Uie classical authors like that 
 of IrentDUs, are : " Convenit optime ad pcdem cothurnus," and " convc- 
 nit ad eum ha-c contumelia," both found in Cicero, the former signify- 
 ing " the boot fits the foot well," the latter, ** this insult alfects him." 
 It is j)rol)ablr that the translator adhered closely to the Greek idiom. 
 The verb furtt^/xcrTaf, to harnjoni/.e, is construed somelimes with t^sc 
 and the accusative. 
 
72 ST IREN^US. 
 
 on the same day as the Jews, whether that was Sunday or not, 
 whilst the general practice was to celebrate it on the Sunday 
 immediately following the vernal equinox. Councils were 
 convened in various places, and the voice of all was unanimous, 
 that uniformity should be insisted on. Irenaeus presided over 
 a synod in Gaul, in the name of which a letter was directed 
 to the Asiatic churches. A letter also was sent from the Ro- 
 man synod, bearing the name of Victor the bishop. Poly- 
 crates, at the head of several Asiatic bishops, undertook to 
 justify the peculiar usage of his countrymen, in a letter 
 which he addressed to Victor and to the Church of the Ro- 
 mans. On the receipt of the letter, Victor resolved to separate 
 from the communion of the Universal Church, the discordant 
 churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces, whose 
 obstinate adherence to this practice might eventually endanger 
 the integrity of faith by a too close imitation of Judaical obser- 
 vances. With this view he despatched letters to all his col- 
 leagues, declaring, or threatening to declare — for the matter is 
 doubtful — the recusant bishops aliens from ecclesiastical com- 
 munion. To many of the bishops, who before had urged the 
 necessity of uniformity, this severity seemed uncalled for and 
 untimely. On this occasion Irenaeus wrote to the Pontiff a re- 
 spectful remonstrance. He called to his recollection the mode- 
 ration observed, on the same subject, by his predecessor 
 Anicetus, who having vainly endeavoured to induce Polycarp, 
 wlien he visited Rome, to abandon the peculiar practice of the 
 Asiatic churches, wisely passed over this difference of usage, 
 and treated his venerable guest with distinguished honour. 
 These are the facts as related by Eusebius in his history.* I 
 am pleased that you have referred to them by way of illustra- 
 tion. The letter of Polycrates to Victor in justification of the 
 Asiatic practice, shows that he recognised in the Bishop of 
 Rome a special authority ; for it does not appear that he 
 deemed it necessary to justify his practice to the other bishops 
 who had addressed him. The measures to which Victor re- 
 
 * Euseb. 1. V. c. xxiii. xxiv 
 
PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 73 
 
 sorted, or threatened to resort, prove that he felt himself in- 
 vested with power even over his colleagues in the episcopacy 
 in the most distant parts, and that he had authority to punish, 
 with the highest ecclesiastical censure, obstinate departure 
 from the general discipline of the Church. The remon- 
 strance of Irena3us does not give tiie least indication of any 
 usurpation of power by Victor, but is grounded solely on the 
 inexpedicjicy of exercising it in those circumstances. The ex- 
 ample of Anicetus affords a splendid instance of the indulgence 
 and forbearance of the Holy See, in points of a discretionary 
 character, especially where personal merit recommends the 
 advocacy of ancient usage. The unwillingness of Polycarp to 
 relinquish a practice which he believed to have originally had 
 the sanction of tlie Apostle JSt Jolin, implies no resistance to 
 the positive injunctions of a Superior, wlio had wisely confined 
 himself to mere persuasion. 
 
 The notion of supremacy which would require the abandon- 
 ment of ancient national usages at the mere suggestion of the 
 Pontiff, without the least expostulation, or representation of 
 the inconveniences that might thence ensue, is a far more ex- 
 alted view of it, than is entertained by the most devoted de- 
 fenders of Papal authority. The Pontiffs themselves have 
 generally — I might say, uniformly, manifested wise and en- 
 larged views in regard to local usages, and have seldom 
 threatened to enforce points of mere discipline by severe cen- 
 sures, unless they perceived some danger to faith likely to re- 
 sult from the want of uniformity. 
 
 I agree with you, that the subject of this controversy was of 
 no trifling importance. 'J'he practice of celebrating the resur- 
 rection of our Lord, on one day of the week rather than ano- 
 tlier, was indeed in itself indillcrent ; and the Apostle St John 
 had wisely sanctioned its celebration in Asia on the very day on 
 which the Jews celebrated their passover, in order to facilitate 
 the transition from Judaism to (Jlirislianity, in places where the 
 Jews were most numerous. In other portions of the Church, 
 where this motive did not exist, the Sunday was chosen for its 
 celebration, as the very day consecrated by his triumph over 
 o 
 
74 ST IREN^US. 
 
 death ; and all coincidence with the Jewish observance was 
 avoided, that it might be the more clearly understood, that the 
 Mosaic rites had entirely passed av/ay. As Christianity ad- 
 vanced, the motives for indulgence towards the Jewish con- 
 verts became fewer and less strong, and that toleration which 
 the Apostles had extended to the ceremonial observances, was 
 no longer necessary or expedient. Anicetus desired to see uni- 
 formity prevail throughout the whole Christian Church, but re- 
 spected the attachment of a venerable man to long established 
 usage. At a later period Victor perceived that the practice was 
 subject to great inconveniences, and not entirely free from the 
 taint of error,* as some considered it an obligation of the Mosaic 
 law : wherefore he judged that it was time to cut off the refrac- 
 tory adherents to it from the general body of the Church. The 
 entreaties and counsels of Irenaeus induced him to relent : but 
 the event showed the wisdom and prudence which influenced 
 Victor, as the Quartodedmans^ or obstinate observers of this 
 usage, were finally separated from the Church in the general 
 Council of Nice. 
 
 You advise us to try the experiment of acting as Polycarp 
 did towards Anicetus. The counsel is needless. Every day 
 bishops from various parts of the world, where usages pre- 
 vail different in many respects from those most cherished by 
 the Holy See, go to Rome, and are received by the Father 
 of the faithful as brothers, with all the marks of ecclesiastical 
 communion. Their remonstrances, their explanations, their 
 defence of national practices, are heard with patience ; and even 
 when the Pontifl' earnestly desires and recommends conformity 
 to the general law, he tolerates, with wise indulgence, the dis- 
 crepancies which he cannot remove without a painful exercise 
 of authority. 
 
 In the language of Irenfcus, as understood by you, you think 
 that you have found the solution of the mystery with which the 
 question of Roman supremacy is connected. You " do not 
 wonder, that the very fact of this supremacy existing so long, 
 
 * ere^ocTt^iicrAo-. Eusebius, loc. cit. 
 
PKRIMTIITV OF THE ROMAN" SEE. 76 
 
 wilhoul any apparent support from the temporal power, should 
 strike our imajrinations as being almost conclusive evidence in 
 its favour." My judgment, at least, rests satisfied with the 
 proof. I see thrones totter, and empires fall, where human 
 wisdom and power promised perpetuity : but the " better prin- 
 cipality" of the successor of tlie fisherman survives, though 
 assailed by all the power and malice of this world's potentates. 
 From Nero to Napoleon, what efforts have not been made for 
 the annihilation of this undying sovereignty ! The Pontifls of 
 the three first centuries were, with scarcely an exception, vic- 
 tims of pagan cruelty ; but, at the end of this fierce conflict, 
 Constanline, as if struck with the superior majesty of the Vicar 
 of Jesus Christ, leaves the imperial city to be the peaceful re- 
 sidence of the humble Silvester. How often, since that time, 
 liave not the barbarian and the Christian entered in wrath into 
 that city, — imprisoned or led captive its Bishop, and left him to 
 pine away, or die in foreign dungeons ! And w hen we see the 
 meek Pius come forth from his mil to be borne in Iriumpii 
 back to his capital, and now behold the humble Gregory, the 
 successor of his oflice and his virtues, still governing with pa- 
 ternal authority the Universal Church, are we not justified in 
 concluding that this ♦'powerful principality" is dillerent from 
 all governments of human origin ? " Count over," we say to 
 you, with Augustin, *♦ the bishoj)s, from the very See of Peter 
 the Apostle, and sec in that list of Fathers the succession of one 
 to the other. 'J'his is the rock against which the haughty gates 
 of hell cannot prevail."* 
 
 To account for tiie human origin of this power, you describe 
 the greatness of Rome '* at the time when the Apostles, Peter 
 and Paul, established the Church there ;" and you suppose, that 
 in wealth, in numbers, ami importance, it must soon have sur- 
 passed all others. As great cities influence the whole nation, 
 you infer that the Roman Church must have acquired a ♦* pri- 
 macy of influence and consequence" over the other Churches. 
 To illustrate this, you represent what would be the probable 
 
 " Aug. I's. contra parlriu Donati. 
 
76 ST IREN.EUS. 
 
 consequence if, at the present day, missionaries to China should 
 succeed in establishing Churches in several of tlie provinces, 
 and subsequently in the capital, which would naturally absorb 
 all solicitude, and practically become the centre and directing 
 rule of missionary exertion. You would write to these mis- 
 sionaries : " Be careful about union, and in all your proceed- 
 ings consult together : but, especially, do nothing without con- 
 sulting with your brethren of the capital ciiy. In order that 
 the good cause should prosper, it is necessary that you should 
 resort to the Church established there as often as you can ; by 
 reason of its most powerful principality, being the seat of go- 
 vernment, and the very heart of the empire, the Church located 
 there is the most important of the whole, and the brethren placed 
 over it should have the chief direction in all your councils." 
 Compare your language with that of Irenaeus, and see 
 whether it agree.* Your implied admission, that from the 
 very commencement the Roman Church had a primacy of 
 influence, and the chief direction in the Councils of all the 
 churches, is not without importance. To attribute it, how- 
 ever, to the great influence of the Roman Bishop with the 
 pagan emperors, praetors, and other officers who professed 
 and exercised constant hostility to Christianity, is an hypothe- 
 sis at variance with the roost certain facts of history. The ex- 
 ample of that vast empire, controlled and kept in union by a 
 single will, suggested, you suppose, the expediency of giving to 
 the Roman Bishop a controlling power over all Christendom. 
 The primitive Christians reasoned thus, in your opinion : 
 *' Why not secure to the whole Church that order, and subor- 
 dination, and peace, under a single earthly head, as the Lord's 
 vicegerent, which heathenism had brought, in the afl'airs of hu- 
 man government, to such a marvellous system ? Should the 
 hosts of Satan be better marshalled than the hosts of God? 
 Should one single will be felt and obeyed, to the remotest 
 bounds of that mighty empire, and should not one single 
 Church, which is the spouse of Christ, be much rather the 
 
 * Supra, p. 67. 
 
FANCIFUL HYPOTHESIS. 77 
 
 ruler and mistress ilirou»rh llie whole of Christendom ? On such 
 a plan, iiow mucii more union might he expected, liow nuicli 
 more peace, how much less opportunity for heresy and false 
 doctrine, and how much more glorious would he the victory of 
 the Lord's people, when they should appear to the heathen one 
 mighty host, * briglit as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible 
 as an army with banners.' That the best men of tlie primi- 
 tive age, being accustomed to have this astonishing empire of 
 the world continually before their eyes, might readily be led to 
 contemplate the desirableness and practicability of a similar sys- 
 tem in the Church, and that under this influence of their ha- 
 bitual views they would find in Scriptures analogies, and even 
 precepts, that they would lay hold on our Lord's addresses to 
 Peter, and begin to interpret them in favour of their ecclesias- 
 tical empire ;" — these, sir, are suppositions groundless in them- 
 selves, injurious to the early professors and teachers of our 
 faith, and far from aiding the cause they had been brought for- 
 ward to sustain. For thus you virtually admit, that, even in 
 the primitive ages, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop existed : 
 that it implied authority and control, for otherwise it would not 
 have anywise resembled the power of Caesar; and that it was 
 sustained by reference to Scriptural texts, though in your opin- 
 ion it originated in the political pre-eminence of Rome, and in 
 the admiration of the organization of its vast empire. You dis- 
 cover this in "the more powerful principality," mentioned by 
 Irenacus, whilst we, witii that primitive age, conceive that prin- 
 cipality to be the institution of the wisdom of Him who wished 
 that his Church should be a united kingdom — a compact body; 
 and wc discover in its perpetuity the exercise of that power, 
 against which the powers of darkness cannot prevail. How 
 you can still pretend to place the Church of Rome at this day 
 in contrast with the Church of Rome in the primitive age, is to 
 me strange ; for though you may conceive human causes to have 
 given occasion to the assertion of the Primacy, you own that it 
 was then, as it is now, supposed to rest on the addresses of 
 our Lord to Peter. Thus you admit conformity wiierc you 
 had pledged yourself to prove a contrast; and you substitute a 
 
78 ST IRENiEUS. 
 
 liuman origin, of your own imagining, to the divine foundation 
 of the Primacy, which, in common with the Church of the pre- 
 sent day, the primitive Church believed. How vain are all 
 the attempts of man to take away from the organization of the 
 Church its divine character ! While Rome was the residence 
 of the Caesars, God permitted the Church and her Chief Pastor to 
 be constantly assailed by the Roman power ; and he caused the 
 first Christian emperor, shortly after he had come to the know- 
 ledge of faith, to remove the seat of empire to Byzantium, so that, 
 in after ages, the privileges of the Roman Bishop might not be 
 thought to have been the gifts of the civil power, or the acci- 
 dental appendages of his office, derived from the city in which 
 he presided. The secular origin of the Primacy is manifestly 
 disproved, by the hostility to the Christian faith which the civil 
 power exercised whilst Rome was the capital: and by the utter 
 improbability that the memory of its ancient grandeur could have 
 been the foundation of its privileges, after a rival city had arisen, 
 around which was gathered all that imperial munificence and 
 power could collect or bestow. Rome, in the zenith of her 
 glory, was the unrelenting enemy of the cross, and would lend no 
 jewel to adorn the mitre of her Bishop ; in her fallen state, she 
 could add no lustre to his crown. 
 
 Note. — "An Essay on the Invalidity of Presbyterian Ordination," 
 by John Esten Cooke, M.D., published at Lexington, Kentucky, in J 829, 
 has come into my hands since this letter went to press. He quotes the 
 testimony of Irenaeus, and gives a translation entirely conformable to 
 mine on those points in which I have had occasion to dissent from Bishop 
 Hopkins : " With this Church, on account of its greater pre-eminence, 
 it is necessary that every church should agree." 
 
LETTER VI. 
 
 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 Right Re\t.rknd Sir : 
 
 Leaving lliose truly primilive witnesses of the faith once 
 delivered to the saints, wlio either received it immediately from 
 the Apostles, or were those faithful men to whom the precious 
 deposit of Apostolic tradition was committed hy the immediate 
 disciples of the Apostles, we come to Tertullian, a priest of Car- 
 thage, who lived at the close of the second and the beginning 
 of the third century of our era. He is adduced by you as a 
 witness, " adverse to the Primacy," although, in the very first 
 extract from his writings, which you bring forward to support 
 your position, you have the proof of that Primacy you are so 
 willing to impugn. Contemporary witli this writer lived cer- 
 tain sectaries, who asserted that the Apostles did not know all 
 things. This ardent defender of the ancient faith indignantly 
 asks: "Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called 
 the rock on which thcCluirch was to be built, and who obtain- 
 ed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loos- 
 ing and binding in heaven and on earth ?' You deny that this 
 passage contains the slightest allusion to the superiority of one 
 Apostle over the other; although you acknowledge that "this 
 Father seems to authorize our interpretation of the passages of 
 Scripture. To deprive us of his authority iti this point, you 
 wish him to be heard in explanation, and with this view you 
 quote a long passage from his work " On Chastity," written, 
 
 • Tert. (Jo Prn-s. § xxii. " Latuit aliqiiid Pctrum, n«(lificandu3 Ecclc- 
 sicB petrain dictum, clavcs regni cn-loruin consccutuin, et solvcndi cl al- 
 ligandi in coclis ct in tcrris potestatcm ? P. 238, Ed. Lut 
 
80 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 as you acknowledge, after he had become a follower of Monta- 
 nus. For this eloquent apologist of Christianity, and defender 
 of the Church, was so far influenced by the severity of his dis- 
 position as to exclude from pardon those who were guilty of 
 adultery and other grievous crimes, however penitent they 
 might appear. To oppose this rising error, the Bishop of Rome 
 published a decree, by which such sinners were declared ad- 
 missible to penance and forgiveness. On this occasion Tertul- 
 lian wrote his work ** On Chastity," in which he says: — "I 
 hear that an edict has been published, and, indeed, a peremp- 
 tory one : namely, the ' Bishop of bishops,' which is equivalent 
 to the ' Sovereign Pontiff,'* proclaims: I pardon the sins of adul- 
 tery and fornication, to such as do penance.t" Endeavouring 
 to prove that the power of the keys was given to Peter alone, 
 and was not communicated to his successors, he says: — "now I 
 ask your own sentiment, whence do you claim this power for 
 the Church? If because the Lord said to Peter, ' on this rock I 
 will build my Church: to thee I have given the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, or whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose upon 
 earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven,' thou presumest, on 
 that account, that the power of loosing and binding has come 
 down to thee ; that is, to the whole Church allied to Peter — 
 who art thou that overturnest and changest the manifest inten- 
 tion of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally : On 
 THEE, he says, I will build my Church, and to thee I will give 
 the keys, not to the Church, and whatsoever thou shalt bind or 
 loose, not what they shall bind or loose. "J Here Tertullian is 
 manifestly with us, as far as regards the rock, which he iden- 
 tifies with Peter, and the power of the keys, which he main- 
 
 * " Pontifex, scilicet, raaximus, quod est Episcopus episcoporum." 
 This is an inversion not unusual in Tertullian. The title which the Pop.e 
 assumed was " Bishop of bishops j" but Tertullian says that it is equivalent 
 to " Sovereign Pontiff," a title as yet exclusively applied to the pagan 
 high priest. Bishop Hopkins translates it : "the pontiff, namely, the 
 chief, which means the Bishop of bishops !" 
 
 t Tertullian, 1. de pudicitia, p. 715. Edit. Lutetiae, 1G41. 
 
 X Ibid. p. 703.. 
 
TERTULLIAN. 81 
 
 tains to have been the exclusive privilege of Peter. He denies, 
 indeed, that this power descended to the successors of Peter, 
 but does not question the succession itself, wliich he admits, by 
 calling the Bishop of Rome *' Apostolic."* His denial of the 
 inheritance of Peter's power of forgiveness by Peter's suc- 
 cessor, arose from his attachment to an error, condemned by 
 one of them, and, consequently, loses all weight, since it 
 must be regarded as the rejection of a power by which the 
 error, which TertuUian defended, was proscribed. In the de- 
 fence of a false principle, it cannot surprise us that he advanced 
 erroneous interpretations of Scripture ; and hence his authority, 
 in other respects imposing, has no weighty wlien he becomes 
 an avowed partisan of ascertained error. The partial exposi- 
 tions of Holy Writ, put forward by a writer in such circum- 
 stances, will often be found in contradiction with those of the 
 same writer at other times. Thus TertuUian, in his work 
 called '♦Scorpiace," extends to the Church, ihroutrh Peter, and 
 even to every member of it who may confess Christ, as he did, 
 what he here explains of Peter, personally and exclusively. 
 ♦* For if," says he, " you still think that heaven is shut, re- 
 member that the Lord here left its keys to Peter, and through 
 him to the Church. "t 
 
 The following attempt of TertuUian to explain the power of 
 the keys of the personal acts of Peter, shows much ingenuity, 
 vainly employed, to evade the force of the Scriptural proof 
 brought against his error. He maintains, that the event cor- 
 responds with his explanation of the promise : ♦' For so even 
 the event teaches. On him the Church was built: that is, 
 through him : he first used the key : see what key : ' Ye men 
 of Israel, hear what I say : Jesus of Nazareth, destined for you 
 by God.' He finally opened the avenue of the celestial king- 
 dom, through Christian baptism, by which the sins before bound 
 
 " TertuUian, 1. de pudicitia, p. 7(>3. 
 
 \ " Nam ct si adhuc clausum putos coclam, memento claves ejus hie 
 Dorainum Petro, ct por cum Ecclcsia3 rcliquisse." Scorpiacc, p. G28. 
 Ed. LutctiiD, an. 1641. 
 
83 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 fast are loosed, and what was not loosed, according to true sal- 
 vation, are bound fast; and he bound Ananias with the chain of 
 death, and loosed the lame man from his infirmity."* I need 
 not labour much to convince you, or the reader, that the cure 
 of the lame man was no exercise whatever of the power of loos- 
 ing or binding. The key which Peter is said to have given the 
 Jews, by pointing out Jesus of Nazareth, will scarcely be 
 thought to be one of those keys of the kingdom of heaven which 
 Christ promised him. Every one sees that this is an allego- 
 rical and forced explanation. The opening of the avenue to 
 heaven by baptism cannot be considered as the exclusive pre- 
 rogative of Peter, and the mere precedency in its administration 
 does not adequately fulfil the strong and splendid promises of 
 Christ. Peter is not merely a foundation, but a rock, a strong 
 and permanent foundation : the keys given him are those of a 
 kingdom, the emblems of sovereignty : he binds and looses, in 
 a manner peculiar and extraordinary. 
 
 Tertullian is more correct in considering the judgment of 
 Peter in the Council of Jerusalem, as an exercise of that autho- 
 rity to bind and loose, which our I^ord had given him : "Also," 
 says he, " in the controversy, whether the law should be observ- 
 ed or not, Peter, first of all, impelled by the Spirit, and having 
 spoken of the call of the nations,! said : ' Now why do you 
 tempt the Lord by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which 
 neitlier we nor our fathers were able to bear ? But by the grace 
 of Jesus, we believe that we shall be saved, even as they. 
 This sentence:]: both loosed the things of the law, that were 
 laid aside, and bound those that were retained.' "§ This acute 
 African was too devoted to his favourite error to admit that the 
 
 * L. de pudicitia, p. 743. 
 
 t " De nationum vocatione praefatus." Bishop H. renders it : " fore- 
 told the calling of the nations." 
 
 t " Hffic sententia." Bishop H. translates it " opinion ;" but an opin- 
 ion neither looses nor binds : it plainly means here, judgment, decree, 
 sentence. 
 
 § Tertul. de pudic. p. 743. 
 
fader's acknowledgment. 83 
 
 power to bind ami loose extended to the remission of the most 
 grievous sins. His testimony, tiien, even after he hail passed 
 to the sect of Montanus, shows that the passages of Scripture 
 were by him, as well as by the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics 
 in general, understood of Peter; and tliough he and the secta- 
 rists wished to restrict their meaning to Teter personally, the 
 Bishop of Home claimed, in virtue of them, to be •' Bishop of 
 bishops," and to inherit the powers of Peter, and the Ca- 
 tholic worUl admitted tliose claims. A modern apologist of the 
 Anglican churcii has had the ingenuousness to acknowledge, 
 that " in the time of 'I'ertullian, whose life extended into the 
 tliird century, a considerable advance had plainly been made by 
 the Sec of Rome, in the claim of the I'rimacy, inasmuch as he 
 calls the Bishop of that Church the Supreme Pontiff, and dis- 
 tinguishes him with the authoritative title of ♦ Bishop of 
 bishops.' — * He supposes the rock to mean Peter: but he 
 carefully restricts the character to Peter as an individual ; he 
 deems the privilege to be altogether personal; and he flatly 
 denies, that it can be construed as belonging to what then began 
 to be esteemed Peter's Church."'' You are displeased at this 
 admission ; you '* leave it to our candour to say, whether Ter- 
 tullian does not apply tliese titles rather in irony than in sober 
 allowance;" and you contend that "he had no idea of doing 
 honour to the Bishop of Rome, but the contrary." I freely con- 
 cede that he used the titles in a spirit of bitterness and sarcasm, 
 because the edict of the Pontiff was directed against his favourite 
 error; but had the Bishop of Rome claimed no superiority over 
 other bisliops, tliere would have been no ground whatever for 
 applying to him these titles. He was acknowledged by Ca- 
 tholics to be " the Bishop of bishops," and Tertullian durst 
 not question his superiority, thouL^i in anger he remarks, that 
 such a title is equivalent to ihe name hitherto applied only to 
 the heathen priest. You say, " every metropolitan bishop who 
 liad bishj)ps under him, might be called a chief pontiff, and a 
 bishop of !)i.shops ;" but the usage of the Church has not given 
 
 • Fabcr 8 Difficulties of Romanism, Note, p. liOl. riiil. I'M. 
 
84 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 to metropolitans this latter appellation, and the former does not 
 appear to have been given to the Bishop of Rome, except sar- 
 castically by Tertullian : " None of us," says Cyprian, " makes 
 himself bishop of bishops,"* 
 
 We can easily withstand the force of Tertullian's authority 
 as to the restriction of the powers to Peter, when it is granted 
 that he, though at that time a declared adversary of Peter's 
 successor, admitted Peter to be the rock, and that it was also 
 admitted and believed that the Church of Rome was Peter's 
 Church.t Catholics and Montanists agreed on these two 
 points, and the transmission of the power of forgiveness was 
 only called in question because it was exercised with greater 
 lenity than suited the severe disposition of Tertullian. How 
 you can cite him as a witness that the spiritual supremacy of 
 the Church of Rome was not the doctrine of his age, even in 
 the Church of Rome itself, is to me surprising, since he testifies 
 that the Bishop of that Church was Bishop of bishops — that he 
 issued an absolute peremptory decree,:}: — that as successor of 
 Peter he claimed the powers granted to this Apostle, — and that 
 the Roman Church was the Church of Peter ! This then was 
 the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and of the Catholic 
 Church generally, whilst the error which denied the transmis- 
 sion of the power was rejected, with Montanism whence it 
 sprung, by the judgment of the Catholic world. 
 
 The fact of the succession of the Roman Bishop to Peter, 
 was not denied by Tertullian, even after he had suffered his 
 mind to be bewildered by the vagaries of Montanus. He still 
 called liim "Apostolic," and regretted that his authority had 
 been employed against the sect, under the influence, as he 
 alleged, of Praxeas, wliereby the peace of the churches of Asia 
 and Phrygia was prevented, which would have been restored 
 
 * Cone. Carthag. de rebapt. p. 339. Operum Cyp. Ed. Bas. 1521. 
 
 t " Ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam." Tertul. ib. 
 
 t '' Audio etiam edictum esse proposituin, et quidem peremptorium, 
 Pontifex scilicet maxinms, quod est, episcopus episcoporum edicit." 
 P. 7]5. 
 
PETER THE ROCK. 85 
 
 by the approbation of tlie prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and 
 Maximilla.* In earlier and belter days Tertullian was the 
 loud asscrtor of that succession, and boldly challenged secta- 
 rists to exhibit any thing bearing a like weight of authority : 
 "Let them then give us the origin of their churches : let them 
 unfold the series of their bishops, coming down from the be- 
 ginning in succession, so that the first bishop was appointed 
 and preceded by any of the Apostles, or of Apostolic men, 
 provided he persevered in communion with the Apostles. For 
 in this way the Apostolic Churches exhibit their origin, as the 
 Church of Smyrna relates that Polycarp was placed there by 
 John; as the Church of Rome likewise relates that Clement 
 was ordained by Peter; and in like manner the other churches 
 show those who were constituted bishoj)s by the Apostles, and 
 made conservators of the Apostolic seed. Let heretics feign 
 any thing like this !"t 
 
 According to your own avowal, Tertullian '• admits the ap- 
 plication of the term ' rock' to Peter;" but you err in stating 
 that in this he difieis from the other Fathers, for I shall have 
 occasion to prove to you that it is the general explanation 
 given by these venerable men. His observation that by the 
 knife of stone employed in circumcision we may understand 
 the precepts of Christ by which our hearts are circumcised, 
 ♦* because Christ is proclaimed the rock in many ways and 
 under many figures, "t is evidently an allegorical exposition, 
 having no force whatever as an illustration of the text, and not 
 at all weakening his literal interpretation of the rock spoken 
 of by Christ, as the foundation on which he would build his 
 Church. The very passage which you quote from his work 
 against Marcion, is immediately followed by tlie declaration 
 
 • Tcrtul. adv. Praxoam sub initiuiii. 
 
 f Tert. de prascr. hanT. " Edant ergo origiiu'in cccli'siarum suarum ; 
 evolvant ordinem episcoporum suoruin, ita per succcssiones ab initio 
 decurrentem, ut primus ille cpiscopuH aliquem ex apostolis — habiurit 
 auctorem et anlecessorein. — Sicut Romanorum (rcdcsia) Clementein 
 a Pctro ordinatum — C'onfingant talo aliijuid hiL-rctici. 
 
 t Tertullian adv. Judrcos, p. iild. 
 U 
 
86 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 that Christ called Peter a rock, choosing to communicate to 
 him his own appellation rather than to use any term not applied 
 to himself. I regret that yon have withheld from your readers 
 the following sentence, with which the passage concludes, and 
 which illustrates so clearly the meaning of the author : *' There- 
 fore he preferred to give a name to the dearest of his disciples 
 from among the figures which regarded himself, than from 
 those which were not applied to himself."* Having asked 
 the question why Simon was designated Peter, he says : *' If 
 to express the vigour of his faith, many substances of a solid 
 nature would present a suitable figure derived from their own 
 special quality." He rejects this reason as unsatisfactory, and 
 asks : " was it because Christ himself was styled both a rock 
 and a stone ? since we read that he was placed as a stone of 
 offence an^ a rock of scandal ; to pass over other passages in 
 which the same terms are applied to him." In this Tertullian 
 acquiesces, and says, that Peter was styled a rock, because 
 Christ was styled a rock, the Lord vouchsafing to communicate 
 peculiarly to this most favoured disciple the name which in a 
 figurative sense was applied to himself, as having a more in- 
 timate reference to himself, and being better calculated to ex- 
 press the gifts of Peter, than other figurative expressions bor- 
 rowed from objects not referred to Christ,! He does not, then, 
 
 * " Ita |ue adfectavit carissimo discipulorutn de figuris suis pecu- 
 liariter nomen communicare, puto propius quam de non suis." Tertul. 
 adv. Marcion, 1. iv. p. 520. 
 
 t Ibidem. " Sed et cur Petrum ? Si ob vigorera fidei, multse materiie 
 solidffique nomen de suo accommodarent. An quia et petra, et lapis 
 Christus ? Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem oflfendiculi et 
 in petram scandali. Omitto caetera. Itaque adfectavit carissimo disci- 
 pulorum," etc. Some curious mistakes are observable in the translation 
 of Bishop Hopkins : " But why Peter ? If on account of the vigour of his 
 faith, there are many and solid arguments which would accommodate 
 this name to him ?" He ends his version by the words : ^' I omit other 
 matters," but the author means : " I omit other passages of Scripture." 
 The" solidae materia)" are not solid arguments, but substances such as a 
 pillar, or any other object which might have afforded a figurative ex- 
 pression. 
 
FIGURATIVE LANfa'AGE. 87 
 
 as you conceive, *' leave ilie question williout seemiiicr at all 
 conscious that Peter could be calletl a stone by reason of the 
 whole Church beinjr built upon him," for he expressly declares 
 that, were the object of the Redeemer merely to signify the 
 strenglli of his faith, he could have found many images calcu- 
 lated for that purpose, but he was pleased to communicate his 
 own name peculiarly, that as he himself was called the rock, 
 Peter might be designated a rock likewise: — '* the rock on 
 which the Church was to be built," as TertuUian elsewhere 
 expresses it: — " Pclrum acdificunda; ecclesia? pctram dictum."* 
 
 I know not why you have quoted the passage from his '* Ex- 
 iiortalion to Chastity," wherein he argues against second mar- 
 riages, because one who has been twice married is not eligible 
 to the priesthood. In his anxiety to sustain tlie error of Mon- 
 tanus, he says that laymen also are priests, that the distinction 
 between the clergy and laity has been eslablisiied by the 
 Churci), and that the laity can baptize and perform other 
 sacerdotal functions, when no priest is to be had. Are these, 
 sir, your sentiments ? or have they any thing to do with the 
 question now before us ? Again, I beg to remind you, that 
 whatever is advanced in support of an exi)loded error, carries 
 with it no authority. 
 
 When TertuUian, writing against Marcion, asks: "What 
 key had tlie doctors of the law, but the interpretation of the 
 law?" he speaks of the Jewish doctors, who in virtue of their 
 office and profession, might be said to have the key of know- 
 ledge, but who, nevertheless, as he subjoins, '' neither advanced 
 to understand it, nor sullered others to approach."! It is surely 
 unwarrantable to apply to a controverted text of Scripture a 
 figurative expression used by an author, two centuries after- 
 wards, without the least reference to the text in question. He 
 speaks of the key of knowlcd:;e : " clavem agnitionis habens :|" 
 Christ promised to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 " TrrtuUian do prtrs. huT. 
 
 i Tcrtul. adv. Marcion, 1. iv. p. 5J'.>. Kd. Luteliu', 444, in the edition 
 used by Hisliop Hopkins. 
 X Ibid. 
 
88 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 The passage, wherein the author says that every confessor 
 of the faith will carry with him the keys of heaven, which " the 
 Lord left to Peter, and through him to the Church," is one of 
 the numberless instances in which the Fathers, supposing the 
 literal sense as well known, take occasion to recommend virtue 
 by a moral application of the text. Protestant critics, and all 
 conversant with the writings of the Fathers, know, as Gerard 
 remarks, that even " when they stick to the literal sense, they 
 study not so much to determine it with accuracy, as to ac- 
 commodate the most obvious meaning to their subject, or to 
 apply it to practical purposes in a rhetorical manner."* Thus 
 Tertullian says : " Know that the ascent to heaven has been 
 rendered smooth by the footsteps of the Lord, and that its 
 entrance has been thrown open by the power of Christ, and 
 that Christians will meet with no delay, and be subject to no 
 examination at its threshold, since they have not there to be 
 distinguished, but they are merely to be recognised, and are not 
 to be questioned, but admitted : for if you think that heaven is 
 still shut, call to mind that the Lord here left its keys to Peter, 
 and through him to the Church, which keys every one who 
 is here questioned, and who confesses the faith, will bring 
 along with him."t The author here applies to the confession 
 of the faith and martyrdom, what in its literal and obvious 
 meaning must be understood of power peculiarly granted to 
 Peter, as he himself elsewhere declares. :{: You say that we 
 have in this and other passages " an interesting variety in the 
 idea;" but candour will also force you to avow, that the 
 mystical interpretations, in which this variety is found, must 
 be corrected or explained by those passages of the author in 
 which the literal sense is clearly pointed out. You furnish us 
 with a splendid testimony in favour of the authority of the 
 Roman Church, the depositary of the doctrine and power of 
 Peter: "Come then," says Tertullian, in the passage which 
 you quote, " you who wish to exercise your curiosity to more 
 
 * Gerard, 6G9. t Tertullian Scorpiace, p. 628. 
 
 J Tertul. 1. de pudicitia, p. 743, supra cit. 
 
ROMAN CIILRCir. 80 
 
 advantage in llic ailair of salvalion, go llirougli ihe Aposlolic 
 Churclie:?, in which the very chairs of the Apostk's coniinue 
 aloft in their places, in which their very original letters are 
 recited, sounding forlii the voice, and representing tlic counte- 
 nance of each one. Is Achaia near you ? You have Corinth. 
 If you are not far from Macedon, you have Philippi, you have 
 Thessalouica. If you c:in go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If 
 you are near Italy, you have Uonie, whence authority is at 
 hand for us.* How happy is this Cliurcii to which the Apostles 
 poured fortii their whole doctrine with their blood! where 
 Peter is assimilated to the Lonl in his martyrdom: where 
 Paul is crowned witli a death like that of John: where John 
 the Apostle, after he had been dipped in boiling oil without 
 suffering injury, is banisiicd to the island : let us sec what 
 this Church learned, wiiat she taught, what she professed in 
 her symbol in common with the African churches."*^ You 
 say that there is not in this testimony " any tiling that looks like 
 ihe Roman Church having a superior authority !" What, then, 
 is the meaning of the words, that " from llience authority was 
 at hand" for Tertullian and his fellow believers in Africa? 
 Why does he pass rapidly over the other churches founded by 
 the Apostles, preserving still their chairs, and their epistles, and 
 when he has reached the Roman Church pause, exclaim in 
 raptures, how happy is she in possessing tiic abundant treasure 
 of Apostolic doctrine, and appeal to her tradition, to her teach- 
 
 • " Si autem Italia? adjaccs, habcs Roiiiam, undo nobis quoque aulho- 
 ritas pra-slo est. Ista quam felix ccclesia, cui totain doctrinaiii npos- 
 toli cum sanguine suo profuderunt : ubi Petrus passioni Dominica) 
 adcequatur : ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronalur : ubi apostolus Joannes 
 posteaciuam in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam 
 relegatur: videanms quid didiccrit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoqui' 
 ecclcsiia contesserarit." The translation used or given by Bishop Hop- 
 kins is any thing but correct : *' where Peter was made equal to the en- 
 durance of the passion of his Lord, where Paul was crowned (with 
 martyrdom) at the exile of John : where the Apostle John was afterwards 
 plunged into boiling oil, and suffering nothing, was banished loan island 
 Let us sec, too, what one mifjht learn, what he iniirlit teach, when h< 
 should also have compared his Hymb«jl with the churches of Africa." 
 H* 
 
90 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 ing, to her solemn profession of faith, in which she was the 
 guide of the African churches, her docile children ? Could we 
 say more in her praise ? Need we claim for her higher pre- 
 rogative ? She is the Church whose symbol is the great watch- 
 word of faith, and with which the African churches harmonize, 
 *' because with her, on account of her more powerful princi- 
 pality," as Irenaeus has already taught us, " every church must 
 agree." 
 
 I shall not interfere with your vindication of Tertullian from 
 the charge of Montanism. The extracts already given show 
 his sentiments on monogamy, the pardon of penitent adulterers, 
 and the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla. It 
 remains only to advert to his celebrated maxim, which you 
 quote : " What is first, is true ; and what is subsequent, is 
 adulterated." Listen now to its application from himself: 
 *' Since it is evident, that what is true is first, that what is first 
 is from the beginning, that what is from the beginning is from 
 the Apostles, it also must be equally manifest, that what is held 
 sacred in the Apostolic Churches must have been delivered by 
 the Apostles. Let us see with what milk the Corinthians were 
 fed by Paul ; according to what standard the Galatians were re- 
 formed ; and what instructions were given to the Philippians, 
 Thessalonians, and Ephesians ; what also the Romans proclaim 
 in our ears, they to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed 
 with their blood."* You may remark, that the appeal to the 
 other churches chiefly regards the Apostolic letters directed to 
 them, whilst the faith of Rome, as loudly proclaimed, is spe- 
 cially referred to; for by its tradition coming down unchanged, 
 by the succession of bishops, from its glorious founders, all 
 errorists and sectarists are confounded. 
 
 * Tertullian, 1. iv. adv. Marcionem, p. 505. " Quid etiam Romani 
 de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine 
 quoque suo signatum reliquerunt." 
 
LETTER VII. 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 It is a rule of sound criticism, that, where positive docu- 
 ments in proof of any fact exist, the argument wliicli is derived 
 from tlie silence of some individual should not easily be re- 
 ceived. This species of negative argument has no weight but 
 in the absence, or deficiency, of positive proof, and when the 
 silence can in no way be accounted for, except by supposing 
 that the fact had no existence. As we have abundant positive 
 evidence of the Primacy, you might have dispensed with this 
 uncertain and unsatisfactory line of argumentation. You, ne- 
 vertheless, devote a whole chapter to *' the testimony" of Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, though you avow that " it is purely nega- 
 tive." To you it appears decisive ; because, had the Primacy 
 been then admitted, Clement " could not," you say, " have 
 avoided a plain statement of the fact, or, at least, some intelligi- 
 ble allusions to it." It should be recollected, that several of his 
 works, mentioned by the ancients, are no longer extant, so that 
 it cannot be asserted, with certainty, that he did not in any way 
 treat of the Primacy. In his Ilypotijposes, a work which is 
 lost, but of which Eusebius has preserved some fragments, he 
 carefully distinguished Cephas, whom Paul reproved at Anti- 
 och, from the Apostle Peter.* In his Stromata, or Miscella- 
 nies, which are still extant, he speaks of his instructors, who 
 " guarded with care the genuine tradition of Apostolic doctrine, 
 which, as children from their parents, they had received in un- 
 
 ' EusebiuH, 1. i. hist. c. xii- 
 
92 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 interrupted succession from the holy Apostles, Peter, James, 
 John and Paul."* The precedency of Peter, so remarkable 
 here, and generally in the Scriptures and Fathers, shows the 
 harmony of Clement on this point with all antiquity. This 
 work, as well as such otlier of his works as are extant, is chiefly 
 directed to confound the Gentiles, Jews, and pseudo-Gnostics, 
 and to set forth the character of the true Gnostic or Christian. 
 It is not wonderful, therefore, that the organization of the 
 Church should not be developed in them, nor the relative pov^^ers 
 of its prelates determined. The passage which you adduce 
 from the seventh book is irrelevant, for nothing is said in it 
 which can warrant any inference against the Primacy. Treat- 
 ing of an objection urged against Christians by Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, derived from the discordance of Christian sects, he re- 
 torted on them, and referred to the divisions which were found 
 in Judaism and paganism.! He afterwards observed, that " we 
 must not, on account of the dissentions, transgress the eccle- 
 siastical rule, "J and that those who desire, can find out truth, 
 which is capable of proof and demonstration. This being the 
 case, " the questions must be examined, and from the Scriptures 
 themselves we must learn demonstratively how the heresies 
 have fallen away, and how in truth alone, and in the ancient 
 Church, is most accurate knowledge. "§ On this you remark, 
 that the ancient Church signifies here, as in Irenajus and Ter- 
 tuUian, the Church as it was first planted, without distinction 
 of place, or of one Apostle over another. You know, how- 
 ever, that Irenseus speaks specially and distinctly of the Church, 
 " founded by the most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ;" and 
 that TerluUian likewise makes distinct reference to it. Clement 
 speaks of the same Church, since, in the passage which you 
 have quoted, he says, that it is easy to prove that heretical con^ 
 
 * Clemens Alex. 1. i. Strom, p. 17. 
 
 t Strom. 1. vii. § xv. p. 511. Ed. Wirceb. 
 
 t lb. p. 513. arai kai Hfjietc kxta fxn^tvu. t^ottoi rov EKK\ntrid.?-tKOV 
 
 § lb. 1. vii. p. 755, p. 517. Edit. Wirceb. 
 
UMTV OF THE CHURCH. y3 
 
 venticles are posterior, in point of lime, to the Catholic Church,* 
 from the very fact that the ministry of Paul was consuinnialed 
 under Nero, whilst Basilitles broached iiis heresy only under 
 the elder Antonine, — Glaucias, who was an interpreter of Peter, 
 having been his teacher, and " Simon Maf^us himself having 
 listened for a time to the preaching of Peter." The reference 
 to these Apostles especially, rather than to St John, who sur- 
 vived both, shows that the ancient Church, of which Clement 
 treats, is that which was founded by these Apostles, and was 
 guided by their doctrine. 'I'he churches of all Christendom 
 were in communion with the Church of Rome, and formed that 
 one ancient and Catholic Church, which was prior to all here- 
 sies. *» This being the fact,t it is clear," continues the author, 
 " from the most ancient and true Church, that these later here- 
 sies, and such as are still more recent, are marked as innova- 
 tions of spurious origin. From what has been said, I think it 
 manifest that the true Church is one, that which is truly an- 
 cient, in which are enrolled those who are just, according to 
 the divine purpose." The two following sentences are omit- 
 ted in your (}uotation, but serve to show how essential unity 
 was deemed by Clement: " for as there is one God and one 
 Lord, on this account what is highly venerable is praised for 
 unity, being the imitation of the principle which is one. The 
 one Church is, then, associated with the nature of the one Be- 
 ing, which Church heresies endeavour to divide into many.j 
 In its essence, therefore, in its conception, in its principle, and, 
 by reason of its excellence, § we say, that there is one only an- 
 cient and Catholic Church, gathering together into the unity of 
 the one faith, according to her own covenants, or rather, ac- 
 cording to the one covenant, at dilTcrent limes, by the counsel 
 
 " Strom. 1. vii, § xv. p. 539. 
 
 t (kr luTU( ip^orTar. " Quoj cum ita habcant." Bishop Hopkins trans- 
 lates it: " which things if they were bo I" 
 
 \ T)i ym TK iroc <;>u7ti 9uyn.Xn^>iTxi ExxMtff-igt >i fxitt, ni u: TroXKtc 
 KXToLitfxtnf 0n^ctraii «i^iy«/c. Stromal. 1. vii. p. 539. 
 
 § K*Tat Tjjr uirorurir, »siTct ti 'frircur, kata rt a^^^^r, jtarat ri 
 
94 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 of the one God, and through the one Lord, those who are al- 
 ready preordained, whom God predestined, having known, be- 
 fore the foundation of the world, that they would be just. And 
 the eminence of the Church, as well as the principle of its con- 
 struction, is from unity, surpassing all other things, and liaving 
 notliing like or equal to it."* He adds, that " as the doctrine 
 of all the Apostles was the same, so likewise tlieir tradilion.t 
 Though in this long and beautiful passage, tlie Primacy of Peter 
 is neither asserted nor denied, the unity of the Church is re- 
 presented so forcibly, that I am glad you quoted it. Of that 
 unity Peter was the guardian ; but the mention of this was not 
 so well calculated to convince or confound heretics, as to object 
 to them the notorious fact of their recent origin. The silence 
 of Clement on the supremacy of Peter is therefore easily under- 
 stood, and perfectly reconcilable with his admission of that doc- 
 trine. We often use a similar argument against innovators, as 
 we are sensible that the authority of the Holy See can be effec- 
 tually employed only against those who already admit it. The 
 very antiquity of a doctrine forms a presumption in its favour, 
 not to be removed, unless by positive evidence of its origin at 
 a period subsequent to the Apostolic age. We say then, with 
 Clement, that the ancient Church is the only true Church, and 
 that the fact of the posterior origin of the sects, is at once the 
 refutation of all their claims. You observe, that " he refers this 
 unity to its substance, its knowledge, its beginning, its excel- 
 lency, and to the unity of the faith, as handed dow-n to the 
 Apostles." If you mean to insinuate that he admits any di- 
 versity of doctrine, and limits unity to some points of high im- 
 portance, you mistake his meaning, since he complains of here- 
 sies, as violently endeavouring to divide into many parts that 
 Church, whose unity is an emblem of the unity of God. When 
 he says, that it is one in substance, it is, as the Latin interpre- 
 
 * P. 540. a\Kct }cu) « i^^X^ "^"f (KKK>lO-lsti KdB-ctTTSp » agPC" '^^^ 
 <rv<>cL(nm(r, kxtsl tuv fAcvuJ'x er/v, TreivrA ra. oihha. v7ri^0A\xou(rct., kai 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
CANON OF INTF.RPRKTATIOV. 95 
 
 ler has rendcretl it, in essence, that is, cssontially oiio. 'J'lie term 
 gives no ^^rouiul whatever for understanding it of unity on some 
 particuUir points. When lie adds, that it is one in idea, or con- 
 ception, he speaks of the idea which we necessarily conceive of 
 it, according to its divine institution. In saying that it is one 
 in its principle, he means God, from whom it emanates, of 
 whose unity it is an imitation.* Il is finally one in excellence, 
 for it far surpasses all human institutions, none of which, whe- 
 ther they be the conventicles of sects, or civil establishments, 
 presents any thing equal, or like this divine institution. '* Con- 
 fingantlale aliquid haeretici!" 
 
 Availing yourself of the figure of tlic key which Clement uses, 
 you assert, that "it is manifest that Clement regards the keys 
 in the sense which Tcrtullian recognises, namely, the interpre- 
 tation of Scripture." I have already shown that TertuUian did 
 not at all speak of the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to 
 Peter, when he used liie figure of a key, but spoke of the Jew- 
 ish doctors, who, not having the key of knowledge, did not in- 
 terpret the Scripture correctly. Figurative expressions being 
 applicable to an infinite variety of objects, of the most dissimilar 
 nature, it is not at all warrantable to apply to one object what 
 may have been said of another, merely because the same meta- 
 phor is applied to both. It is inconsistent with every rule of 
 sound interpretation, to explain the Scriptural texts by passages 
 of the Fathers, having no relation whatever to them, except the 
 accidental employment of a similar metaphor, for purposes 
 widely diflerent. Clement says that, ** the Gnostic alone," — 
 by which term he understands the enlightened Christian, — 
 " who had grown old in the study of the Scriptures, and had pre- 
 served the Apostolical and ecclesiastical rule of correct dogmas, 
 lives properly a(!cording to the Gospel ;"t and he warns his 
 readers, " that we must not imitate the followers of heresy, and 
 
 ^^ fjLifxtifjL* if a^^nc TXfl" fxixc." I'..':?-'. 
 
 T*y. P. r»:M. 
 
96 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 adulterate truth, or steal away the rule of the Church ;"* after 
 which he thus introduces the figure to which you have made re- 
 ference : *' those, then, who are imbued with impious princi- 
 ples, and deliver them to others, and who employ the divine 
 words, not properly, but in a perverse manner, neither enter 
 themselves into the kingdom of heaven, nor suffer those whom 
 they deceive to come to the knowledge of the truth. But they 
 themselves not having the key of entrance, but a false key, and, 
 as is usually said, an anti-key, by means of which, not being 
 able to raise up the veil, as we who enter in by means 
 of the tradition of the Lord, they cut down the side door, and 
 clandestinely break through the wall of the Church, passing over 
 the truth, become the initiators of the spirit of the impious."! 
 Here Clement speaks of divine tradition as the key to the di- 
 vine Scriptures, for the want of which heretics cannot raise the 
 veil ; wherefore they rush forward, trampling under foot reveal- 
 ed truth, and breaking down the wall of Church authority. Who 
 can hence infer, that when Christ promised to Peter the keys 
 of his kingdom, with power of binding and loosing, he meant 
 no more than the tradition by which Scripture might be ex- 
 plained ? 
 
 No note of distinction among the Apostles, as you observe, 
 is added by Clement in the passage which you quote from the 
 fourth book of the Stroinata, wherein he speaks of the Apos- 
 tles : but this is not surprising, for even we, when we have 
 occasion to speak of the Apostles in common, are not accustom- 
 ed to distinguish Peter from the other members of the Apostolic 
 college. A striking distinction was made by our Redeemer 
 himself, in the text which Clement thus refers to, and which 
 you have passed over in your quotation : '* Martyrdom, then, 
 seems to be the purification of sins with glory. The shepherd 
 [Hernias) says particularly : " You will escape the fangs of the 
 wild beast, if your heart be pure and faultless ; but even the Lord 
 himself says: Satan has sought you, to sift you; but I have 
 
 * t«f« fX»\l KXiVTitV TOr KOLVOVA T«f EjC»X>fC"/Ctf . P- 536. 
 
 t p. 538. juv^etyceyoi t«? rav u<rfSi»v -^u^^i. 
 
FAVOURABLE TO THE PRIMACY. Vt 
 
 prayed. The Lord, therefore, alone drank the chalice, for ihe 
 purification of those men who laid snares for him, and of unbe- 
 lievers : in imitation of whom the Apostles, as being truly Gnos- 
 tics and perfect men, sullercd for the Churches which they 
 founded."* It is manifest that Clement treats of the martyrdom 
 of the Apostles, and not of their official character or relative 
 powers : consequently, there was no reason wliy he should dis- 
 linguisli Peter from the rest. As to the epithets '• good," " no- 
 ble," '' divine," which Clement applies to Paul, they aflbrd no 
 ground for calling the Primacy of Peter in question. Both 
 Apostles might receive these appellations without prejudice to 
 truth, or to the higher prerogative of Peter ; and if they happen 
 not to be applied to this Apostle, the circumstance is too trivial 
 to ofler evefi the shadow of an argument. 
 
 The writings of Clement, which are extant, contain then no- 
 thing whatever against the Primacy, and much in confirmation 
 of the authority of the one ancient. Apostolic, and only true 
 Church. The loss of his other works, especially his Hypoty- 
 POSEs, is to be regretted, as, from fragments quoted by Euse- 
 bius and John Moschus, we learn, that in them he stated the 
 distinction between C'ephas the disciple and Peter, and nar- 
 rated that Christ baptized Peter alone.t and that Peter baptized 
 Andrew : also that Peter sanctioned the Gospel of Mark, and 
 authorized it to be read in the Churches. t Whatever weight 
 may be given to his testimony on liiese points, it is manifestly 
 favourable to the Primacy. 
 
 • Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. iv. § 0, p. 571 Edit. Wirceb. p. 503. 
 Edit. H. 
 
 t L. 5. Hypotyp. cit. in prato spir. c. 171). 
 
 X L. (i. Hypotyp. apud Euseb. 1. 'i, Hist. Ecci. c. 15. 
 
LETTER YIIL 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 Right Re^tirend Sir : 
 
 We pass from Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned 
 of the Fathers, to Origen, the most illustrious of his disciples. 
 You invite our attention to his application of the figure of the 
 keys : " First, then, let us look at a fine application of the figure 
 of the keys, which will prove, in accordance with the other 
 Fathers, how well this term was understood to signify the sci- 
 ence of interpretation. On account of its obscurity, says Origen, 
 the whole Scripture, divinely inspired, is like to many chambers 
 within one house, but when the key applied to each chamber 
 is not fitted to it, the keys become scattered through the cham- 
 bers, not answering to those chambers to which they are ap- 
 plied ; and it is truly a difficult work to find the proper keys, 
 and adapt them to the locks, so that they may open them ; thus 
 it is that the more abstruse Scriptures are to be understood, 
 the argument of our knowledge being taken no otherwise than 
 from the Scriptures themselves, v/hich have dispersed amongst 
 them the reasons of their exposition."* Those of your readers 
 who may have thought this to be the interpretation of il:f; keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter, may be surprised to 
 learn that it has not the remotest connexion with them, and is 
 a similitude borrowed by Origen from a .Jew. It is found in 
 the preface to the interpretation of the Psalms, and is preceded 
 by these words : "As we are about to enter on the interpreta- 
 tion of the Psalms, we shall premise an excellent observation 
 
 * ?. 102. 
 
KMT5 or WTEWltETATlOX. 19 
 
 gentnUj oo the whole dirine Scripture, made lo os by a Jew. 
 He said that the whole dirinely inspired Scripture, oa accooat 
 of its obscaritT, is like to many chambers, ^c.*** To addoee 
 this similitude to prove that the term of the keys was nader- 
 stood by Origen to signify the science of interpretatioo, is swely 
 calculated to nislead. Clear texts may be aptly called keys of 
 obscure pa> - : the use of such a meuphor, by a Jew, or 
 
 by a Fathe . norch, does not at all imply that the keys 
 
 of the kingdom of heaven, specially promised to Peter in re- 
 ward of his faiih. mean no more than dear texts, whereby he 
 raifht amre at the real meaning of passages which for others 
 woold be obscure. If yon would sabetitnte the words, " dear 
 texts'* for ** the keys of the heavenly kingdoB' * in the pumy 
 of Si Mauhew, you will see the revolting incoosislniey of this 
 far-fetched interpretation. 
 
 Did I suppose you to have designedly omitted the prefatory 
 portion of the sentence, which so clearly explains its source 
 and determines its meaning. I should smile at the following 
 apology which precedes the next passage: '•It will require a 
 very long extract to do it justice, but no labour should be thought 
 too great for the ae ar ch ei after tn2th.**t Besides pervsiBf loag 
 extracts, it is also desirable that the inquirer should rmwidrr 
 the custom of the Fathers in general, but especially of OrigeSv 
 to indv ' -stations of Sacred Scripture, eil- 
 
 coatee virtue, but which neither he« nor 
 
 the other Fathers, ever wished to have substituted for the literal 
 and obvious meaning of the text. Thus he wouU easilT um- 
 defstand how it was that Origen, in the pussage io questiou, 
 takes occasion from the profession of faith made by StmoBv aud 
 the appellation of *' rock** given him by his divine Master, lo 
 obserre that if we confess Christ, under the same heuvealy in< 
 fluence, we also will be a Peter, or rock oi faith. In this I 
 discover nothing favouraMe to your interprets tic n, for Or j*" 
 expressly understands the original words of Peter, and iJ 
 nes n»rf*< and n»Tp«, which you labour so smnnoiisly to ^>' 
 
 * Ocig^ in Pnlww, Pnet pw ISS, T«L ziiL E£t. Wlrofb-j^^ 
 
 • P 101 
 
100 ORIGEN. 
 
 tinguish. "Every disciple of Christ is a rock, of whom they 
 drank who drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and 
 on every such rock tlie whole ecclesiastical teaching,* and 
 corresponding government, is built: for in each of the perfect, 
 who have the collection of words, and works, and thoughts, the 
 Church is inwardly built by God." You see clearly how your 
 author indulges in mysticism, and, with a view to animate all 
 to the imitation of Peier, asserts that every just and perfect man 
 is not only a rock, but that his pious maxims, works and words, 
 form a Church, built on him as a foundation. If you please to 
 follow him thus far, you are welcome to the benefit of his tes- 
 timony. To prove that others besides Peter could partake of 
 the rewards of his faith, he asks, can it be supposed that the 
 Church is built on Peter in such a manner as to exclude the 
 other Apostles from all participation in the benefits of the 
 Church, or the privileges of the ministry? *'If, indeed, you 
 think that the whole Church is built by God upon this one 
 Petert (rock) only, what do you say of John, the son of thun- 
 der, or of each of the Apostles ? Shall we venture to say that 
 the gates of hell shall not prevail against PeterJ in particular, 
 but shall prevail against the other Apostles, and against the 
 perfect ? Is not what was said previously, verified in regard 
 to all and each one : ' the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it?' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord 
 to Peter alone, and shall no other of the blessed receive them 1 
 But if this be common to the others, ' I shall give thee the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven,' how should not all the things which 
 go before, and follow after,§ be common likewise 1 For here it 
 seems to be said to Peter, ' whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
 shall be bound also in heaven, &c. &c. Sic. : but in the Gospel 
 of John, the Saviour, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples by 
 
 * O ix,)i\»(rtu;iKo: TTsLc Koycg^ Kctt « xsct' etCrov Troxmict. Origenes 
 in Matt., Tom. XII. p. 516. 
 
 t E/ Si iTTl TOV fVX iKilVOV UiTpOV VO/Ut^lt; CtTO T« 668 OlKoJ'o/Xil^Ctt 
 TJfV WatO-StV fKKXWlltV /UCVOV. t iSlUiQ. 
 
 § jratvTet T* T6 TTfiotipn/uiva., Kcti ret iTTipifofxiva.. Bishop Hopkins 
 translates it : " those things which precede it, and which are evidently 
 connected with it." 
 
APPLICATION OF TIIK WORDS OF t HKIST. 101 
 
 breathing on llieni, s:iys : Heceivc ye the Holy Ghost, <fec. 
 &€."• You are aware, that in asserting ilie priviU'ires of 
 Peter we do not adopt the exclusive principles wljich Origen 
 ascribes to those who doubted whether eacii perfect man, imi- 
 tating his faith and confession, might be, like him, a rock, and 
 partake of the rewards bestowed on iiim. "We believe him to 
 be the chief foundation placed by the hand oflhe Divine Archi- 
 tect; but we regard all the Apostles, in a general way, as the 
 foundation on which we are built, Christ Jesus himself being 
 the chief corner stone, as we are taught by St Paul. We do 
 not say that the gates of hell shall prevail against the other 
 Apostles, or the perfect, or the Church at large, when we 
 assert that they cannot prevail agaiiist the Kock on which that 
 Ciiurcli is founded. We do not claim lor Peter the power of 
 the keys — of binding and loosing — so exclusively as to deny 
 to the other Apostles the exercise of a similar power, though 
 we maintain that the special address to Pcirr indicates that he 
 pre-eminently possesses it. Wlien (Jrigen says, the promise 
 that the gales of hell phall not prevail against it, is verified in 
 regard to every perfect man, — lie is stilliabouring to prove, by 
 ihc application of the text, in a mystical sense, tiiat each one 
 may be a rock of faith which no power of hell may overthrow. t 
 He expressly avows that the words, in their literal sense, 
 regard Peter, and are aj)plicable toothers only in a spiritual or 
 myslicalsigniiicalion. " if any one say to hijn: ' Thou art Clirist, 
 ilie Son of the living God ;' not taught by llesh and blood, but 
 by the Father who is in heaven; he will obtaini what was 
 promised to that Peter, as the letter of the Gospel says, but as 
 
 ' Origi'ii in Mai., Tom. \1I. j). .'>!(;. 
 
 t Gerard remarks that " even such of the Fathers as did not wiiolly 
 neglect the literal sense of Scripture, are fond of ailcgorizinir it, and 
 drawing from it mystical meanings, which are altogether fanciful, and 
 of no use." G7(). Inst Bib. Criticism, p. 'JOH. Origen is the first wliom 
 Gerard mentions as indulging in tlu'se niystical interpolations. 
 
 t Tit/^iTs/ T*r (/{Jt/uirttr, »c yuir tc ■^^t/jLfit. tk iuxyytkiH Ktyu, irf 6c 
 «Kl/rir Tsr IIiT^sr, •; /• ts -rrmifjL* auth JUavku, w§sc Tsttr* roy ■) trcutrcr 
 -Tiio; i riiTgoc mtitoc. Origen, t. xii. p. 51^. 
 I* 
 
102 ORIGEN. 
 
 its spirit teaches, to every one that becomes such as that Peter 
 was. For all the imitators of Christ are styled from the Rock, 
 — the Spiritual Rock which follows those who are saved, that 
 they may drink from it spiritual drink, and they are styled from 
 the Rock, as Christ : but, as being members of Christ, they 
 have been designated Christians from his name, so from the 
 Rock, Peters."* Conformably to his purpose, Origen says, 
 that every perfect man may be styled Peter, from the stead- 
 fastness of his faith, and solidity of his virtue, as Christians 
 are so styled from being incorporated in the mystic body of 
 Christ. To show that against such a man the powers of dark- 
 ness cannot prevail, he proceeds : " Taking occasion from 
 these things, you may say, that they are denominated just, from 
 the justice of Christ, and wise, from the wisdom of Christ; 
 and thus, from his other names, you may form epithets for the 
 saints ; and to all such persons would be said by the Saviour 
 what was said : ' thou art Peter, &:c. &;c. They shall not 
 prevail against it:' What does it refer to? Is it the rock on 
 which Christ builds the Church, or the Church ? or is it the 
 Church and rock, as one and the same thing ? for the word is 
 ambiguous. I think the last to be the true meaning : for nei- 
 ther against the rock on which Christ builds the Church, nor 
 against the Church, shall the gates of hell prevail ; as it is im- 
 possible to find the track of the serpent on the rock, according 
 to what is written in the Book of Proverbs. But if the gates 
 of hell prevail against any one, such a one cannot be the rock 
 on which Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by 
 Christ on the rock : for the rock is not accessible to the ser- 
 pent, and is stronger than the gales of hell which struggle 
 against it; so that on account of its strength, the gates of hell 
 cannot prevail against it : and the Church, as the building of 
 Christ, who wisely built it on a rock, is impregnable to hell's 
 gates, which prevail indeed against every man out of the rock 
 
 ovTSf, TTU^eevv/uci ix^ff^^'^Krav ;^g/r/itv<;/, Tm-^'n; tfg, wiTgo;. Origen in 
 Matt., Tom. XII. p. 518. 
 
APPLICATION OF TIIK WORDS OF CHRIST. 103 
 
 and out of the Church, but cannot eflcct any lliinir against it. 
 Seeing, then, that each of the sins which lead to Iieli, is the gate 
 of hell we shall understand tliat the soul which has spot, or 
 wrinkle, or any such thing, and which, by reason of sin, is 
 neitlicr holy nor spotless, is neither the rock on which 
 Christ builds the Church, nor the Church, nor a part of the 
 C'hurch, which Christ builds upon the rock."* 1 have added 
 to the extracts which you have given, this long passage from the 
 works of this Father, that the reader might have a better oppor- 
 tunity than is afforded by the passages you have quoted of know- 
 ing his real senlinient. His object was to excite the faith- 
 ful to imitate Peter, that they might be victorious over the pow- 
 ers of hell. He maintains, that the infernal powers cannot 
 prevail either against the Church, or against the rock of its 
 foundation, — and passing from the letter to the spirit, he con- 
 cludes that they cannot prevail against any individual firm in 
 faith and unwavering in his attachment to duty. In the same 
 mystic style of interpretation, he regards sin as the avenue or 
 gate of hell, and excludes every sinner from the privileges of 
 the Church and rock. He admits that there is a multitude of 
 men called members of the Church, against whom the gates of 
 hell will prevail, on account of the vices to which they are en- 
 slaved. Among sins, he reckons heresies, which he terms 
 gates of hell, that war in vain against the Church. "Thus 
 every author of a perverse sentiment becomes a builder of a 
 gate of hell ; — and the co-operators in the doctrine of the au- 
 thor of such things, are minisiers and dispensers of the per- 
 verse teaching, the source of the impiety. But many and num- 
 berless as are the gates of liell, no gate of hell will prevail 
 against the rock, or the Church which Christ builds upon a 
 rock. And truly, each of the heterodox, who brings forth any 
 knowledge, falsely so called, has built a gate of hell. Marcion 
 has erected one, Basilides another, and Valrnlinus another. "t 
 The author here insensibly returns to tlie literal meaning, and 
 shows that no efforts of heresy can destroy the Church of 
 
 • Origfu in Matt., Tom. XII. p 520. f lb. p. .^.£2 
 
104 ORIGEX. 
 
 Christ, or the rock on which it rests : yet he does not lose 
 sight of the moral application. 
 
 You give us a few sentences which follow, and passing over 
 nearly a page, commence your paragraph as if it was an infer- 
 ence drawn by Origen from what you had just recited. I am 
 not disposed to complain of the omission of the intervening 
 passages ; but in so important an investigation, it was right to 
 give some indication that the connexion was not immediate; 
 and it was still more necessary to avoid every thing which 
 might convey the false idea of a conclusion drawn from pre- 
 mises. Instead of beginning the paragraph : " We see by all 
 this,* how it may be saidt to Peter, and to every one who is 
 as Peter," fidelity to the text required that you should have 
 written : *' Now (cifter these things) let us see how it was said 
 to Peter, and to every Peter : I will give thee the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven." You must have observed in the origi- 
 nal, that the article is even prefixed to the name of the Apostle, 
 as being by excellence " the rock," whilst the name without 
 the article is used to denote every perfect man the imitator of 
 his faith.J Blending the literal and mystical senses together, or 
 at least giving the mystical interpretation, without losing sight 
 of the literal, he proceeds to explain the force of the words as ap- 
 plicable to the perfect. " In the first place I think, that to the 
 words, ' the gates of hell shall not prevail against il,' have been 
 rightly subjoined, § ' To thee I will give the keys of ihe kingdom 
 of heaven :' for he who is defended agfnJnsi the gates of hell, that 
 they may not prevail against him, is worthy to receive from the 
 Word himself, the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; as it were 
 for a reward, because the gates of hell were powerless against 
 him ; receiving the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that he may 
 
 * The Latin version given by Bishop Hopkins is different from that 
 which hes before me. Instead of " post hcBC videmus," I read, post hoec 
 videamus. The Greek text shows that my reading is correct. Merst 
 TAWTA iSufj.iv. t True AsxeicTsi/, how it was said. 
 
 X The definite article is also used in the Syriac, Arabic and Chaldaic 
 versions of the text of Matthew xvi. IG, ''thou art the rock." 
 
 § a-KOKn^oci Mhix^J^i, Bishop Hopkins translates it: " First, indeed, 
 I think these words are to be connected with the others." 
 
MYSTICAL EXPOSITION. 105 
 
 open to himself the gales wliich are shut against such as are 
 overcome by tlie gates of liell ; and he enters in, as chaste 
 through the gate of chastity opened by the corresponding key, 
 and as just througli tlie gate of justice, opened hy the key of 
 justice ; and so of tlie other virtues."* 
 
 These mystical explanations may interest and edify the 
 pious, but cannot pass with any enlightened man for the 
 writer's view of the literal meaning of the passages thus alle- 
 gorized : nor are they given as such by their ingenious author. 
 Further on he says : "See what power the rock has on which 
 the Church is built by Christ, and every one has who says : 
 * Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' so that his judg- 
 ments remain firm, God as it were judging in him, so that in 
 the very act of judging, the gales of hell cannot prevail against 
 him.t Therefore, against him who judges unjustly, and who 
 does not bind on earth according to the word of God, nor 
 looses on earth according to his will, the gates of hell prevail ; 
 but that man judges justly against whom the gates of hell do 
 not prevail. For this reason he has the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, opening to those that are loosed on earth, that even 
 in heaven they may be loosed and free ; and shutting to those 
 who are bound by his just judgment on earth, that even in 
 heaven they may be bound and condemned. But since those 
 who claim the rank of the Episcopacy use this passage, as 
 Peter, and having received from the Saviour the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, teach that the things bound by them, that 
 is, proscribed, are also bound in heaven, and the things that 
 are pardoned by them are also loosed in heaven ; it is to be 
 observed that they speak correctly if iliey have the quality on 
 account of whicii it was said to that Peter : * thou art a rock ;' 
 and if ihey be such that upon them the Church is built by 
 
 • Origon in Malt., Tom. XII. p. .VJO. 
 
 t **o»rt Tate K§<o"i/c fjniui ^i^^iA: TttTtt, mc xjirevTCc tr aire* tit Si*, 
 ittt it durm te$ x^uiir ^m Kxrtv^va^mvn ait/Tk irukaLi aVk. P. 528. 
 
 Bishop Hopkins rondors it: ''that his judirini'nts may remain firm, 
 as of God, justified by him, so tliat througli Uiis judgment the gales of 
 hell may not prevail against him." 
 
106 ORIGEN. 
 
 Christ, and that to them it may be referred with propriety. 
 But the gates of hell ought not to prevail against him that 
 would bind and loose. If he himself is bound fast by the cords 
 of his sins, he binds and looses in vain. But as God would 
 not bind the man who is not bound by the cords of sin, so 
 neither would whoever is a Peter bind him. But if any man, 
 not being a Peter, and not having the qualities here specified, 
 thinks that he, like Peter, can bind on earth, so that the things 
 which he binds shall be also bound in heaven; and thinks tiiat 
 he can loose on earth, so that the tilings which lie looses be 
 loosed in heaven, such a man is proud", not knowing the sense 
 of the Scriptures, and being puffed up with pride, he falls into 
 the snare of the devil." You perceive tli.at throughout 
 Origen continues in his favourite application of this cele- 
 brated passage, but with a distinct reference to its literal mean- 
 ing: He admires the power possessed by the rock on whom 
 the Church is built; he declares his judgments firm, God as it 
 were judging in him, and the gates of hell being unable to 
 prevail against him in the very act of judgment. All this 
 literally regards Peter, whom by excellence he denominates 
 Tiirpo? *' the Peter." But he extends it to every one who, 
 with the faith and fortitude of Peter, confesses that Christ is 
 the Son of God ; and thus limitations become necessary, which 
 he ventures to apply even to those who occupy the Episcopal 
 chair. If bishops in general should claim for themselves a 
 power of judgment like to that of Peter, their claim, he says, 
 is admissible, provided they also be Peters : but he protests 
 against a capricious exercise of that power, without regard to 
 justice. The principle is true, that no wanton exercise of au- 
 thority can be defended, merely on the plea of power received, 
 because that power is necessarily to be exercised in conformity 
 with the maxims of sanctity delivered by the Redeemer who 
 communicated it. The ratification promised in heaven cannot 
 extend to what is in manifest opposition with the will and law 
 of the divine King. 
 
 Our readers. Right Reverend Sir, will have no reason to 
 complain of the paucity and brevity of our quotations from 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THK PRIMACY. 107 
 
 Origen, but they will be amply repaid for this trial of their 
 patience, if they acquire a correct idea of his sentiments and 
 views on this important subject. Were I not afraid of appear- 
 ing to allcct your oft rej)eatcd and solemn appeals, I would beg 
 of you to divest yourself of every sectarian bias, and judge as 
 a scholar and a critic, of his true meaning. From many errors, 
 somewlmt allecting the fidelity of your transhuioii, I fear that 
 you have hastily adopted the version of some writer in whom 
 you have placed unnicrilcd confidence, or that you have made 
 your own version without reference to the original text, or 
 without sulficient attention even to the Latin interpreter. Mine 
 is as literal and as exact as I could make it. 
 
 When not moralizing, or indulging in mystic flights, he 
 stated in the simplest but strongest terms what should forever 
 prevent you from bringing him forward as a witness against 
 the Primacy of Peter. " Peter," says he, ♦' on whom the 
 Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail, left one epistle generally admitted."* in his Com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, the supreme authority 
 of Peter, as Pastor of the sheep of Christ, is expressly aflirmed. 
 Speaking of the excellence of charity, he says: " When the 
 supreme power to k'ei\ the sheep was given to Peter, and the 
 Church was founded on him, as on a rock, the declaration of no 
 other virtue is required of him, but of charily."! With these 
 facts and testimonies as kei/s, you may unlock the secret 
 chambers of mysticism, and discover the meaning of those 
 texts, in which, passing by what he regarded as obvious to all, 
 he showed his hearers the edification which they should derive 
 from them. 
 
 * Apud. Euseb. 1. vi. c. 2a, Ilidt. Eccl. 
 
 t I'elro cum Kuiiuna reruin de pascondis ovibus traderolur, ct super 
 ipsum, vclut super terrain, fundarctur Ecck'sia, nullius alterius ab eo 
 virtutis cor)ft'8sio, nisi charititiH cxigitur." Origen in Epist. ad Iloin. 1. 
 V. n. 10. 1 have rendered on a rock, as I find the testimony quoted by 
 Sardagna svper pelram, and as the Scriptural reference warrants. It is, 
 however, super terram, on the rurt/i in the edition fidw !.••(. n- me. 
 Wirceburg, MDCCXCIV. p. 272. 
 
108 ORIGEN. 
 
 I shall not say a word to weaken the force of your vindica- 
 tion of Origen's memory from the imputation of heterodoxy. 
 For our present purpose it is sufficient that he recognised the 
 Primacy of Peter, and, through respect for the See which this 
 Apostle made the depositary of his power, he earnestly longed 
 to visit that most ancient Church, and gratified his wishes in 
 the days of Pope Zephyrine. To Fabian, his successor, as the 
 chief judge and guardian of faith, he sent the declaration of his 
 faith when his orthodoxy was elsewhere called in question. 
 For both facts Eusebius is my voucher.* 
 
 You conclude your chapter on Origen by a dissertation on 
 his orthodoxy, as if nothing remained for the triumph of your 
 cause but to prove the credibility of your witness. He has, 
 however, testified against you. He has explained invariably 
 of Peter, what you contend should be referred to Christ ; and 
 if in his usual style of mystic interpretation he has given a long 
 exhortation to perfection from the motive of obtaining rewards 
 like those of Peter, he has not neglected to inform us that he 
 was explaining, according to the spirit, what according to the 
 letter regards him whom he emphatically styles " the Peter." 
 
 * Euseb. hist. 1. vi. c. 14 and 36. 
 
LETTER IX. 
 
 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 RiGJiT Reverend Sir: 
 
 The illustrious Bishop of Carthago, St Cyprian, is llie next 
 witness brought forward by you against the supremacy of Peter 
 and his successors, although you candidly acknowledge that 
 several passages in liis works look very like our doctrine. In 
 a letter to his people, on occasion of the schism of five factious 
 priests who ofTered the peace and communion of the Church 
 to those who had fallen from the faitii in t!ie persecution, he 
 thus animadverts on their conduct : — " They now offer peace, 
 who themselves have not peace. They promise to bring back 
 and recall to the Church those 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 a rock.* That any other altar should be erected, or a 
 new priesthood establislied, besides that one altar and one 
 priesthood, is impossible. Whoever gathers elsewhere scal- 
 tereth. Whatever is devised by human frenzy, in violation of 
 the divine ordinance, is adulterous, impious, sacrilegious." 
 This truly looks very like our doctrine, and cannot, without 
 great ingenuity, be turned to any other meaning. As you offer 
 no explanation of it, save that which may be deduced from your 
 general view of Cyprian's sentiments, I leave it in its own 
 
 • Super pttram. It is so given in the edition of Basle, anno lCy'2\,&n(\ 
 in that of \Vircehur|r. JJishop Hopkins reads Pctrum, which probably 
 is the correct reading. Tiie sense is the same. St Cy()r. ad pUbein. cp. 
 p. 59. 
 
 X 
 
110 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 simplicity and strength, to the candid consideration of every 
 inquirer after truth, and proceed to your next quotation. 
 
 The letter of St Cyprian to the bishop Antonian, was written 
 in consequence of the representations of Novatian having made 
 this bishop waver in his determination to recognise Cornelius 
 as the Bishop of Rome. I will beg leave to give somewhat 
 more copious extracts than you have furnished from this im- 
 portant document. It begins thus : " I received your first letter, 
 most beloved brother, which firmly maintains the harmony of 
 the priestly college, and the communion of the Catholic Church, 
 inasmuch as you intimate that you hold no communion with 
 Novatian, but that you have followed our counsel and are in 
 harmony with Cornelius our fellow bishop.* You also wrote 
 that I should forward a copy of the same letter to Cornelius, 
 our colleague, that he might lay aside all anxiety, knowing that 
 
 YOU COMMUNICATE WITH HIM, THAT IS, WITH THE CATHOLIC 
 
 CHURCH."! — This may aid you to understand the full force of 
 some other passages in the sequel. The Bishop of Rome, at 
 that early day, was the centre and bond of Catholic commu- 
 nion : through him the bishops of every part of Christendom 
 communicated with each other, and thereby formed that Epis- 
 copal College, of which Cyprian so often speaks, — being one 
 in its character, tendency and spirit. On hearing that Antonian 
 had subsequently suffered himself to be m.oved by the repre- 
 sentations of Novatian, who calumniated both Cornelius and 
 Cyprian, the saint resolved to undeceive him, and to lay before 
 him all the facts that were calculated to recall him to Catholic 
 unity. As to Cyprian's own conduct in regard to tlie fallen, 
 he observes, that during the vacancy of the Roman See, he Jiad 
 communicated his views to the clergy of that Church, who 
 wrote to him a letter approving of his determination: "This 
 
 * " Three bishops, who ordained Novatian, the schismatic bishop, 
 were deposed, and others ordained to succeed them by Cornelius, Bishop 
 of Rome, whose proceedings in this matter were generally approved all 
 over the world." Archbishop Potter on Church Government, p. 302, 
 
 t St Cyprian, Ep. ad Antonian, p. 109. 
 
MEASURES TOWARDS THE FALLEN. Ill 
 
 letter (he observes) was dcspalchetl ihroughoul the wliole world, 
 and brought to the knowledge of all the churches and all the 
 brethren." This extraordinary importance attached to the 
 provisional government of that Church, if I may be allowed 
 so to designate it, shows the authority which ordinarily be- 
 longed to it, and the extent of its jurisdiction. After peace had 
 succeeded the persecution, and an opportunity was alforded of 
 assembling the bishops of Africa, as Cyprian had purposed, 
 and the Roman clergy liad approved, the Council was held, 
 and measures were adopted in which severity and indulgence 
 were ble!ided. Though the number of bishops assembled was 
 great, • still they deemed it right to communicate their judg- 
 ment to the Koman Pontiff, that it might be strengthened by his 
 superior authority. With the deliberation and wisdom which 
 have always characterized the acts of the Holy See, Cornelius 
 assembled a number of bishops, and declared his concurrence 
 in the measures of the African prelates. ♦♦ If the number of 
 bishops in Africa (says Cyprian to Antonian) appear insuflicient, 
 we wrote even to Rome on this point to Cornelius, our col- 
 league; who also, himself, having held a council with many 
 bishops, consented to the same decree as we had made, with 
 equal severity and salutary moderation. "t 
 
 Having thus vindicated himself, he proceeds to the case of 
 Cornelius: "I come now, most beloved brother, to the person 
 of Cornelius, our colleague, that you may know him truly, 
 as we do, and not from the false statements of malignant slan- 
 derers, but according to the judgment of the Lord (lod, who 
 made him Bishop, and by the testimony of his fellow-bishops, 
 the entire number of whom, throughout the whole world, has 
 
 Cnpiosus ppiscftponim numorus. 
 t " Cyprian and the council of bishops, of which ho was president, in 
 their cpiHtlc to two churches of Spain, whose bishops had lapsed into 
 idolatry, tells them, that both they theuisclves, and all other bishops in 
 the whole world, and rAiiTici'i.AUi.Y Cornemi's, Hisiior ok Romk, had 
 decreed that Inpsers should be admitted to penitence, but not allowed to 
 continue among the clergy." Archbishop Poller on Church Govern- 
 ment, p. 34ii, referring to Cyprian, Ep. fi7, p. 81)1 . 
 
112 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 assented with perfect unanimity." — It appears, then, that the 
 whole body of bishops considered the Bishop of Rome as one 
 in whose election all were interested ; and their communion with 
 him followed from a knowledge of the fact of his being law- 
 fully promoted. — " He was made Bishop by many of our col- 
 leagues, who were at that time in the city of Rome, who sent to 
 us, on his ordination, honourable and laudatory letters, distin- 
 guished for the testimony which they bore to his merit.* And 
 Cornelius was made Bishop according to the judgment of God, 
 and of his Christ, according to the testimony of almost all the 
 clergy, with the suffrage of the people who were present on 
 the occasion, and he was selected from the college of aged 
 priests and good men ; when no one had been appointed before 
 him, and the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter, and 
 the dignity of the priestly chair was vacant: which place being 
 occupied according to the will of God, and being strengthened 
 by the consent of us all, whoever now seeks to be made bishop 
 must necessarily be without, nor can he have ecclesiastical ordi- 
 nation who does not hold the unity of the Church. Whoever 
 he be, though he vaunt himself and put forward great claims, he 
 is a profane man, a stranger, he is without. And since after 
 the first there can be no second, whosoever was made (bishop) 
 after the one who alone should be such, is not the second, but 
 he is no bishop. Finally, having received the Episcopal office, 
 which he did not ambition, or seize on, but in conformity to the 
 will of God who makes priests, how great was his virtue in the 
 Episcopacy which he had received ! how great his fortitude ! 
 how firm his faith ! (which we should intimately regard and 
 praise in simplicity of heart) to have sat intrepid in the sacer- 
 dotal chair at Rome, at a time when the hostile tyrant menaced 
 the priests of God with dire punishments, and would hear with 
 greater patience and forbearance that a rival prince had risen 
 against him, than that a priest of God was established at Rome." 
 
 * " Testimonio succ prcDdicationis illustres de ejus ordinatione mise- 
 runt." The version of Bishop Hopkins is not accurate. The letters 
 were to certify his ordination, and they were full of his praise. Prcadi- 
 catio does not here mean 'preaching. 
 
ACKNOWI.KnCiMKNT OF HISHOP llOl'KlNH. 113 
 
 'I'his illustrious lesliinony lo the pre-eminence of liic Komau 
 Church, as tlie ciiair of I'etcr, forces from you the admission : 
 *' 'riial the Cluirch of Home was the seat of Peter, Cyprian 
 doubtless believed ; and, therefore, lie attaclies the same im- 
 portance to it that he atlaclies to Peter in relation to the other 
 Apostles." You add, " all this amounted to no more than 
 what belongs to the foreman of a jury, the senior judge upon 
 the bench, the precedency among peers, or any other case in 
 which a number being united in the same work with the same 
 powers, one for the sake of order goes before the rest." Pray, 
 sir, does not the illustrious martyr say, that to communicate 
 with the Roman Bishop is to communicate with the Catholic 
 Ciiurch ; that it is impossible for any altar to be erected, or 
 priesthood, or chair lo subsist, separated from that chair " found- 
 ed by the voice of tiie Lord upon Peter?" Was not the pre- 
 eminence and power of that Uishop so notorious, that a perse- 
 cuting emperor regretted more liis election than tiie rise of a 
 rival, and a foe ? 
 
 Anlonian had requested to be informed what heresy Nova- 
 lian had inlrotluccd. Cyprian replied, it was a mailer of no 
 consequence, as long as he was separated from tlie Church by 
 his opposition to its lawful Bishop: "As to what regards the 
 person of Novatian, concerning whom you have requested that 
 I should inform you what heresy he has introduced, know, in 
 the first place, that we should not be curious to know wliat he 
 teaclies, since he teaches without. Jflwcver he is, and whatever 
 qualifications he possesses, he is not a Christian who is not i)i 
 the Church of ChristJ*^ 1 believe, sir, you will find no advocate 
 of the l*apal authority insist on the necessity of communion with 
 the Apostolic See, in terms stronger than these. From this epis- 
 tle, nevertheless, you have brought forward an objection which 
 will be best refuted by preseniiiig it in connexion witii the con- 
 text of the place whence it is taken. Immediately after the 
 word.-* just quoted, Cyprian continues: "Though he boast of 
 his philosophy, or proclaim his eUxiucnce in haughty words, 
 he who has maintained neither fraternal charity nor ecclesia.^- 
 
114 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 tical unity, lias lost what he had been before. Unless he ap- 
 pears to you to be a bishop, who after a bishop had been made 
 in the Church by sixteen bishops, endeavours through ambition 
 to be made by deserters, an adulterer and a stranger, and whilst 
 there is one Church divided by Christ into many members 
 throughout the whole world, and one Episcopacy spread abroad 
 through the concordant multitude of bishops, he, contrary to 
 the tradition of God, contrary to the unity of the Catholic 
 Church, connected and joined together everywhere, endeavours 
 to make a human church, and sends his new apostles through 
 many cities, to lay some foundations of his new institution ; 
 and whilst long since, throughout all the provinces, and in every 
 city, bishops have been ordained, — advanced in age, sound 
 in faith, tried in times of oppression, proscribed in persecution,— 
 he dares create pseudo-bishops in their stead." You may not 
 have had the whole text under your eye when you argued that 
 there is no superior authority in the Bishop of Rome above his 
 colleagues, because the Episcopate is one : for surely whoever 
 reads the text must manifestly see that the saint is not labour- 
 ing to establish the equality of all bishops, but their union for 
 one great purpose — the government of the Church ; whence he 
 concludes that the refractory intruder, Novatian, by his oppo- 
 sition to Cornelius, was cut off from the communion of all 
 bishops, and of the Church. He does not, in this passage, un- 
 dertake to explain their relative powers, but he has already 
 stated the high authority of the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 There is one other passage in this letter which, though not 
 objected by you, I shall explain, as it may serve to illustrate 
 other places. "In the time of our predecessors," says he, 
 *< some of the bishops here, in our province, thought that peace 
 should not be given to adulterers, and totally shut the ave- 
 nue of penance against adultery ; but they did not, however, 
 withdraw from the college of their fellow-bishops, or break the 
 unity of the Catholic Church by obstinate severity or censure, 
 so as that because peace was given to adulterers by some, 
 whosoever did not give it should be separated from the Church. 
 
r.VlTY OF THE KriSCOTATE. 115 
 
 Wliilsl the bond of concord remains, and llie indivisible mystery* 
 of tlie Calliolic CImrch conlinues, eacli bishop disposes and 
 directs his conduct, being to render to the Lord an account of 
 his determination." The saint speaks of a mailer of discipline, 
 — on wliich no general law had been passed, and with regard to 
 which each bishop consequently had a discretionary power. 
 In matters that interfere not with tlie integrity of faith, and that 
 are not determined by any general law, — the bond of concord 
 being thus maintained, the mysterious unity of the Catholic 
 Church, which is in Ciirist, being inviolate — each bishop gov- 
 erns and legislates for the portion of tlie flock commiited to his 
 charge. This nowise excludes the vigilance and control of 
 the Ciiief Bishop, for subordination to him appertains to that 
 bond of concord which must remain firm and unbroken ; yet 
 his power is rarely interposed, except to maintain faith in its 
 integrity, or to urge the observance of the general laws of the 
 Church. 
 
 Further on you cite a very strong passage from the letter of 
 St Cyprian to Cornelius, regarding Fortunatus and Felicissi- 
 mus. At the risk of being tedious, 1 shall venture to give the 
 substance of the letter, with some further extracts from it. It 
 was written after the saint had received a letter from Cornelius, 
 full of brotherly love, zeal for ecclesiastical discipline, and sacer- 
 dotal judgment.! In it Cornelius had informed him that Feli- 
 cissimus, a schismatical priest, who had been degraded for mis- 
 conduct, by Cyprian and the African prelates, having come to 
 Rome, was driven from the Church by the orders of Cornelius. 
 In another letter, whicli accompanied the former, Cornelius 
 communicated to him the apprehensions he entertained in re- 
 gard to the probable violence of the schisnjatic and his abettors. 
 Cyprian remonstrates with him i»n these fears, as unworthy the 
 high ofTice which he held. '* If, beloved brother, the audacity 
 
 " I'crsovcranto Catholic® Ecclesia' individuoSacrnmonto." It iniffht 
 he rondorod with more proprirly, tlioufjli not so literally, ** the sacred 
 and indiviHibli- unity of tin- Catholic Church." P. IIG, Ep. ad Anton. 
 
 f " Sacerdotalis censurtc." St Cyprian ad Cornt-l. p. G. 
 
116 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 of the wicked must be feared, and if they accomplish by rash 
 and desperate means what they cannot do justly and righteous- 
 ly, the vigour of the Episcopacy is lost, and the sublime and 
 divine power of governing the Church is no more, nor can we 
 any longer continue, or be Christians, if we have come to such 
 a state as that we must fear the threats and snares of abandoned 
 
 men The immovable strength of faith ought to abide with 
 
 us, beloved brother, and permanent and unshaken virtue ought 
 to oppose all attacks, and break the violence of the roaring 
 surges, as with the strength and mass of a rock lying in their 
 way." He proceeds to observe, that we must not regard the 
 source of the danger; and he expatiates on the crime of calum- 
 niating the priests of God, adducing to this end the example 
 of the punishment awarded in the Mosaic law against whosoever 
 should contemn the sentence of the high priest. *' How can 
 they escape the judgment of an avenging Lord, who do such 
 things not only to their brethren, but to the priests, to whom 
 such great honour is granted through the divine condescension, 
 that whoever would not obey the priest of God, the judge for 
 the time being, should be immediately put to death. In Deu- 
 teronomy, the Lord God says : ' he that will be proud, and re- 
 fuse to obey the commandment of the priest, or judge, whoso- 
 ever shall be in those days, that man shall die ; and all the 
 people hearing it shall fear, and they shall not afterwards act 
 impiously.'" Having quoted some other passages of Scripture, 
 he draws this conclusion : " Since these weighty and numerous 
 examples, with many others, exist, whereby the priestly au- 
 thority and power, through divine concession, is established, 
 what think you of those, who, being the enemies of the priests, 
 and rebels against the Catholic Church, are not awed, either 
 by the threat of the Lord who forewarns, or by the aveng- 
 ing judgment that awaits them ? For from no other source 
 have heresies arisen, or schisms sprung up, than from not obey- 
 ing the priest of God, and not reflecting that there is one priest, 
 for the time, in the Church, and one judge, for the time in the 
 place of Clirist, to whom, if all the brotherhood yielded obe- 
 
OBEDIENCE TO THE FONTTFF. 117 
 
 dience according to the divine instructions, no one would at- 
 tempt any thing against the college of priests : no one, alter the 
 divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the con- 
 sent of his fellow bisliops, would make him!?elf judfire, not of the 
 bisho]), but of God ; no one would rend the Church of Christ 
 by the breach of unity ; no one, through vanity and pride, 
 would form a new heresy apart and without."* He proceeds 
 to show that the appointment of the Priest of God is made in 
 the Church, under the special direction of divine providence, 
 whilst out of the Church it is otherwise; and he applies this 
 observation specially and distinctly to the Bishop of Home, 
 Cornelius, whose virtues he sets forth, dwelling especially 
 on the rage of the persecutors against him : — " I speak un- 
 der provocation — I speak reluctantly — I am constrained to 
 say it; when a bishop is substituted in the place of the deceas- 
 ed ; when he is chosen in peace with the suffrage of the whole 
 people ; when he is protected in persecution by the aid of God ; 
 being united faithfully with all his colleagues; already, during 
 years of his Episcopacy, pleasing to his people ; promoting 
 discipline in time of tranquillity ; proscribed in stormy times ; 
 so often called for, the name of his Episcopacy being specified 
 and added, that he might be delivered over to the lion ; honour- 
 ed witli the testimony of divine condescension in the circus 
 and in the ampilheatre : — at the very time at which I wrote to 
 you, dcmaniled anew in the circus by tlie shouts of tlic multi- 
 tude : ' To the Lion,^ on account of the sacrifices which the 
 people were ordered by an edict to celebrate : — when such a 
 man, beloved brother, is assailed by some desperate and aban- 
 doned men, who are out of the Church, it is manifest by whom 
 he is attacked ; not truly by Christ, who either establishes or 
 protects the priests, but by liim who being the adversary of 
 
 • Ncqiic cnim aliunde hrrrosca ohortfP sunt, ant nata sunt Bcliismata 
 quam indc quod sacordoti Dei non obtrmjx'ratur : noc unus in Kcclrsia 
 ad tcinj)U.s Sacordos ct ad teinpus judex vice Christi cogitatur : rui pi 
 secundum magistcriadivina obtcmperarct fraternitas universa, nemo ad- 
 versum Sacrcdotum collegium quidquam moveret." P. 8. 
 
118 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 Christ, and enemy of his Church, persecutes with his malice 
 Him who is set over the Church ;* that the pilot being removed, 
 he may more fiercely and violently proceed to effect the ship- 
 wreck of the Church." If these last words do not convince an 
 impartial mind that Cyprian regarded the Bishop of Rome as 
 the ruler of the Universal Church, the one priest and judge who 
 for the time is in the place of Christ, and whom all the brethen 
 should obey, conformable to the divine mandate, I am wholly un- 
 acquainted with the power of words. Let us, however, proceed. 
 
 Cyprian remarks, that we should not be surprised at the de- 
 fection and revolt of some against the priests and Church of 
 God, since the Lord and his Apostles had foretold that such 
 things would come to pass ; and he himself, notwithstanding 
 the splendour of his miracles, had been forsaken by some weak 
 disciples. " And yet," says he, " he did not rebuke them as 
 they went away, or grievously threaten them ; but rather, turn- 
 ing towards his Apostles, he said : ' Will you also go away V 
 Peter, however, on whom the Church was built by the same 
 Lord, speaking, one for all, and answering in the name of the 
 Church, says : ' Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
 word of eternal life ; and we believe and have known that thou 
 art Christ, the Son of the living God ;' signifying thereby, and 
 showing, that those who depart from Christ, perish by their 
 own fault ; but that the Church which believes in Christ, and 
 retains what it has once known, never by any means departs 
 from Christ; and that they are the Church who continue in 
 the house of God." 
 
 Cornelius having complained of not having received imme- 
 diate and full information, in regard to the proceedings of the 
 schismatics, Cyprian answers : " I did not deem it necessary 
 to report to you speedily and pressingly the artifices of heretics; 
 for the contrivances of heretical and schismalical audacity 
 ought not to interest the majesty and dignity of the Church." 
 
 * " St Cyprian Ep. Corn. p. 9. Edit. Basil. " Ob hoc Ecclesiae praepo- 
 situm sua infestatione persequitur, ut gubernatore sublato, atrocius atque 
 violentius circa ecclesice naufragia grassetur." 
 
EFFORTS OF SCHISMATICS. 119 
 
 He adds, that he liad lately sent him a list of all llie orthodox 
 bishops of Africa, lie goes on lo relate the proceedings of the 
 schismatics in regard to the making of Fortunaliis bishop, and 
 then going to Home with a ♦ cargo' of falsehoods ; and dwells at 
 length on their facility in admitting to communion, without 
 penance, those who had fallen in i)ersecution.* — " In addition 
 to these things, liaving obtained for themselves a false bishop, 
 ordained by heretics, they venture lo set sail, and carry letters 
 from schismatical and profane men to the chair of Peter, and to 
 the principal! Church, whence sacerdotal unity has arisen : nor 
 do they reflect that they are Romans, whose faith is extolled 
 by the Apostle, lo whom perfidy can have no access." From 
 this it is manifest that the schismatics ihemselves looked up to 
 Kome as the great and ruling Church, and sought by every art 
 to enlist its authority in their favour: whilst Cyprian cherished 
 a well grounded confidence that all their efforts would prove 
 vain ; and regarded their insidious attempt on the faith of the 
 chair of Peter as the height of audacity, 'i'he words which 
 immediately follow, express the unwillingness of St Cyprian 
 and the African bishops, that priests condemned by their au- 
 thority, should have recourse to Rome, which could not be so 
 fully informed of their offences as those who were on the spot. 
 '• What cause had they to come (tc Borne) and announce the 
 false bishop who was created against the other bit^hops I For 
 they are either pleased with what they did, and persevere in 
 their wickedness; or, if they are sorry, and abandon it, they 
 know whither they can return. For since it was determined 
 by us all, and is equally just and proper, that the cause of every 
 one should be tried wher(; the crime was committed ; and since 
 to each of the pastors a portion of the Hock is given, which each 
 one may rule and govern, being to render an account of his 
 conduct to the Lord : it is certainly meet, that those over 
 
 " The translntion of Hishoj) Hopkins is soiiu'what iimccurate in tlu- 
 coinmencfiiu-nt. 
 
 t " Catlu'dra principalis ;" it prnprrly rinMns tlic princely or ruling 
 Church, and corrt-spunds admirably lolhe " potiorem principaiitatcui" of 
 IrcniLUs. 
 
120 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 whom we preside should not run about, and by their crafty and 
 fallacious temerity disturb the perfect concord of bishops ; but 
 that they should plead their cause, where they can have both the 
 accusers and witnesses of their crime, unless a few desperate 
 and abandoned men undervalue the authority of the bishops of 
 Africa, who have already passed judgment on them, and have 
 recently, by the weight of their sentence, condemned their con- 
 science, bound with many chains of sins. Already has their 
 cause been tried ; — already has the sentence been passed : nor 
 is it suitable for the judgment of priests to be reproved with the 
 levity of a fickle and inconstant mind."* 
 
 To one eager to find a pretext for calling in question the Pri- 
 macy, the foregoing passage may, perhaps, appear sufiicient ; 
 but to the lover of truth, to the man who considers it in con- 
 nexion with the whole letter, it does not offer any ground for 
 doubt. Felicissimus had gone to Rome with the letter of the 
 pseudo-bishop Fortunatus, and had attempted to intrude into the 
 Church, as if entitled to all the privileges of ecclesiastical commu- 
 nion. Foiled in this effort, he made such representations as might 
 induce Cornelius to doubt of the justice of the sentence pro- 
 nounced against him by the African bishops. Cornelius wrote 
 to Cyprian, primate of Carthage, to know the facts. Cyprian 
 states them at length, and does not question the right of Corne- 
 lius to inquire into the case, or even to revoke the sentence ; but 
 he strongly urges the inexpediency of receiving such appeals 
 from refractory priests, the cognizance of whose cause could 
 best take place where their delinquency had occurred. This 
 was also the view of his colleagues, and it continued to be re- 
 spectfully urged on the attention of the successors of Cornelius, 
 down to the days of Pope Zosimus. The abstract right of re- 
 ceiving such appeals was not called in question ; the right of 
 aggrieved bishops to appeal to the chief Bishop, was exercised 
 and admitted : but to extend this privilege to all priests seemed, 
 to the African prelates, likely to open a door to clerical im- 
 punity, and to lead to the contempt of the Episcopal authority. 
 
 * S. Cypr. ad Corn. 
 
POWER TO DEPOSE UISHOPS. 121 
 
 When ('yprian says, thai lo each Bishoj) is coinmiiied a por- 
 tion of ihe flock lo rule and govern, wilh responsibility lo God, 
 he does not assert the independence of each bishop from everv 
 other bishop in that government; otherwise there could not 
 exist the harmony and unity of the Episcopal College, on which 
 he loves to dwell : but he alleges the responsibility of each 
 bishop to God, to show that in the exercise of his authority 
 over his clergy and flock, he was not likely to act unjustly. 
 
 In reply lo a complaint of Cornelius, that some letters from 
 the province of Hadrumelum had been directed to the priests 
 and deacons of Home, rather than to the Ponlifl' himself, he 
 slates the prudential motives which had induced this temporary 
 measure, but assures him that ♦' he had exhorted all who sailed 
 from Africa to Rome, to acknowledge and hold fast the root 
 and parent of the Catholic Church." This surely 'looks very 
 like our doctrine.' 
 
 In a letter of St Cyprian to Stephen, the successor of Cor- 
 nelius, he informs him of intellifrence which had reached him 
 concerning Marcian, bishop of Aries, who, adopting ihe severity 
 of Novaiian, refused reconciliation and communion to those 
 who had fallen in persecution, however penitent they after- 
 wards appeared. Far from regarding this as a matter in which 
 each bishop might rest on his own authority, and decline all 
 responsibility, Cyjirian earnestly urges Stephen to cut ofl' Mar- 
 cian, without delay, from the communion of the Church. Tiie 
 bishop of Lyons, and other bishops of the province, had ad- 
 dressed Stephen, informing him of the facts of the case ; and 
 Cyprian writes to stimulate his zeal to adopt prompt and deci- 
 sive measures. " Let letters," he says, " be directed by you lo 
 the province and to the people of Aries ; in virtue of which, 
 Marcian being deposed, another may be substituted in his 
 place, and the flock of Christ, which is now despised, having 
 been scattered and wounded i)y i'.im, may be gathered toge- 
 
 • " Scinms noH horlatoH von cusc ut Kcclosia; Calliolictp rndicfin ci 
 matriccm agnosceront ac tencrent." E[)ist 44. Cornclio, p. 1U4 Edit. 
 Wirceburgi. Kdit. Uusil. ab Eroaino, p. 1G4. an. MDXXI. 
 
 L 
 
122 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 iher."* This exercise of authority, whicli the bishops of the 
 province did not attempt, was implored by Cyprian, who /cer- 
 tainly could not have solicited it, had he thought each bishop 
 to be irresponsible, or the Roman Bishop to be no more than 
 the ' foreman of a jury !' He concludes by asking the earliest 
 information of the action of Stephen, and its results. " Inti- 
 mate to us plainly, who shall have been substituted at Aries in 
 place of Marcian, that we may know to whom we should di- 
 rect our brethren, and to whom we should write." He men- 
 tions elsewhere the fact of Basilides, a deposed bishop, who 
 "going to Rome, deceived our colleague Stephen far distant 
 and ignorant of the fact and truth, ambitioning to be unjustly 
 replaced in the bishopric from which he had been justly de- 
 posed." Instead of reprobating this act as an usurpation of 
 authority on the part of Stephen, h.e only expresses his indig- 
 nation at the decej)lioii practised on him. " For he who was 
 inadvertently deceived, is not so much to be blamed, as he is 
 to be execrated, who fraudulently deceived him."t 
 
 As you quote from the admirable work on the unity of the 
 Church, in which Cyprian affirms the unity of the Episcopate, 
 and the distribution of its powers amongst many ; I shall cite 
 some passages from the same work, which will show that the 
 saint merely maintained tliereby the unity of Church govern- 
 ment, by the concurrence of all bishops, each in his place, to 
 the one great object, and the exercise of their powers in strict 
 and close communion with the Apostolic chair of Peter — " The 
 Lord says to Peter : ' I say to thee that thou art Peter, and on 
 this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it. To thee I will give the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall 
 be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon 
 earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' And after his resurrection he 
 says to him : ' Feed my sheep ;' and although after his resurrec- 
 tion he gives to all the Apostles equal power, and says : ' As 
 
 * S. Cyprian. Stephano, 1. 3, 13, Ep. p. 90. Edit. Basil, 
 t L. 1. Epist. 4. Edit. Basil, p. 10. Felici Presb. 
 
PETER THE Ol'ARDIAN OF I'NITY. 123 
 
 llie Father haili sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
 them : whose sins you shall retain, they are retained :' yet to 
 manifest unity, he ordained, hy his authority, the origin of the 
 same unity, beginning from one. Even the oilier Apostles 
 were certainly the same as Peter, admitted to the equal partici- 
 pation of honour and power; but tlie commencement arises 
 from unity, that the Church may be shown to be one."* It is 
 clear that the saint, in asserting the ecpialily of the Apostolic 
 mission and power, in regard to the forgiveness of sin, and 
 other acts of their ministry, always imderstands that Peter was 
 constituted the head of the rest, and vested witli a power by 
 which unity couM be maintained. 
 
 'J'he passage which you quote from the letter to " The Fall- 
 en," harmonizes perfectly with the others, in which the Pri- 
 macy of Peter is declared. Some of the unhappy persons who 
 in the persecution had sacrificed to idols, and thus fallen from 
 the faitli, addressed Cyprian a letter in the name of the Churcli, 
 as if they constituted the Church. The holy Bishop commen- 
 ces his reply by showing them, from the words of our Lord to 
 Peter, that the pastor, with his clergy and flock, are the 
 Church ; and that tliis name cannot be usurped by a band of 
 deserters from its faith. — ♦* Our Lord, whose precepts and ad- 
 monitions,! we ought to observe ; establisiiing the honour of 
 the bishop, and the system of his Cliurch, speaks in tiie (Jos- 
 pel, and says to l*eter : 'I say to thee, that thou art Peter; 
 and on this rock I will build my Church ; and the gales of iiell 
 shall not overcome it; and to thee I will give the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, 
 shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shall loose 
 upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' Thence by the 
 flux of limes and successions, tl»e ordination of bishops and 
 
 • Edit. Wircchur^i, p. !M'J. In thin last edition the text roads : *' l*r:- 
 matua I'elro datur ut una CliriHli cccleHia, ot cathedra una inonstrrtiir. 
 I have not followed this reading, as it is wanting in some nianuHcripta 
 
 t *' Pra'ccptactmonita;" Bishop Hopkins reads " projceptameluere. 
 
124 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 the system of the Church runs along ; so that the Church is 
 established upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is 
 governed by the same presidents. Since, therefore, this is es- 
 tablished by the divine law, I am surprised that some, with 
 audacious temerity, have ventured to write to me in the name 
 of the Church, while the Church consists of the bishop, clergy, 
 and all the hearers."* 
 
 When, then, he says that the Episcopate is one, far from de- 
 nying the superior pov^er of Peter and his successors, he ne 
 cessarily presupposes it ; for the multitude of bishops could 
 not be preserved in this essential unity, except by some con- 
 trolling power ; and he himself has taught us that it was lodg- 
 ed in Peter, since from him unity began. The harmony of 
 the Episcopal body, and not their equality in every respect, is 
 only asserted by him : '* Does he who opposes and resists the 
 Church, flatter himself that he is in the Church ?t whilst the 
 blessed Paul the Apostle teaches this, and shows the mystery 
 of unity, saying, one body and one spirit ; one hope of your 
 calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God. Which 
 unity ought to be firmly held and maintained, especially by us 
 bishops who preside in the Church, that we may prove that 
 the Episcopate itself is one and indivisible. Let no one 
 deceive the brotherhood by falsehood : let no one corrupt the 
 truth of faith by perfidious prevarication. The Episcopate is 
 one, of which a part is held by each one to the whole : the 
 Church is one, which is extended more widely by the increase 
 of its fecundity. "J Had he meant the perfect equality of all 
 bishops, and their absolute independence one of the other, 
 there could not be the one Episcopate — the one faith — the one 
 Church. Not only would the government of each church vary 
 
 * Epist. 27, lapsis, p. 66. Edit. Wirceburgi. 
 
 t I cite from the edition of Erasmus, published at Basle in 1521. A 
 later edition, which lies before me, presents a splendid testimony of the 
 Primacy : " Qui Ecclesise renititur et resistit, qui calhedram Petri super 
 quem fundata est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesia se esse confidit?" Wirce- 
 burgi, an. 1782. p. 349. As the true reading is contested, I have taken 
 the less favourable. 
 
 J S. Cyp. 1. de unit. t:cc1. 
 
WRITINGS ABOUT nAI»TlSM. 125 
 
 according to the caprice or jiulL^inont of its prolate, but the doc- 
 trine itself would be likewise subject to the same variety and 
 the same clianges. Instead of that unity wliicli Cyprian so 
 powerfully inculcates as tlie vital principle of relifrjoi), there 
 would be endless discord and contradiction. Evidently, then, 
 the saint does not athrm the equality of all bishops; but he 
 justly concludes, from the foundation of the Churcli on Peter, 
 and its continuance through the successions of bishops, that 
 bishops with their tlocks, and not some laymen of themselves, 
 arc the Church. He does not here treat of the relative powers 
 of bishops, the discussion of which was foreign to his imme- 
 diate object. 
 
 The letter to Quintus, directed to prove the invalidity of 
 baptism administered by heretics, with all the other writings 
 in defence of this error, might be justly passed over; for the 
 very reason, that they are directed to maintain what you, 
 as well as I, acknowledge to be erroneous ; and lalse princi- 
 ples, and incorrect expressions may be expected, when a fa- 
 vourite, though false, opinion is to be sustained. It might even 
 be remarked, that several learneil critics, in Germany and else- 
 where,* have called in question the autlienlicity of those writ- 
 ings, or at least have believed that they were adulterated by 
 the Donatists, inasmuch as they think them altogether unworthy 
 of his pen. They cannot find in them the dignity, the ma- 
 jesty, the eloquence, the humility, and the sweetness, which 
 mark his otlier works. I do not make this observation with a 
 view to deprive you of any benefit you may hope to derive 
 from them, but merely from a sense of justice to the illustrious 
 martyr, who, though he may have entertained an erroneous 
 sentiment, in regard to a usage on which the authority of the 
 Universal Church was not then fully ascertained, always cher- 
 ished the most abundant charity, and the most inviolable at- 
 tachment to the unity of the Church, as St Augustiiie repeat- 
 edly testifies. The passage in question, however, far from of- 
 
 * Sco Hiritrrim'fl work, " Dio vorziJglichntcn Dcnkwiirdigktilcii der 
 christkatliolischen Kirchc ;' article I'abHt 
 h* 
 
126 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 fering any difficulty, affirms the Primacy. Pope Stephen, 
 when the decree of the African council, requiring that all who 
 came from any heretical sect to the Catholic Church should be 
 baptized, was made known to him, rejected and condemned it, 
 and forbade any innovation on the ancient and general practice 
 of the Church: Nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est. 
 The author of this letter thus opposes this fundamental rea- 
 son : "Custom must not be allowed to prescribe, but reason 
 must prevail. For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose 
 to be tirst,^ and on whom he built his Church, when Paul after- 
 wards disputed with him in regard to circumcision, inso- 
 lently claim, nor arrogantly assume anything, saying that he 
 held the Primacy, and should be obeyed by those who were 
 new and posterior to him.t Nor did he despise Paul, be- 
 cause he had been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted 
 the counsel of truth, and readily agreed to the just reason which 
 Paul alleged, giving us an example of concord and patience, 
 that we should not obstinately cherish our own sentiments, but 
 rather adopt as our own those which are sometimes usefully 
 and wisely suggested by our brethren and colleagues. "J This 
 observation is evidently directed to show that Stephen should 
 not rest on his superior authority, but rather imitate the con- 
 descension of Peter, who, waiving the consideration of his own 
 
 * '' Quem primum Dominus elegit." Bishop H. translates it incorrect- 
 ly : " whom the Lord chose first." Peter was not the first called, since 
 Andrew, his brother, and another of the disciples of John, were previ- 
 ously invited, by the Saviour, to come and see, and Peter was invited by 
 Andrew. John ch. 1. 
 
 I " Obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere." The 
 translation which Bishop H. has followed in this place, is a literary curi- 
 osity : " obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere :" " that it 
 was fit that Paul should comply with him in his new and lately devised 
 ways !" 
 
 t Cypr. ad Quint. Ep. Ixxi. p. 227. Ed. Wirceb. Stephen op- 
 posed the ancient usage to the novelty : the writer replies that reason 
 should prevail over usage, and that Stephen should not rest on his supe- 
 rior authority. The letter to Pope Stephen, which contains a reference 
 to this letter, is suspected by Launojus (no friend to the Holy See) of 
 being supposititious, and both seem to have come from the same source. 
 
INCONSISTENCY OF BISHOP IJOPKINS. 127 
 
 Primacy, yielded to the prudent sutri;eslion of Paul. 'J'he au- 
 thority itself is not at all questioned, hut its mild and prudent 
 exercise is commended. A similar reflection often occurs in 
 the writings of those Fathers of the Churcli who have identi- 
 fied the prince of the Apostles with Cephas, reproved hy Paul. 
 **Lo!" cries St Gregory the Creat, " he is reproved hy an in- 
 ferior, and he vouchsafes to receive the reproof, nor cares to 
 remind liim that he has received the keys of tiie kingdom of 
 heaven."" 
 
 The appellations of '* colleague," " fellow bishop" and 
 "brother," which Cyprian and Cornelius mutually give each 
 other, are evidences of the charily which united them, and of 
 the Episcopal character common to botli : but the superiority of 
 the Hishop of Rome is manifested whilst it is acknowledged 
 that he is the successor of Peter, occupies the princely Chair, 
 and has power to depose delinquent bishops. " Venerable bre- 
 thren," is the title which to this day is used by the Pope when 
 addressing his fellow bishops ; yet no one thinks lliat he means 
 thereby to place liimself on perfect equality with them. 
 
 I am at a loss to conceive how you could have asserted, that 
 Cyprian *' assigninfr the reason why Rome takes precedence of 
 Carthage, makes not the slightest allusion to any difierence 
 among the Apostles, or amongst the bishops w ho succeeded 
 them ; but puts it on the ground of local advantage, accordiuL^ 
 to the principle mentioned before : ' Plainly, therefore, sailh he, 
 on account of its magnitude, Rome ought to precede Carthage.' " 
 Had you not already told us that " Cyprian doubtless believed 
 that the Church of Rome was the seat of Peter, and, therefore, 
 he attaches the same importance to it that he attaches to Peter 
 in relation to the other Apostles ?" As to the passage brought 
 forward by you, it regards Novatus, who having factiously and 
 ambitiously made a deacon in Africa, went to Rome, and there 
 attempted to intrude Novaiian into the cliairof Peter. *♦ Truly, 
 since Rome should surpass Carthage, in consequence of its 
 greatness, he committed greater and more heinous crimes there. 
 
 " St Grog., 1. 2. in Ezrrh. hnm. I-^. 
 
138 ST CYPRIAN. 
 
 He who here had made a deacon against the Church, there 
 made a bishop." The saint, in aUuding to the greatness* of 
 Rome, does not specify of what greatness he speaks, and as 
 throughout his works he so often makes reference to its spirit- 
 ual principality, — " Cathedram principalem," it is but just to 
 understand him as aUuding to it in tliis passage. Besides, he 
 is not, as you insinuate, explaining why Rome precedes Car- 
 thage in the affairs of the Church, but he merely takes occa- 
 sion from the greatness of the Roman Church to observe, that 
 it might be expected that the daring and desperate sectarist 
 would attempt there greater crimes. Is the cause of truth ad- 
 vanced by adducing such arguments as have no clear reference to 
 the point at issue ? 
 
 As you, after other writers, lay great stress on the con- 
 troversy regarding the validity of baptism administered by 
 heretics, I shall defer the full examination of it to my next let-, 
 ter, and conclude for the present with the beautiful remarks of 
 the saint, in his letter to Pope Cornelius, on the words of Peter 
 to Christ, related in the sixth chapter of St John : " Peter, on 
 whom the Church had been built by the same Lord, one speak- 
 ing for all, and answering with the voice of the Church says : 
 ' Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the word of eternal 
 life, and we believe and have known that thou art Christ, the 
 Son of the living God;' thereby signifying and showing that 
 those who depart from Christ, perish through their own fault, 
 but that the Church which believes in Christ, and holds what 
 she has once known, never by any means departs from him, 
 and that they are the Church who remain in the house of 
 God."t 
 
 * Pro " magnitudine sua." Cyp. Corn. xlix. p. 112. 
 t S. Cyp. ad Cornelium, Ep. Iv. p. 146. 
 
LETTER X. 
 
 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 In the statement of tlie controversy concerning the validity 
 of baptism administered by heretics, you allege *' that Stephen, 
 the Biahop of Rome, next but one after Cornelius, maintained the 
 validity of baptism when administered by heretics and schis- 
 matics, and was warmly opposed on this account by Cyprian 
 and the bishops of Africa, who held a provincial council on the 
 subject. 'I'his is reversing the order of facts, and giving the 
 reader to understand that the sentiment of Stephen was the 
 origin of the controversy, and became the subject of examina- 
 tion by an African council ; whereas the truth is, that the views 
 of Cyprian and his colleagues on this head becoming known 
 at Rome, by means of the acts of their council, Stephen, witli 
 the authority of his ofiice, forbade them to depart from the an- 
 cient usage of the Church. Allow me to state the case in the 
 words of an impartial writer, whose memory is iield in venera- 
 tion by you, no less than by the Catholic Church. St Vincent 
 of Lerins, in his Connnonitory^ shows the zeal with which 
 novelty is always opposed, especially by the Apostolic See, 
 and refers to this controversy for the proof. " Not to be tedious, 
 we shall select one instance, and this especially from the Apos- 
 tolic See, that all may see more clearly than in meridian light, 
 with what energy, with what zi;al, with what pcr^ieverance the 
 blessed successors* of the holy Apostles have always defended 
 the integrity of Religion as it was originally delivered. For- 
 
 • " Hcata succcssio." The srrios Ih put for those who form it. 
 
130 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM. 
 
 merly, then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, a man whose 
 memory is venerable, was the first to maintain that baptism 
 shoul(i be repeated, in opposition to the divine canon, to the 
 rule of the universal Church, to the judgment of all his fellow 
 priests, to the custom and decrees of his predecessors : which 
 presumption was the cause of so much evil, that it not only 
 gave all heretics a form of sacrilege, but even gave occasion of 
 error to some Catholics. When, therefore, all cried out from 
 all quarters against the novelty, and all priests, in every place, 
 struggled against it, each according to his zeal. Pope Stephen, 
 of blessed memory, who at that time was prelate of the Apos- 
 tolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues, but yet 
 more than his colleagues, resisted, thinking it Jit, as I suppose, 
 that he should surpass all others in the devotedness of his 
 faith, as much as he excelled them by the authority of his 
 station. Finally, in the epistle which was then sent to Africa, 
 he decreed in these words : that ' no innovation should be 
 
 ADMITTED, BUT WHAT WAS HANDED DOWN SHOULD BE RETAINED.' 
 
 What power had the African council or decree 1 None, 
 through the mercy of God."* How different was the light in 
 which this venerable author of the fifth century viewed the 
 part which Pope Stephen, in virtue of his eminent and Apos- 
 tolic dignity, acted in this controversy, from that in which you 
 have presented it to your readers. 
 
 The name of St Cyprian is not mentioned by Vincent, pro- 
 bably because he did not regard the fact of his being an abettor 
 of the erroneous practice as altogether unquestionable. St 
 Augustin assures us that there were several who maintained 
 that Cyprian had not at all entertained that opinion, but that 
 the letters and documents were composed by presumptuous and 
 deceitful men, with a view to give it the sanction of his illus- 
 trious name ;t and though he did not choose to rely upon this 
 
 * Commonit., c. viii. 
 
 \ " Quamquam non desint qui hoc Cyprianum prorsus non sensisse 
 contendant, sed sub ejus nomine a proesumptoribus atque mendacibus 
 fuisse confictum." Epist. xciii. ad Vincentium Rog. S. 38, p. 246. Tom. 
 II. Edit. Vcn. 
 
 '' Cum illud concilium, vel ilia scripta, si vere ipsius sunt, et non. 
 
ST AUGU8T1N 8 SOLUTION. 131 
 
 defenre, yet he ohserveil in reply to the Doiialists : •♦ ('yprian 
 either did not at all think, as you represent him to have thoufjht, 
 or lie aflerwards corrected this error i)y the rule of truth ; or lie 
 covered this blemish, as it were, of his fair breast, wiih the 
 abundance of his charity, whilst he defended most eloquently 
 the unity of the Church spread ihroughoul the whole world, 
 and held most steadfastly the bond of peace."* You have, now, 
 tVom the eloquent Augustin, the satisfactory solution of the 
 dirticulty which you press on our attention. '* If this glorious 
 branch [of the mystical viney — says he, elsewhere, " had in 
 this respect need of any purification, it was cleansed by the 
 glorious scythe of martyrdom, not because he was slain for the 
 name of Christ, but because he was slain in the bosom of unity 
 for the name of Christ : for he himself wrote, and most confi- 
 dently asserted, that they who are out of unity, though they 
 should die for that name, may be slain, but cannot be crowned."! 
 The proofs which you adduce, of the resistance of the 
 African bishops to Stephen, are not in my mind satisfactory, 
 though to avoid every unnecessary discussion, where vital 
 truth only should be sought, 1 am willing to let the fact of 
 their dissent be assumed as certain, and the documents by 
 which it is sustained pass as aiithentic. In the days of 
 Augustin, both were matters which to him, as well as to 
 others, appeared questionable. Eusebius, indeed, states that 
 Cyprian maintained llie necessity of rebaptizing those who 
 had been baptized by heretics, and that Stephen judged that no 
 change should be made in the ancient tradition ; but he has not 
 mentioned any act, on the part of the sainted bishop of Carthage, 
 subsequent to the prohibition of tlic PoniilT, in derogation to it.| 
 
 Bicut aliqui pulaiit, sub ejus nomine conscripta atquo conficta." Ep. 
 cviii. p. 3U1). 
 
 • " I'orro autemCyprianiis aut non sonsit omnino quod iniin scnsissc 
 recitatis ; aut hoc postea corri'xit in rcj^ula vcritatis, aut hunc quasi 
 najvuin Hui candidissimi pectoris cooperuit ubere caritatis duiii unitatern 
 Eccleaitt; lolo orbc cregcentiB, et copiohiHsiine defendit, et perst vtrantis- 
 simc tcnuit vinculum pacis." V. 2-17, ad Vincentium. 
 
 t Epist. cviii. ad iMacrohium, p. :W.». Edit. Ven. 
 
 t Euticb. 1. vii. c. 3. Hist. Eccl. 
 
132 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM. 
 
 St Jerom, on the contrary, informs us that the African bishops 
 reformed their decree in consequence of the judgment of 
 Stephen : " St Cyprian (lie says) endeavoured to shun pits 
 that were broken, and not to drink of the water of oihers, and 
 on that account reprobating the baptism of heretics, forwarded 
 the African synod, on this subject, to Stephen, then Bishop of 
 the Roman city, the twenty-sixth from blessed Peter : but his 
 effort proved fruitless. Finally, those very bishops, who with 
 him had determined that the heretics should be rebaptized, 
 turning back to the ancient custom, issued a new decree."* 
 
 Waiving, however, all these motives for doubting of the fact 
 which you allege, I proceed to your authorities, — the principal 
 one of which is a letter bearing the name of Firmilian, bishop of 
 Cesarea, in Cappadocia, whom, however, you repeatedly de- 
 signate one of the African bishops. This document bears 
 ample testimony to tlie authority claimed and exercised by 
 Stephen, whilst it severely censures its exercise. " I am," 
 says the writer, "justly indignant at this so open and manifest 
 folly of Stephen, who, whilst he so boasts of the place of his 
 bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, 
 upon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, never- 
 theless, brings in many other rocks, and builds the new edifices 
 of many churches, whilst he defends their baptism by his au- 
 thority."! 
 
 Was not this the occasion to deny, in express terms, the 
 truth of Stephen's claims, if they could at all be brought in 
 question? Your author, however, is content with imputing to 
 him folly, for an admission which appeared adverse to his own 
 claims, and subversive of the constitution of the Church ; but 
 he admits the fact of his succession to Peter, and that on Peter 
 the Church was founded. The next passage which you cite, 
 arraigns the Roman usages in the observance of Easter and 
 other disciplinary matters; but admits that these usages do not 
 militate against Catholic unity, and blames Stephen for ven- 
 turing to disturb this concord and union, and to reflect infamy 
 
 * S. Hier. dial, contra Luciferian. 
 
 t Ep. Firmiliani inter Cyprian, p. 2G5. Tom. III. Edit. Wirceburgi. 
 
sri'PosKD Aiu'si: of towkk. i;i3 
 
 on llie Apostles Peter :intl Paul, by tracing to them the practice 
 which he then ilefendetl, as if il had come down to him by the 
 tradition of Ins See." In the tliird passa<re, lie opposes to this 
 custom that truth which came down from Christ and the 
 Aposth's, and whicli he fancied to favour Iiis sentiment. All 
 this does not imply a denial of the Primary, hut supposes an 
 abuse of its powers, to sustain a local usage adverse to the 
 true principles of Christianity. In llie heat of disputation, this 
 and much more might be said, by one professing, most sin- 
 cerely, submis^sion to the legitimate exercise of the Pontifical 
 authority. In the defence of a false principle, a man, exas- 
 perated !)y the threat of an exercise of authority which he re- 
 gards as wanton and unjust, will say much that is inconsistent 
 with the reverence which he owes it and habitually cherishes : 
 and the cause of the unbecoming langmge of Firmilian — if the 
 letter be really his — is thus mentioned by Eusebius : " Stephen 
 had written concerning Helenus, and Firmilian, and all the 
 priests through Cilicia, Cappadocia, and all the neighbouring 
 provinces, that he would not communicate with them for this 
 very reason, that they rebaptizcd heretics."! 
 
 The passages of the letter to Pompey, attributed to Cyprian, 
 contain bitter complaints of the sanction apparently given to 
 heresy by the decree of Stephen. The tradition which was 
 alleged by him is impugned, and he is accused of placing a hu- 
 man tradition above the truth of God. His Primacy, however, 
 is not assailed, though he is censured as abusing the authority 
 with which he is invested. You know too well the human 
 heart, and the blind attachment of man to the error By which he 
 is seduced, not to find il easy to reconcile these murmurs and 
 strictures with the abstract admission of a superior authority. 
 
 In the political occurrences of the day, we have a strikingevi- 
 dencc of the admission of superior power, accompanied by cen- 
 sures on its exercise, and in some cases by open resistance to 
 
 • " Adhuc ctinm innimauM I'rtrtitn ct rauliim bcatns aposiolos, quasi 
 hoc ipsi trndiflcrint " Kiriiiilian, E|». T.'i, int«'r «HM'ra Cypriani, p. 25H. 
 t Dionys Alrx. ad XyHluin V. ri'lat. nb Kusebio Iliul. Eccl 1. vii. 5. 
 M 
 
134 CONTROVERSY COXCERNING BAPTISM. 
 
 it, as an abuse of official prerogative. Those who were most 
 vehement in denouncing the exercise of the veto by our late 
 president, admitted the authority of his office, and even the 
 constitutional right with which he was invested: and when a 
 southern state placed herself in an attitude of resistance to the 
 execution of some measures of the general government, she did 
 not, in the assertion of her own sovereignty, deny that certain 
 powers were lodged in the general government; but, on the con- 
 trary, she professed a willingness to respect their constitutional 
 exercise. If the fact of resistance to authority imj)lied its de- 
 nial, or non-existence, I know not what power, civil or Eccle- 
 siastical, could be maintained. 
 
 To the list of interrogatories which follow your proofs, I 
 have only to reply, that you will find them abundantly answer- 
 ed in this and the preceding letter, in which numerous and 
 strong passages of the saint have been cited, testifying the Pri- 
 macy of Peter, and of the princely Chair which he founded, and 
 recognising the right of the Roman Bishop to depose bishops 
 unworthy of their office. Cyprian is on the calendar of saints, 
 because, from the time of his conversion to Christianity he ex- 
 ercised the sublime virtues, and in death he proved the ardour 
 and constancy of his faith and love by a glorious martyrdom. 
 If, at a time when the general practice of the Church was not 
 fully ascertained by him, he favoured an erroneous sentiment ; — 
 if in its defence, through zeal for the exclusive privileges of the 
 Church, the spouse of Christ, he was wanting in deference to 
 the Chief Bishop — which I am unwilling to believe, — there was 
 in him no obstinate attachment to any heresy formally and 
 solemnly proscribed in his day ; there was no rejection of the 
 principle of authority, no proud revolt against his superior ; 
 and the imperfections to which this controversy may have given 
 occasion, were covered by the abundance of his charity, and 
 expiated by his death for the faith of Jesus Christ. Stephen, 
 as became his office, justly resisted the dangerous novelty, 
 though sustained by a prelate so illustrious in the Church, and 
 menaced to exercise those powers which God had given him, 
 not against the truth, but for the truth. Flis decree was ground- 
 
CONSEQl'FNCKS OF STPrHIIN's DKCREK. 1M5 
 
 ed on the practice of llie Cliurcli, atitl received subsequently 
 ilie assent of the most venerable assemblies of its pastors; and 
 liis memory is likewise in benediction, for he is honoured as a 
 saint and martyr of Christ, lliough you assert that he " at- 
 tained no such distinction." You tliink, that had our system 
 then prevailed, "the act of Stephen would have produced one 
 of those two results: either Cyprian and his African colleagues 
 must have submitted immediately, or they must have been cut 
 off as obstinate schismatics." The submission of Cyprian is 
 supposed by St Augustin," and maintained by ISt Jerome ;t but 
 granting that he did not submit, Stephen not having actually 
 executed his threat of excommunication, the rebapiizing bish- 
 ops were not obstinate schismatics. 'I'liey were men whose 
 attachment to a novel practice placed them in opposition with 
 the governing authority of the Church, and their disobedience 
 could only be extenuated by the error of judgment, which im- 
 plied no heresy as long as a formal delinition was wanting on 
 the subject. 
 
 You admit that Stephen acted towards the Africans in a man- 
 ner similar to that in which Victor had acted towards the Asi- 
 atics. In both instances the Pontiffs were correct, and their 
 judgment was sustained by plenary or general councils. Willi 
 regard to your assertion, that the Council of Aries confirmed 
 the indt'j)endence of the African church, I cannot but express 
 my regret that you have allowed yourself to hazard a position 
 which cannot be sustained by proof. 
 
 The very abettors of the practice of rebaptizing derived 
 their strongest argument from the promises made by Christ to 
 Peter, which, according to them, regarded liim only, and the 
 Church connected with him, and could not at all be extended 
 to heretical conventicles. " The greatness of the error," writes 
 Firmilian, in the passage quoted by you, ♦* and the strange 
 blindness of him who says that the remission of sins can be 
 given in the synagf)gues of horctirs, and does not abide on the 
 foundation of the one Church, which was once built by Christ 
 
 • S. Au£r. sup.cil . p \'M. f S. Jerome, 8up, p i:W 
 
136 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM. 
 
 on the rock, may be understood from this, •■ that to Peter alone 
 Christ said : ' Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall be 
 bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shall louse on earth, 
 shall be loosed also in heaven.' "t 
 
 You assert that Cyprian was not blamed for his independ- 
 ence ; but you have heard his great admirer, St Augustin, 
 speak of his conduct in this respect, as the blemish of a most 
 pure soul, covered with the breast of charity, and cleansed with 
 the scythe of martyrdom. This saint refuses to review or to 
 vindicate what, under excited feeling, Cyprian may have writ- 
 ten against Stephen. J Your inconsistency in censuring Victor 
 and Stephen for " tyrannical assumption of power," whilst you 
 admit that they sustained the correct principle and practice, 
 must be apparent to every reflecting mind : still more manifest 
 is the inconsistency of your attempting to prove a contrast be- 
 tween the primitive Church of Rome and the Church of Rome 
 at this day, whilst you state that these two PonlifTs, — the one 
 living in the middle of the third century, the other towards the 
 close of the second, — assumed those very powers which are now 
 claimed, and exercised the highest acts of Church authority. It 
 is easy to imagine a contrast, and to cast censure on the dead, 
 whilst history, holding up facts to view, dissipates light theo- 
 ries and assertions, and vindicates these illustrious men. Victor 
 and Stephen, martyrs of Christ, are above the reach of censure. 
 Cyprian, likewise a saint and martyr, needs no apology but that 
 ofiered by the great Augustin, whose words, addressed to the 
 Donatists, shall close tliis letter: " You are, indeed, accustom- 
 ed to object to us the letters of Cyprian, the opinion of Cyprian, 
 the Council of Cyprian : why do you take the authority of Cy- 
 prian for your schism, and reject his example for the peace of 
 the Church ?"§ 
 
 * " Hinc intelligi potest — qualis error sit." Bishop Hopkins trans- 
 lates it: "He should understand," referring it to Stephen. This violates 
 grammar and sense. 
 
 t Firmilian, ad Cypr. inter opera Cyp. p. 157. Ed. H. 
 
 t S. Aug. 1. V. contra Donatistas, c. 25, p. 158. Ed. Ven. Tom. IX. 
 '' Jam ilia qua) in Stephanuin irritatus effudit retraetare nolo." 
 
 § S. Aug. 1. ii, de bapt. contra Donat. c. iii. p. 98. 
 
LETTER XL 
 
 LACTANTIUS AND EUSEBIUS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 Yor introduce us to the fourth century by referring to L.ic- 
 tantius, whose testimony, however, you declare to be merely 
 " negative." I should hope to be dispensed from hearing such 
 a witness ! Though negative for you, he clearly stales that 
 Peter and Paul preached at Rome all that Christ had revealed," 
 as appears from the passage which you quote ; and towards the 
 close of the same cliapler, he mentions their martyrdom in that 
 city under Nero. The plan of his work did not require him to 
 enter into ar. exposition of the organization of the Christian 
 Ciiurch, since he wrote to show, that in Christianity was to 
 be found that true wisdom, which was sought for in vain in the 
 schools of pagan philosophy, in the last chapter only he ad- 
 verts to the heresies introduced among the professors of the 
 religion of Christ; and he is content with pointing out some 
 obvious marks whereby all sects may be avoided, and the true 
 religion ascertained, which you would do well seriously to con- 
 sider. " For when," says he, *' they are styled Phrygians, or 
 Novalians, or Valenlinians, or Marcionitcs, or Anihropians, or 
 Arians, or by any other name, they have ceased to be Chris- 
 tians, since, having lost the name of Christ, they have adopted 
 human and strange appellaiions. 'I'hcrefore the Catholic 
 Church is the only one which retains the true worship. This 
 is the fountain of truth, this is the dwelling of faith, this is the 
 temple of God, into which whoever does not enter, or from 
 
 • Lactantius de vera Hap. 1. iv. § 2*21, pp. 2*,*7. 'i'J-'. 
 
 M* 
 
138 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 which whoever departs, forfeits the hope of life and eternal 
 salvation. It behoves no one to flatter himself by obstinate con- 
 tention, for life and salvation are at stake, which will be lost 
 and forfeited, unless cautiously and diligently provided for. 
 But, however, as all the assemblies of heretics think that they 
 especially are Christians, and that theirs is the Catholic Church, 
 it should be known that the true Church is that in which con- 
 fession and penance exist, which happily cures the sins and 
 wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject."* With 
 this testimony, we have every reason to be satisfied. 
 
 We shall now pass with you to Eusebius, the Church histo- 
 rian, who, you say, " furnishes the strongest circumstantial 
 evidence against our doctrine of supremacy." I thank you 
 for the avowal, and might at once dispense myself from exam- 
 ining his testimony. He furnishes, confessedly, no positive 
 evidence against it, and as circumstantial proof, like negative 
 argumentation, is only admissible where positive evidence is 
 wanting, we might spare ourselves, and our readers, the labour 
 of an investigation which is necessarily inconclusive. The 
 authority of Eusebius, as a commentator of Scripture, is first 
 put forward. On the twenty-eighth verse of the sixty-seventh 
 Psalm, which you call the sixty-eighth, after the Hebrew divi- 
 sion, where it is said : " there is Benjamin, a youth in ecstacy 
 of mind,"t or as some render it, " their instructor," " their 
 ruler," Eusebius remarks that Paul, of that tribe, seems to be 
 pointed out by the Psalmist; whence you infer that Paul being 
 the subject of special prophecy, and being said to rule over the 
 churches first, and after Paul the other Apostles, the Primacy 
 of Peter must have been unknown to Eusebius. You must, 
 however, know, that no argument can be adduced from so un- 
 certain an interpretation, and that as it does not prove a ruling 
 
 * Lactantius de vera sap., 1. iv. c. xxx. 
 
 t Bishop H. states for our satisfaction and information, that Jerome, 
 and after him Montanus, give the passage according to the Hebrew DTI. 
 The Vulgate follows the Septuagint interpreters, who certainly knew 
 Hebrew, but the sense of the passage is obscure. 
 
FIRST APOSTLK. 1 3*J 
 
 power ill Paul above the other Aj)osiles, so it ilocs not disprove 
 a superior authority in one ol them above liiin. lie niiglit have 
 been pre;:cnl to the proplietie vision as the most conspicuous 
 in the Apostolic choir, for tlie greatness of his labours, the 
 number of his writings, anil the ardour of liis solicitude for all 
 the churches. His miraculous conversion, whereby a perse- 
 cutor became an Apostle of Jesus ('Ijrist, was a suflicient reason 
 why he should be made the dislinci subject of prophecy: but 
 the order established among the Apostles must be determined, 
 not by any obscure or mystical allusion, but by the express 
 words of their Divine Master. 
 
 The casual expression of Eusebius, who calls I*aul " the lioly 
 Apostle, and truly the first of all," is entirely misunderstood by 
 you, as you yourself will allow when I give you the whole 
 sentence. In this work the author purposes to overthrow a 
 prevailing prejudice, that Christian faith was a rash assent sus- 
 tained by no proof. He declares that he will adduce many and 
 manifest arguments to the contrary, and adds : '* for since with- 
 in the recollection of our Fathers, some writing against the 
 (ienliles and answering them, others expounding the divine 
 Scriptures, others more accurately proving the dogmas of truth, 
 have left many works to us, this method which we now adopt 
 has been discovered, althougli first of all that holy Apostle 
 Paul, casting far away all probable cavilling, and bringing 
 certain proofs, said: 'Our discourse and preaching are not 
 in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the mani- 
 festation of the spirit and of power.' "• I leave it to your 
 candour to say, whether Paul is liere called ' first of all the 
 Apostles,' and not rathcry?r.?/, as having long before all apolo- 
 gists of Christianity proved it by unquestionable evidences of 
 its divine origin. 1 cannot suppose that with a knowledge of 
 the context, you ventured to lay stress upon this expression. 
 It would be much more conducive to the cause of truth to ad- 
 
 • Eu»<'b. <J(? I'rirp. Evang. I. I.e.;}. '' rriimiH omtiimn sneer ille 
 ApoHtoIu.M I'aiilun, probahiliUtiMii omnnn cnvillntoriani longe abjiciens, 
 ac certas atrcrens probationcs ait." 
 
140 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 vert to the passages of this same chapter in which the privileges 
 of the Church, founded on the rock, are strongly insisted on. 
 "It is certain, then," says Eusebius, " that our Saviour fore- 
 told that his doctrine would be preached throughout the world 
 in testimony to all nations, and that the Church which was 
 afterwards to be established by his power, would be invincible 
 and impregnable, nor ever overcome by death, but would be 
 firm and immovable as established and founded on a rock: 
 and he has in fact done what he foretold. For already the 
 fame of his Gospel has filled the world from east to west, and 
 has reached all nations, and its preaching spreads daily. The 
 Church, also, receiving its appellation from him has taken root, 
 and being celebrated to the skies by the discourses of holy 
 men, shines with the light and splendour of orthodox faith ; 
 nor does it flee before its enemies, nor yield to the very gates of 
 death, in consequence of the few words which he uttered : ' On 
 the rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it.' '** 
 
 After this I shall leave you to enjoy the benefit of your 
 argument, from the praises bestowed by Eusebius on St Peter, 
 for not causing to be recorded by Mark the glorious promise 
 made him by the Saviour. It was enough that he established 
 the Church at Rome, and left there the chair of authority ; and 
 that in the distant churches of Asia, where the pre-eminence 
 of the Roman See was most likely to be called in question, the 
 Gospels of Matthew and of John attested the privileges be- 
 stowed on him who was its founder. The modesty which 
 does not make an ostentatious display of power is no argument 
 against its existence. 
 
 That the authority conferred on Peter was not merely 
 personal is evident from its nature, from its exercise and 
 recognition in all succeeding ages. It was the authority of a 
 pastor over the entire flock of Christ, which always needs the 
 same care and government; it was that of the ruler of a 
 spiritual kingdom, which must always continue, lest by divi- 
 
 * Euseb. de Praep. Evang. 1. 1, c. 3. 
 
MODESTY OF PKTKK. Ill 
 
 sions il slioulil be broiiglil lo tlesolalion ; il was as a fouiulalion, 
 the taking away whereof would necessarily be the overthrow 
 of the entire edifice. You assun\e, as undoubted, ih:il l*eter 
 suppressed all mention of it in his communications to Mark, 
 and omitted it in his preaching ! because Eusebius admires his 
 modesty in not causing it to be recorded by his disciple.* 
 
 There is a diirerence, which docs not seem to have occurred 
 to you, between St Peter and St Paul, in regard to the magni- 
 fying of their office, which you think Peter should have done 
 were he really Primate. Doubtless, both Apostles might have 
 done it lawfully and usefully, whenever it was necessary to 
 vindicate it against the censorious and malignant, as it was in 
 the case of St ]*aul when certain teachers at Corinth decried 
 his authority ; but, in stating the divine origin of his apostle- 
 ship, this Apostle took care lo observe, that he had been a per- 
 secutor, ;uul that he was not worthy of the name of an Apostle. 
 Had l*eter referred to the occasion in which the extraordinary 
 promises had been made him, he would have appeared in some 
 measure to proclaim his own praise, since his glorious con- 
 fession of the Messiah had given occasion to the eulogies and 
 favours which our Saviour bestowed on him. His successors 
 in the See of Rome can, without any appearance or danger of 
 vanity, dwell on the privileges of their ollice, because they 
 are not conferred on them as a personal reward, but are an 
 inheritance derived from the prince of the Apostles, whose 
 merit, as St Leo so beautifully remarks, does not fail even in 
 the unworthy heir of his authority.! 
 
 Arguments, such as those just refuted, couhl only have been 
 brought forward in the entire absence of all real evidence 
 against the Primacy. You invite us, now, to open the history 
 of this ancient writer, and you as.sure us, that his testimony 
 
 • Ji '.mti*( irfi<9ifUf /usfTUfinc Bishop Hopkins trnnnlatCB it: 
 " by hi«f own toMlimony." It HJiouhl be " a domestic tesliinony" 
 
 t Cujiis etiain dignitos in indigno haercdc non deficit, tf. Leo de 
 annivcrsar. assumpt. suic. 
 
142 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 tlierein, " both negatively and circumstantially is absolutely 
 fatal to our claim." 
 
 " The names of our Saviour's Apostles," says Eusebius, 
 " are sufficiently obvious to every one, from the Gospels, but 
 of the seventy disciples, there is no catalogue any where. Cle- 
 ment, in the fifth book of the ' Hypotyposes,' says, that the 
 Cephas, of whom Paul says that he came to Antioch, and that 
 he withstood him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples 
 who had the same name with Peter the Apostle."* So far, at 
 least, Eusebius has done no injury to the Primacy by preserv- 
 ing the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, on a point of some 
 critical interest. Another passage in this chapter escaped your 
 notice, in which it is stated, on the authority of St Paul, that 
 Christ, after his resurrection, appeared " first of all to Cephas, 
 and afterwards to the twelve ;" a circumstance not unworthy of 
 attention. t 
 
 You next give us an extract from the first chapter of the se- 
 cond book, in which Eusebius thus uses the testimony of Cle- 
 ment. " He (Clement) says, that after the ascension of our 
 Saviour, Peter, James and John, though they had been prefer- 
 red by the Lord, did not contend for the honour, but chose 
 James the Just for bishop of Jerusalem." And again: "The 
 Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, and to 
 John, and Peter, after his resurrection." The passage relating 
 to the miraculous call of Paul to the Apostleship, does not con- 
 
 * Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 12. 
 
 1 Potter, archbishop of Canterbury, has not thought this circum- 
 stance unworthy of remark. " Our Lord appeared to Peter after his re- 
 surrection, before the rest of the Apostles; and, before this, he sent the 
 message of his resurrection to him in particular." He relates the various 
 acts of Peter after the ascension of our Lord, and concludes thus : '* From 
 these and other examples which occur in the Scriptures, it is evident 
 that St Peter acted as Chief of the College of Apostles, and so he is con- 
 stantly 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." — On Church Govern- 
 ment, pp. 72,74. 
 
ACTS OF PETl.K. 143 
 
 tain a word lo warrant llie idea llial he was t!ie chief of ihe 
 Apostles, nor is tliere any semblance of proof that sucli was the 
 opinion of Eiisel)iiis. 'J'he admiration expressed by Clement, 
 that there was no contention among the lliree most favoured 
 Apostles of Christ about the iioiiour of being bisliop of Jerusa- 
 lem, does not surely suppose that bishopric lo be something 
 greater than their actual dignity as Apostles; but shows that 
 they were disinterested, and that they cared not to secure to 
 themselves a place which, at that early period of the Church, 
 had more attractions than any other. Peter might have assumed 
 that special bishopric, and made Jerusalem, what Rome after- 
 wards became, the seat of his authority : but he regarded not 
 his own convenience, but the will and glory of the Almighty. 
 In this chapter Eusebius mentions that Simon Magus was finally 
 detected by Peter, and sullered the just punishment of his per- 
 fidy. In the fourteenth chapter this is stated more at large, 
 and the Primary of Peter is plainly and broadly asserted. 
 
 Eusebius first slates that Simon Magus was confounded and 
 exposed in Judea by Peter the Apostle, and that having ihence 
 proceeded to Rome, " the all-bountiful and kind providence that 
 watches over all things, led to Rome, as against such a pest of 
 life, the strongest and greatest of the Apostles, Peter, who, by 
 reason of his virtue was the leader of all the rest."* You 
 find fault with the version of this passage given by Valesius, 
 and you trarislate it : *' Peter, the powerful and great Apostle, 
 who, on account of his ability, was the advocate of all the rest." 
 Not to embarrass the general reader with a critical disquisition, 
 I refer lo the nolet for the justification of ihe received version, 
 
 » ^uttiyA^'ot ftoti <;>iXAi^^afr6TxTH tu* oXflr» TrfnnoL rir xct^ritir 
 ««l f*iy*r rmf «Tos-ixa»r, rsr s'^itnc <ri«a Ta»r xeiTor» i,rcirrttf frjeii. 
 yo^it H«T{e», •▼/ rtif pm/u»it m: tri t*>./ji«tc» yu/utanot 0i)i ^ti^otyoLy^i- 
 Euscb. Hint. Keel. 1. ii. 11. 
 
 t I am sorry to find that lJisln>|) lIopkiiiH clmrgfs Valesius with un- 
 faithfulness in his translation, U'causf he liaii given the 8UiK»rlalive most 
 poicerful and greatest, and called IVter Prince and Patron of the Apo«- 
 lies, rather tlian their advocate. Every Greek scholar will perceive that 
 the bishoj), and not Vnleitius, is mistaken. Adjectives in tlie positive 
 form, followed by a genitive plural, sometimes convey a sujierlatire 
 
144 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 and merely observe, tliat the text contains a comparison which 
 your translation conceals, — ascribes to the virtue of Peter what 
 you attribute to his ability, and represents him as a leader. 
 You gather from it only *' the primacy which an advocate 
 possesses by his skill in pleading a cause for his clients," as if 
 fluency of speech, tact, and other natural qualifications, gained 
 for him a certain precedency of place, whilst the Scripture 
 ascribes an authoritative Primacy to his faith and love. 
 
 It is needless to copy out the passage which you have quoted 
 from the next chapter of Eusebius, in which he relates the great 
 success of the preaching of Peter at Rome, and the occasion 
 which was thereby presented to Mark to write his Gospel, in 
 order to satisfy the ardent wishes of the faithful : or the twenty- 
 fifth chapter, in which the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is 
 narrated, reference being also made to it in the first chapter of 
 the third book. As we are agreed on these facts, the reader 
 maybe spared their repetition. You observe that the authority 
 of Peter over the other Apostles is not stated ; but it was already 
 mentioned in the passage which we have examined, of the four- 
 teenth chapter of the preceding book, and no occasion was fur- 
 ther offered to the historian to make mention of it. History is 
 written to record facts, rather than to set forth or define the spe- 
 cial powers of the various prelates of the Church. 
 
 From the narrative of Eusebius, that " after the martyrdom of 
 Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who received the Episco- 
 pate of the Church of the Romans," as is stated in the second 
 and fourth chapters, you conclude that Peter was not himself 
 Bishop of Rome. We must then say that it had no Bishop 
 in the lifetime of the Apostles, and that Peter governed it with 
 the plenitude of Apostolic authority. But the object of the 
 historian is to show the succession of those who followed Peter, 
 
 sense. cT/i Qiuav means 'svpremc goddess .' Slot. yuvAix.o'v, Hhe most excel- 
 lent of women.' Iliad, pa.ss\m. ^cttfxovu ^uvm. 0! most excellent guest, 
 Odyss. xiv. 448. Patronus corresponds to tt^ck^-c^oc. It means some- 
 times * one who pleads a cause,' but in this sense it could scarcely be ap- 
 plied to Peter, as the Apostles needed no defender. In adding " Prin- 
 ceps," Valesius only meant to develope the meaning more accuratelj'^, 
 and used a word applied by all the Fathers to Peter. 
 
ROMAN IllSllOP SUCCESSOR OF PETIiR. 145 
 
 whicli presupposes the exercise of Episcopal aulliorily bv Inin 
 to whom all olliers succeed. He does not, ihereforc, poinl oul 
 Linus as the first who governed the Homan Church, but •' as 
 the first after Peter," as he expressly says,* and all anli(iuiiv 
 designates that See " the Chair of Peter." 
 
 In recording the names of the bishops who occupied tlie 
 various Sees, Eusebius does not appear to you to make any 
 distinction between the bishops wliose succession he records. 
 Thus you say •'in Book iv., ch. 4, he gives us an account of 
 what the title to the chapter calls the bishops of Alexandria 
 and Rome under the same emperor." 'J'he inversion of order 
 in your version is here somew hat singular, since the title speaks 
 of Home and Alexandria: nor is this ijie only instance of this 
 character. Eusebius generally observes this precedency, as in 
 the passage which you have partly quoted : ** In the third year 
 of the reign of Hadrian, Alexander, Bishop of the Romans, 
 dies, having terminated llie tenth year of his administration, 
 and was succeeded by Xystus. About the same time Justus 
 succeeds Primus, who was in the twelfth year of his presidency 
 over the parish of the Alexandrines."! There is, surely, some 
 distinction in ilie order and in tlie expressions, and though I 
 am not anxious to give importance to either, whilst more conclu- 
 sive evidences abound, I cannot but remind you of them, when 
 you assert so confidently the total absence of all distinction. 
 You censure Valesius for rendering in some places the "Epis- 
 copate" by tlie classical term of Pontificate, though long before 
 the days of Eusebius, the Bishop of Rome was styled by Ter- 
 tuUian, — sarcastically indeed, but yet with reference to his ac- 
 knowledged power, — tlie Sovereign Pontifi'. 
 
 If nothing, then, be said, as you observe, of the Apostolic See, 
 it is nevertheless distinctly stated that Elcutherus, the twelfth 
 in succession from the Apostles, received the Episcopate. | If 
 
 fl-piTi^sr KKP^ei^'tK /i/jiAfcTc/i. Kiis«-l). 1. iii. c. 4. 
 t KuHcb. Hist , 1. iv. c. 1 
 t Eus. 1. iv. c. 1. Hi«t. Ecc. 
 
146 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 ' the chair of Peter,' ' the Chief See,' ' the mother and root of all 
 churches,' be not mentioned by the historian, it is sufficient for 
 us to know that all these terms were applied to the Roman Church 
 by St Cyprian, nearly eighty years before Eusebius wrote his 
 history. What you allege on his authority, that the very chair 
 on which James the bishop of Jerusalem sat, was preserved 
 with reverence down to his time,* proves how natural and how 
 ancient is the veneration of relics, or memorials of the departed 
 just: but it proves nothing against the Apostolic authority of 
 Peter and his successors, and I know not how its introduction 
 here can illustrate the point in dispute. 
 
 In regard to the controversy concerning the paschal observ- 
 ance, as I have already treated of it elsewhere, I feel that it 
 would be abusing the reader's patience to re-open its examina- 
 tion. The facts related by Eusebius fully harmonize with our 
 principles. Local synods were convoked, but that of Rome 
 carried with it greater weight than all others. Victor directs 
 Polycrates to assemble his fellow bishops, and endeavour to 
 induce them to conform to the general usage of the Church. 
 Polycrates obeys: but all remonstrate. Victor, finding that 
 persuasion and all conciliatory measures fail, resolves on the 
 severest exercise of his authority. Some deem this harshness, 
 and write with bitterness against it, whilst Irenseus respect- 
 fuUyt remonstrates ; and the Pontiff relents, and tolerates what 
 he cannot now remedy, without severing from the Church many 
 of its valuable members. 
 
 Of the points you have marked as hostile to our claims, the 
 first is the convocation of these local councils without any direc- 
 tion from the Bishop of Rome : yet you tell us immediately 
 after, that "Victor, the Bishop of Rome, takes upon him to 
 request Polycrates, bishop of Samos, to summon a council and 
 concur with the decision of the Western churches ; threatening 
 him, too, as it seems by Polycrates's answer, with the conse- 
 quences of refusal." A request, accompanied by a threat, you 
 
 * Eus. 1. vii. c. 19. 
 
 t ngoo-«x6vT»f. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 1. 5. c. 24. 
 
VICTOR s i»u\vi:k admit ikd. 147 
 
 will allow, very mucli resembles a commaiul, and ii stems iliat 
 Polycraies, far from disregardincr ihe threat, summoned the 
 rouncil, althouf^h he sent a slron^^ remonstrance in vindiration 
 of the pratiiee of tlie Eastern churches. As to the oilier synods, 
 it matters little for our point whether they were called together 
 !)y order of Victor, or whether they assembled in virtue of a 
 summons iVom the local prelate of highest rank. 'J'o this day 
 provincial councils can be held without any special leave or 
 »)rder from the Bishop of Rome. You slate that Euscbius con- 
 lieiuns Victor. 1 have, again and again, perused his narrative 
 without being able to find ihe proof of your assertion. He re- 
 lates the nuirmurs and remonstrances of several bishops against 
 the threatened measure, who, as you rather ambiguously trans- 
 late, "pressed upon him with great severity."* The whole 
 narrative shows that the historian regarded the obstinacy of 
 the Asiatics as unjustifiable, though he may have inclined to 
 the sentiment of those who thought the severity of Victor pre- 
 cipitalc.t 
 
 Eusebius's narrative of the controversy concerning baptism, 
 shows that he considered Cyprian m error as innovating on 
 ancient usage, and Stephen right in opposing the change. 'I'he 
 great displeasure which, as he informs us, Stephen felt;}: at the 
 attempt of Cyprian to introduce a new practice, surely indicates 
 the feeling of a Superior who watehed over the integrity of 
 faith, and the maintenance of tradition unchanged throughout 
 
 T* Bi»Tc{:c. The verb here used means invariably in Honior t«> address 
 courteously. Some later writers use it to express invective. See Dain- 
 uiii Lexicon Ilomericum. 
 
 t Archbishop Potter speaks of the act of Victor as unjust, but add.s 
 " however, it is a good evidence that excommunication was used at this 
 time in the Church," — On Cliurch Gorrrnmcni, p. 'XV). lie might have 
 said with equal truth, that it is good evidence that the Roman JJishop 
 claimed and exercised power over the bishops of Asia, and that these 
 claims were nut called in question, though the exercise of the power 
 was complained of. 
 
 \ Eus. Hist, 1. vii. c. 3. Eiri roi/TOt Jtr-)xtaxrti- 
 
148 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 the whole Church. The letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to 
 Pope Xystus, of which the historian gives an extract, shows 
 the measures which Stephen had threatened to adopt against 
 the Asiatic prelates who presumed to rebaptize, but does not at 
 all present these measures as acts of usurped authority. On 
 the contrary, he states that, as it was reported to him that in 
 very great synods the practice of rebaptizing had been sanc- 
 tioned, he had written to Stepiien in terms of earnest entreaty.* 
 How all this is "totally irreconcilable with our doctrine of 
 supremacy," you may have perceived, but certainly have not 
 informed us. We see in it strong evidence that the Bishop of 
 Rome exercised at that time the same power which his success- 
 or now claims, and though some clung with fond attachment 
 to usages which he condemned, they did not question the au- 
 thority of his office. They remonstrated and entreated, and in 
 some instances proved refractory, always alleging that the cir- 
 cumstances did not call for the measures which were urged on 
 them. 
 
 The history of the council of Antioch, as related by Euse- 
 biuSjt appears to you inconsistent with our doctrine on the 
 Primacy of the Roman Bishop, because the heresy of Paul of 
 Samosata, bishop of Antioch, was condemned in that council, 
 he himself deposed, and Domnus substituted in his place, with- 
 out any intervention of the Bishop of Rome. Give me leave 
 to observe again, that a wide distinction exists between the 
 Primacy itself, which is of divine institution, and the exercise 
 of rights that may emanate from it, which may be regulated by 
 special arrangements and enactments suited to the diversity of 
 times and places. 'J'he causes of f^iith are, according to the 
 present discipline of the Church, reserved to the Holy See and 
 (Ecumenical Councils ; but before the introduction of this dis- 
 cipline, they were often examined in councils, provincial, na- 
 tional, or of a more ample, though not general character. The 
 decisions were transmitted, however, to the successor of St 
 
 * Eus. Hist , 1. vii. c. 3. Utp) tovtocv tlum TTdLvrctv Siojuivoc- 
 t Euseb. 1. vii.c.27. Hist. Eccl. 
 
ACTS OF COUNCILS SENT TO UOMK. 149 
 
 Peter, and comiiuinicaletl likewise to the prelates of tlie Uni- 
 versal Church, liiat by llie confirmation of Ilini uiiose privi- 
 lege it is to confirm his brethren in faith, and the concurrence 
 of iiis colleagues, tliey might be regarded as the authentic 
 judgment of the whole Episcopal College. Hence, the coun- 
 (!il of Antioch directed the report of their proceedings in the 
 first instance to Uionysius, Bishop of Rome, next to Maximus? 
 of Alexandria, and then to all their colleagues, and the whole 
 Catholic Church. 'J'his was done with one accord, by unani- 
 mous determination,* to give the last seal to the decision, and 
 it was only when the approbation of liome was received, that 
 the cause was considered as terminated. t 
 
 The deposition of the heretical bishop, and the substitution 
 of another by tiie council, were in accordance with the disci- 
 pline of that age. As long as they were not reserved to the 
 Chief Pastor himself, these acts could be done by the local tri- 
 bunal formed by the bishops of tiie province, with their metro- 
 politan at their liead, or a greater assembly of bishops with a 
 higher presiding prelate. 'I'o save the Episcopal character and 
 dit'nity from being sacrificed to individual partialities and local 
 prejudices, both are now referred to the iJi>hoj) and Fatiier of 
 bisliops. Your reasoning, then, on the proceedings of the 
 council falls to the ground, when the diversity of disciplinary 
 regulations in various ages is attended to. These proceedings 
 were right, and perfectly in harmony with the Primacy ; but at 
 this day, the course would be somewhat dilfcrent, because 
 modified by posterior Ecclesiastical legislation. I need not 
 tell you, tiiat in republics and empires, the exercise of ijic pre- 
 rogatives of j)ublic functionaries, even of the iiighest order, may 
 wisely vary in cijuformity witli positive enactments or regula- 
 tions suited to circumstances. 
 
 The high rank of the Bisliop of Kouic in the Church of 
 
 IK xwrirr ytci/unc, cx cotnintini sciitentiu. liisiiop Hopkins's ver- 
 sion iias ' by comnion consent' in italics, an if to insinuati' that it was a 
 matter of courtosy and choice, rather than a duty whicli they jmljjed it 
 necessary lofultil. The force of the (Ireek text is, by unanimous dccrtr. 
 t Augustin, Serin. 132, dc vcrhis Apcst. c 10. 
 
1 50 EDSEBIUS. 
 
 Christ, is not only apparent from the mention of his name at 
 the commencement of the epistle of the council, but also from 
 the fact that the pagan emperor, Aurelian, left the decision of 
 the right of property or occupancy of the Church, from which 
 Paul of Samosata was driven, to him, at least virtually, by or- 
 dering the building to be given up to those to whom the bishops 
 of Italy and the Bishop of Rome should write.* The special 
 mention of the Roman Bishop shows his pre-eminence, and 
 the mention of the bishops of Italy in conjunction with him 
 was, because they were known to be in his communion. Nei- 
 ther he, nor they, could have been regarded in the affairs of 
 the Eastern church, had no special Ecclesiastical power been 
 vested in either. It is manifest that they could not claim it: 
 and consequently it must be his prerogative. 
 
 The letters of Constantine, which Eusebius has preserved, 
 are referred to in the next place, for evidence against the Pri- 
 macy of the Roman Bishop. To form a more correct judg- 
 ment of them, it is necessary that we should explain the occa- 
 sion on which they were written. Early in the fourth century, 
 the disappointed ambition of some individuals gave rise to the 
 schism of the Donalists, who both assailed the character, and 
 called in question the lawfulness of the election and ordination of 
 Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, and endeavoured to intrude Majori- 
 nus in his stead. They accused him of having been ordained 
 by, and continuing in communion with, bishops guilty of de- 
 livering over the Divine Scriptures to the pagans in the time of 
 persecution. The schismatics applied to Anulinus, proconsul 
 of Africa, and, through him, to the emperor Constantine, beg- 
 ging that the facts of the case might be investigated, and that 
 the judges might be chosen from Gaul, where the emperor then 
 was. Constantine, on reading their petition, observed : '♦ You 
 ask of me a trial in the world, when I myself await the judg- 
 ment of Christ."t However, he deemed it expedient to yield 
 to their request, and therefore appointed three French bishops 
 to assist at the trial, but referred the examination of the cause 
 
 * Euseb. 1. vii. c. 30. t Optat. Milev. I. 1, n. 23. 
 
J r Dr. mi: NT of miilciiiadks. If)! 
 
 to Miliiatles, llie Tisliop of liomr, llial "before him, as also 
 before Klieticius, M iteriius and Marinus his colleagues, Cecilian 
 niijjhl be Jioard, as was most conformable lo the divine law." 
 On this occasion he addressed a lelier, whose inscription now 
 reads: " Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, 
 and to .Marcus."* ♦' Here it is evident (you observe) that the 
 Hisliop of Home is not addressed as a man who already held 
 the othce of appellant judge over the whole Church, but con- 
 jointly with Marcus, and merely as an equal among his col- 
 leagues." To me, this is not, by any means, evident. On the 
 contrary, Constantine having already expressed his astonish- 
 ment, that his authority should be at all appealed to in a cause 
 of this nature, and havirng referred the matter lo Miltiades, con- 
 trary to the wishes of the Donatists, but " as was most con- 
 formable to the divine law," yielded only so far to their request 
 as to name three French bishops.t who would concur with the 
 PontitTin the hearing of the cause. He knew, therefore, that 
 of divine right it appertained lo this tribunal. The appoint- 
 ment of these bishops, as associate judges, was a measure of 
 prudence, directed to conciliate the Donatists, and to dispose 
 iliem for receiving the decision with submission ; but neither 
 was it intended nor calculated to reduce the PontifT to a state 
 of equality with his colleagues, in which he might be forced to 
 yield to their votes. With the same view of making the ex- 
 amination with the greatest solemnity, Melcl)iadest called to his 
 aid fifteen Italian bishops, so that the trial took |)lace in the 
 presence of nineteen bishops, over whom Melchiades presided. 
 Hence the judgment passed on this occasion is styled by St 
 Auguslin in many parts of his works ♦* the judgment of Mel- 
 (•hiade8."§ It is plain, therefore, that he was not as an equal 
 among his colleagues, and that he did not act by the mere de- 
 legation of the emperor; for what delegate judge, to whom as- 
 
 • Euncb. I lift. Eccl. 1. X. c f). 
 
 t MatiTnuH of Colognr, Ihrn rnij»idrrr(l ai part of tho Gtiiils, Rhrti- 
 ciua of Autun, and MarinuH of Arl<n Thry arc inaccurately called 
 " bishops of Italy" by Bishop Hopkins 
 
 t The name is variously written. 
 
 ^ Brevic. CoUat. dici. 3. c. ]S. c. 2<>, " in judicio Melchiadis " 
 
152 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 sociates had been given to control and guard his decision, would 
 dare call in a number of others, and place them on the judg- 
 ment-seat with those specially appointed ? As to Marcus, 
 named after Miltiades in the inscription, we know not who he 
 was, so that it is not easy to derive an argument from the ad- 
 dition of his name to that of the PontifT. * It is not strange that 
 the complaints of the Donatists were made to the emperor, and 
 not to the Pope ; for schismatics are wont to crouch to the civil 
 power, and to seek its favour and protection ; but Constantine 
 sufficiently declared, that the divine law had provided a differ- 
 ent tribunal. 
 
 The next letter of Constantine, quoted by you from Euse- 
 bius, is addressed to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse, and is a 
 summons to attend a council to be held at Aries, for the pur- 
 pose of terminating the schism for which the sentence of the 
 Roman Council under Melchiades had not proved an efficacious 
 remedy. You compare the address of this epistle " singly to 
 the bishop of Syracuse," witli that to Miltiades, the Roman 
 Bishop, and Marcus ; and without caring to ascertain by what 
 chance this name came there, or whom it designates, you say 
 that this letter was addressed to Miltiades and others. But 
 this surely is too trivial for a scholar. You remark that " the 
 peace of the Church had not been restored by the judgment of 
 the bishops of Italy, including the Bishop of Rome : but is it 
 any thing strange that schismatics should not acquiesce in 
 a sentence pronounced against them ? " How can it be ex- 
 pected," — asks St Augustin, in reference to this very case, — 
 *' that a party with a bad cause should praise the judges by 
 whose sentence he was defeated ?"t The obstinacy of the 
 Donatists excited the indignation of the emperor himself, who, 
 on hearing of their appeal, exclaimed : " O raging and frantic 
 
 * See Baron. Ann. an. 313. Tom. III. p. 105, whoconjecturesthatitis 
 a mistake, and that an epithet of the Roman Bishop was originally there. 
 The learned lawyer Clinch thinks differently. See his work on Church 
 Government, p. 160. Note. 
 
 t Aug. Epist. WZ. 
 
NKW TRIAL UNNECKSSARY. 158 
 
 audacity ! as is usual in ihe causes of llic CJenlilcs, il»cy have 
 Iodised an appeal !"* His solicitude, however, to restore peace 
 induced him to allow the cause to be re-opened at Aries in a 
 more numerous assembly, that the complaints mailc by the 
 Donatists of the partiality of the judges might lose all semblance 
 of truth. ♦' He granted," says St Augustin, *' thio new trial at 
 Aries, by other bishops, not because it was any longer neces- 
 sary, but yielding to their perversity, and desiring by every 
 means possible lo restrain their importunity. "t Tiie adoption 
 of iliis measure by the emperor, with these views and under 
 these circumstances, in a cause that more immediately regarded 
 persons than faith, is no proof that he did not recognise the 
 Primacy of the Holy See. His interference in the whole affair 
 was manifestly reluctant, and solely directed to procure peace, 
 by the adoption of every measure that might appear equitable 
 and just, even to the most refractory. In the letter to Chr'estus, 
 he expressly states that the discord should have censed, by the 
 willing assent of the parties, on the issuing of the juilgment. 
 This you understand of a voluntary agreement, though a deci- 
 sion surely iniplies the obligation of submission. 
 
 With your eulogies of Kusebius, whom you have placed 
 among the saints, 1 am not disposed to interfere, farther than to 
 remark that he is generally reputed to have been infected with 
 the heresy of Arius. But his history is a precious treasure of 
 antiquity, in which are preserved many docunu-nts that would 
 otherwise have been lost, and the memory of many facts thai 
 might otherwise be unknown. It is, nevertheless, liable to 
 many exceptions, though not as containing any thing irrecon- 
 fileablo with the Primacy of Peter and his successors in the 
 lioman See. 'i'he *' circumstantial evidence" which you 
 have thought that you discovered in it against this Primacy, is 
 j)urely imaginary. lOusebius, on the contrary, bears positive 
 evidence in its favour, by asserting that Pt'ier was the strong 
 
 ' " () rnbida furoria audacia ! Sicut in causis igrrntiliutn fieri solct, 
 appcUntionrrn intrrpojiurrunt." S. Opt. Mil. 1. i. n. 524. 
 f S. Auj;. Kp. n.2. 
 
154 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 and great one of the Apostles, tlie leader of the rest— that on 
 him, as on a rock, the Church was built — that he preached the 
 faith, successfully, at Rome, and sealed it by martyrdom — that 
 the succession of bishops was there continued — that to Rome 
 recourse was had in all the great controversies of the times — 
 and that its bishop issued his decrees to Asia, and to Africa, 
 equally as to the less distant provinces, and enforced them with 
 the highest exercise of Ecclesiastical power. These facts are 
 sufficient to convince us of the faith and practice of the Christian 
 world, during the ages which Eusebius has described, and 
 abundantly supply the absence of pompous phrases, or learned 
 dissertations on Pontifical prerogative. 
 
 The silence of the Council of Aries, in regard to the authori- 
 ty of the Holy See, will not surprise those who consider that 
 no controversy agitated the Church at that time, and that it is 
 not the practice of the Church to define undisputed doctrines. 
 It was enough to enforce the observance of the general practice of 
 the Church in regard to baptism administered by heretics, and 
 thus by the fact to sustain the exercise of Pontifical authority. 
 
 You conclude your fifteenth chapter with the observation, 
 that you " will not say that no honest mind, with these facts be- 
 fore it, can subscribe to our doctrine, because you cannot tell 
 to what extent an honest mind may be deluded." You will not, 
 of course, be ofl^ended, if I, for the same reason, abstain from 
 saying, that no honest mind, with the authorities of Scripture, 
 and of the early writers of the Church, and the facts of early 
 history before it, can reject the Primacy ; but when you add, 
 that our appeal to antiquity on this head presumes most strongly 
 on the ignorance of mankind, the confidence of your assertion 
 leaves me without expression. For its refutation, I need only 
 refer to the testimonies which you yourself have quoted, 
 
LETTER XII. 
 
 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 Rkjht Reverend Sir: 
 
 Your sixteenth chapter contains an exposition of our doc- 
 trine on General Councils, derived from our Douay Cate- 
 chism, and from our canon law, as you stale, on the autho- 
 rity of the canonist Gibert. I regret that, in an investiga- 
 tion of such importance, you have not had recourse to the foun- 
 tain, rather than to any channel through which its waters may 
 flow ; and that you should embarrass the controversy concern- 
 ing the Primacy, by discussions about its rightful prerogatives. 
 Christian union being so desirable, we should seek to ascertain 
 what is absolutely essential to our agreement in faith, and re- 
 serve other investigations, as of minor importance, to the happy 
 time in which we might mutually embrace each other as breth- 
 ren in Christ. Hut I am not disposed to be fiistidious, and 1 
 cheerfully assent to the statement of the Catechism that '* the 
 definitions of a General Council, approved by the Pope, are in- 
 fallible in matters of faith." The reasons and proofs adduced 
 by the author of a Catechism, or a writer on canon law, in sup- 
 port or exj)lanaii()n of this principle, are to be distinguished 
 from the doctrine itself. Willi (Jibcrt, I maintain, that it is 
 the rightful prerogative of the Chief Pastor of the Church, 
 to convoke the bishops of the (^'hri.siian world in General 
 Council; for there exists no oilier individual, Ecclesiasti- 
 cal or civil, whose summons all bishops throughout Christen- 
 dom are bound to respect. It is his right to preside; for in an 
 Ecclesiastical assembly, the highest dignitary of the Church 
 should surely occupy ihe first place. Its dcfinilions of fniih, 
 
156 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 made with his concurrence, are like those of the Apostolic 
 Council, the authentic manifestations of revealed truth, being 
 made by the authority of the Holy Ghost ; but they are distin- 
 guished from the Holy Scriptures, inasmuch as these latter were 
 written under the impulse and dictation of the Holy Spirit, 
 whilst the doctrinal definitions of councils suppose only a 
 peculiar assistance of the same divine Spirit, by which those 
 who compose them are preserved from error. The distinction 
 between doctrine and discipline, which you seem to treat ra- 
 ther lightly, must be constantly held in view : for the former, 
 being the revelation of God, who is one and unchangeable, must 
 never vary ; whilst the latter, being a matter of usage and posi- 
 tive enactment, is liable to change, at the discretion of the legis- 
 lative power by which it was enacted. You have not caught 
 the meaning of your author, when you represent him as 
 teaching that *' the decisions of General Councils on matters 
 of law are infallible !" " Circa jus^^ means, " on principle," 
 or right, as distinguished from personal facts. The judgment 
 of the tribunals of the Church in regard to persons, is not in- 
 fallible, because it depends on human testimony, which may 
 deceive ; but the declaration of right, or principle, of what 
 is lawful or unlawful, according to the divine law, is made 
 with unerring authority. 
 
 The inferences which you draw from the principles of your 
 author are not correct. From the contUtions sj)ecified being 
 sufficient and ordinarily required to constitute a General Coun- 
 cil, it does not necessarily follow, that the absence of one or 
 other of them can in no way be supplied, and that no decrees 
 can attain the same authority, unless all the conditions have 
 been observed. For instance, it is the right of the Pope to 
 call the bishops together; but if they have come together at 
 the call of another, or by a spontaneous movement, and he ap- 
 prove of the convocation, and give his full concurrence to its 
 proceedings, the informality of the first measure cannot vitiate 
 the acts of the Council. In like manner it is his riglit to pre- 
 side, either in person, or by one or more specially delegated to 
 represent him : but if a Council were held in which he was 
 
CONVOCATION or coiNc U.S. 157 
 
 not present or rc'[)rc'stMiled, of whose acis, however, wlieii com- 
 iminicated to liiin, he approved, — this ratilicalion would supply 
 the deficiency ; and the decrees iniglit be re<Tarded as the ex- 
 pression of ilie faiili of the Epiiscopal hody and its head — that 
 is, of the entire doctrinal tribunal (d' the Church. It may be 
 well to keep in mind these remarks wiien viewiuij the proceed- 
 ings of Councds hehl in a tj^real diversity of circumstances. In 
 approaching the examination, you anain implore our patience, 
 and urge us to perseverance in our incjuiries after truth ; vou 
 even pray for that sincere and candid spirit which is essential 
 to every lover of truiii. May your prayer have been heard ! 
 
 I shall spare my readers the labour of examining your proofs 
 thai the Emperor Constantine summoned the Council of Nice, 
 by admitting the fact. I beg, however, to observe, that if that 
 ironvocaiion was made at the request of the PontifT, or if it was 
 acquiesced in by him, it could neither detract from its authority 
 as a General Council, nor disprove the right of convocation, 
 which ollicially belongs to the head of the Church. That it 
 was acquiesced in by Silvester, is beyond question ; and we 
 have higlj authority for believing that it was made at his ex- 
 press solicitation. Kutinus, an author of the fifth century, says, 
 that Constantine convoked the Council in compliance wilii the 
 wishes of the priests:* and in the sixth (Jeneral Council held 
 at Constantinople, Constantine and ISilvester are said to have 
 assembled the xNicene (-ouncil.t In the Council of Chalcedon, 
 held about one hundred and twenty-tive years after that of Nice, 
 the Legate of the Holy JSee insisted, successfully, on the exclu- 
 sion of Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, from the Council, be- 
 cause he had *• presumed and dared to celebrate a General Synod 
 without the authority of the Holy See, which never had been al- 
 lowed, never had becMi done. "4: Would tins have been affirmed 
 
 " " Turn illc, ex Sacerdotuin Rcntc'ntia,npud urbcm Nicasam Episcopalc 
 Concilium convocat." — KufVin. 1. 1. HIbI. KccI. c. 1. 
 
 t ** Constanlinus Hcinp<r Augusluii, cl SiIvcHtcr laudabihs, nm^r'iam 
 atquc insigneiu in Niciva iSynuduui congregabanl. " — Act. Ic:', in Serin. 
 Prosphonctico. 
 
 t "Quia prcDsumpsitjCl ausuicsl Synoduni Gcncralcm faccrc sineau- 
 O 
 
158 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 without contradiction, if tlie authority of that See had not 
 sanctioned the convocation of the very first Council? The 
 reasons why the formal summons was issued by Constanline 
 are sufficiently obvious. The lloman laws forbad all assem- 
 blies unless sanctioned by the emperor,* and the poverty of 
 most of the bishops would have kept them from the council, 
 had not the imperial munificence furnished them with the privi- 
 lege of conveyance at the expense of the state. t Hence Theo- 
 doret, relating the summoning of the bishops, says, that Con- 
 stantine autliorized them to use the public horses and beasts of 
 burthen, and ordered all things to be furnished necessary for 
 their journey. ± 
 
 In alkiding to this call, the emperor, addressing the bishops, 
 observed: "Being particularly desirous that a remed}' might 
 be found for existing dissentions, through my exertions and 
 diligence, I sent for you all without delay. And although, in- 
 deed, I rejoice exceedingly in beholding your assembly, yet 1 
 consider that I shall have accomplished my desires, § then espe- 
 cially, when I shall see all united in mind, and one peaceful 
 harmony prevailing among all, which it were becoming for 
 you, who are consecrated to God, to obtain for others like- 
 
 thoritate Sedis Apostolicae, quod nuinquam licuit, numquani factum est.' 
 Act. J , Cone. Chalc. 
 
 * Cod. Theod. tit. de episcopo et clericis. L. Conventicula. 
 
 t Hence the letters called " Tractoriaj." Vide Cod. L. xii. de cur. 
 pub. tit. 2, et tit. 3. evectiones. | Theodoret, Hist. 1. 1. c. 7. 
 
 § Bishop Hopkins professes to cite from our own version, but he 
 mistakes " ex animi sententia," for the expression of the sentiments of 
 Constantine, whereas it means, " according to his desire,'^ as may be 
 seen in Cicero, and as is manifest from the text: totj «fi /uixtra. x.pivct 
 KOLT* lu-xjtz ifjt.u.vrov Trpa^iiv. The bishop's translation is: ^^ I think it 
 becomes me so to order matters by the expression of my sentiments .'' He 
 has been equally unlucky in his version of the latter part of the sentence : 
 " which {peaceful agreement), indeed, it is right for you, since you are 
 consecrated to God, and also for others to make the subject of earnest 
 prayer to the Deity." The text means what 1 have expressed above, 
 and the Latin version gives the same meaning . itv ^ fripois vfAoa 
 TrptTTOV ail iin 7rpi(r0iviiv t»c tcd Qiai x-ct^-itfa/uivovc See Euseb. 1. iii. 
 de Vita Constant, c. xii. et Col. Cone. Mansi, Tom. H. Col. GGl. 
 
FAPAI. M'GATKS AT M( 1,. 1 j'J 
 
 wise." Voii Iraiislalii llu? tPXi, or vprsi(»n, in such a way lljal 
 llie coininoii reader iiiiglil suppose Conslanliiie hoped to eon- 
 troiil the bisliops by tlie expression of his seiiliinrius, which 
 was Au" from being the rase, since he showed the most marked 
 respect towards them, declinins^ to take his seat iiniil iliey had 
 requested him,* and then leavinir the presidents of the Council 
 at liberty to open the proccedinj^s.t 
 
 Vour introiluclioM here of the Council of Jerusalem, of which 
 we have already treated, calls simply f()r this remark, that, 
 allh(jui(h the Scripture does not state who convened it, il slates 
 that Peter was there, and spoke with authority and efTect. 
 Silvester, " Bishop of ancient Rome," was also at Nice, in the 
 person of his legates, his extreme old age having prevented his 
 personal attendance.! The assembly, therefore, though not 
 formally convened by his summons, had his sanction. You 
 triumph in the silence «jf the emperor, in his address, in regard 
 to Silvester; but it is enough that Eusebius and Thcodoret 
 specially marked the cause of absence. S It was not to be ex- 
 pected that the emperor shoidd introduce his name into the 
 address, which was directed to express the ardent desire which 
 he entertained of seeing all concordant in faith. The presence 
 of the legates of Silvester was a sufticient evidence to the 
 bisliops that he approved of the holding of the Council. Had 
 !''ustaihius, bishop of Anlioch, spoken in reply, as you con- 
 ceive, he had no ground for complaining of any omission, in- 
 consistent with the respect due to the Pontifical authority, nor 
 would courtesy have permitted it; but, the fact is, he addressed 
 the emperor, at the opening of the assembly, in a brief nianner, 
 thanking (loil for the triumph of (Christianity over paganism, 
 and exhorting the emperor to zeal for the faith. |i The emperor 
 then delivered his address. 
 
 The assembling of the bishops of all Christendom, at the 
 • •all of the first (Jhrislian emperor, was a matter of no (lilViculty. 
 
 " Euscb. 1. iii. de Vita Constantini, c. z 
 
 t lb. c. xiti. irtfUiiiu fir Xoysr toic t»c vuttJcu Tfi-.tJeuc 
 
 t Euseb. 1. iii. c. vii. Vita? Constantini. 
 
 § Theodoret, I. i Hijit. c. vii. p. '21. 
 
 II Euseb. 1. iii. Vila* Constant, c. xi. Thcodtirct 1. i Hist c. vii. p. 85. 
 
160 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 because the empire was co-extensive with Cliristianity: but in 
 a different order of things, when rival and hostile potentates 
 divide the dominion of the ('hristian world, a General Council 
 would be impracticable, if it depended on the civil power. 
 Christ could not have left his Church dependant, in a matter of 
 such importance, on the contingency of the universal dominion 
 of one sovereign, or on the concurrence of many. He m.ust 
 have left in the Church itself a power which, amidst all tlie 
 vicissitudes of civil government, might be exercised. " The 
 Bishop of bishops" is the only one whose mandate can at all 
 times reach all, and gather together, " from the East and from 
 the West," those whom the Holy Ghost has placed to govern 
 the Church of God. The judicious Count Le Maistre ob- 
 serves, that " those who have ascribed this power to the tempo- 
 ral authority, have not paid attention to the strange paralogism 
 of which they were guilty. They suppose an universal and 
 even eternal monarchy : they always go back, without reflect- 
 ing on it, to the times in which all the mitres could be convoked 
 by a single sceptre, or by two."* 
 
 You say, on the authority of Gibert, that " the first Council 
 of Constantinople in their epistle to Theodosius, in which they 
 give him thanks, and render an account of what they had done, 
 declare that they had been summoned together at his command." 
 Yet '* the whole truth" required you to state that in their 
 synodical letter to Pope Damasus and the Roman synod, they 
 declare tliat they liad assembled at Constantinople in conse- 
 quence of letters addressed by him to the emperor to that 
 effect.t This shows us " the concord of the emperors in the 
 cause of piety, "| — Damasus and his colleagues, " calling them, 
 as his own members, to the synod at Rome, by means of the 
 letters of the most pious emperor, "§ that the Bishop of Rome 
 
 * Du Pape 1. i. c. iii.p. 24. 
 
 t ejc Tuv 7rif>ua-t ypa.ju/u.:iTaiv tuv Tretpa rue C/uiTipac tijuiothto? /utra 
 Tuv iv uuvxiHa atjvzSov, Trpo; rov ^ii<pihirat.TOV jisi7ih'iA ^ioSoaiov imr- 
 
 t VVV iV TM TXV OLVrOKpU-TOpatV TTipt TfV iU<r'i0UAV (TV fxtptuviu. . 
 
 § MyMXf af oIkhu /AiKii TrpoTiK'i.KiiTdLT^i Six Toev T» ^iofihtTxra 
 
PRESIUENtY OF COINCII.S. 101 
 
 and his collcagurs " nii<;l)t not rci^ni :il(>nc, hut the Eastern 
 bishops might reign with them."' The eon vocation of the 
 General Council of Ephcsus was made in like manner by 
 Theodosius the younger, but with the full assent of Pope Ce- 
 lestine, who, addressing the emperor, informs him that he would 
 be present by those whom he sent.t St Leo, addressing the 
 emperor Mareian, assures him that his zeal, which had led him 
 to convoke a synod, was highly acceptable ;l and the bisliops 
 of M.Tsia, writing to the emperor Leo, successor of iMarcian, 
 observe : " Many bishops assembled in the city of Chalcedon 
 by order of Leo, the Roman IJishop, who is truly the head of 
 i)ishops."§ 
 
 These facts of history \c\iye untouched i\n' privilege wliicli we 
 claim for the Primacy, because the assent of the J^oiitill* is in 
 all cases manifest, at least, from the fact of his being repre- 
 sented in the council. You will, perhaps, not deny that the 
 emperor had no divine right to summon the bishojis to council, 
 and if you deny this right to the l*ontin\ you must suppose 
 that there is no authority left by Christ whereby these import- 
 ant and venerable assemblies can be efleclually convened. 'J'he 
 convocation of the Western Councils of an (JOcumcnical cha- 
 racter, having been confessedly made by the immediate autho- 
 rity of tlie Roman Hishop, confirms the reasoning whereby 
 this right is vindicated as the privilege of Jiis oflice. 
 
 'J'he i)residency of General Councils is another privilege 
 which our canonists claim for the Roman Pontiff. Osius, a 
 bishop of Cordova, a small town in Spain, is admitted to have 
 presided at Nice, but, on the authority of Gibert, } on assert 
 that there is no proof that he was there as the legate of the 
 Apostolic See. A fact o( this kind, however, is to be deter- 
 mined, not by the denial or assertion of any modern writer, 
 but on historical testimony, or, in its absence, on presumj)live 
 iiid circumstantial evidence. (Jelasius of ('yzicuuJ, an author 
 
 • fjii x*f*( i/uiatt fiiviKtCfHTt. Thcotl. Eccl. Ili.st. 1. v. c. ix. 
 f S. Cclest. Ep. ad Tlicod. 
 { S. Leo, Ep ad Mareian Imp. 
 § Cone. Chalc. Act. Col. Cone. Hard. 
 0» 
 
162 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 of the fifth century, expressly states, on the authority of Euse- 
 bius, " that the far-famed Osius himself, of Spain, ^VHO held the 
 PLACE OF Silvester, Bishop of the great Rome, together with 
 the Roman priests Vito and Vincentius, was present, with many 
 others, in that assembly."* Photiust refers to the same passage ; 
 and though it is not found in Eusebius at this day, men of great 
 critical judgment consider that the present reading warrants 
 thebelief that it originally existed in it, as quoted by Gelasius. 
 "From Spain itself," it now reads, "one of great renown, 
 with many others, was present in that assembly. "J No men- 
 tion being made of his name, we are warranted in suspecting 
 that it, with the other words cited by Gelasius, has disappeared 
 from the text. Socrates, the historian, mentions him first, in 
 conjunction with the priests Vitus and Vincentius, confessedly 
 Roman legates, and gives to the three precedency of the bishops 
 of Alexandria and Antioch, which they could not have obtain- 
 ed, unless as representatives of a Bishop superior to these pa- 
 triarchs. § To suppose that the presidency was given to Osius 
 on account of his age, or personal merit, is to show little ac- 
 quaintance with the principle of order uniformly observed in 
 all the Councils of the Church. The dignity of the See, which 
 he occupies or represents, uniformly determines who shall pre- 
 side in these venerable assemblies, since, according to St Leo, 
 " although the merits of prelates be sometimes different, the 
 rights of their Sees continue unchanged. "|| 
 
 Your observations on the Council of Constantinople, and its 
 subscriptions, might have been spared, had you adverted to the 
 acknowledged fact that it was an oriental council, which subse- 
 quently obtained a degree of authority equivalent to that of a 
 General Council, from the harmony of its decrees with that of 
 the Roman synod, ^ to which its decrees were forwarded, with 
 
 * Gelas. 1. 2. Hist. Cone. Nic. c. v. 
 
 t Photius Cod. 88. t Euseb. 1. 3, de Vita Constantini. 
 
 § Socrates,!. 1. c 9. 
 
 II St Leo, cit. ab Hincmaro, Ep. ad Nicolauni, p. 520. 
 f See the letter of the oriental bishops to Pope Damasus. Theodoret, 
 1. 5, c. 9. Eccl. Hist. 
 
CYRIL Di:rrri:n dv celestine. 103 
 
 a request to Pope Dainasus to adopt them. That the Bishop 
 of Rome was not tliere, either in person or by his repreeenla- 
 lives, is, llierefore, no proof against his right to presiile at a 
 council perfectly Gi^cunienical. " Tlic melancholy evidence of 
 fraud in the forgery of false subscriptions," on which yon dwell 
 so pathetically, might not appear (juile so just a suhject for 
 your strictures, had you rellecled in how many instances the 
 confusion of records, or the mistakes of copyists, may liave 
 produced the errors which you rather hastily ascribe to preme- 
 ditation and corrupt design. Ciiarily, which ihinkelh no evil, 
 would have reijuircd you to pause before you made a charge of 
 80 serious a character. Your alle^jalion is disproved by the fact 
 that no eflort is made to prove that Papal legates presided, 
 though the names of some who presided at the Council of 
 Chalcedon were by some mistake attached to one manuscript. 
 Catholic divines are wont to examine with the severest scrutiny 
 all the writings which have come down from the early ages of 
 the Ciiurch, and if they discover any reason to doubt of their 
 authority, they avow it without hesitation, although they do 
 not easily ascribe to malice what may have arisen from mistake. 
 
 That St Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, presided in the third 
 General Council, is a fact which you stale after Ciibcrt, 
 Whether this author suppresses a fact equally certain, that Si 
 Celesline, Hishop of Rome, had by a special letter commis- 
 sioned liim to exercise his authority and hold his place,* I am 
 unable to say, as his works are not wiiliin my reacli ; but fair 
 and honourable controversy certainly required that it should 
 have been noticed. 
 
 As to the second Council of Constantinople, wliich, like the 
 first, was not (Ecumenical in its origin, but obtained, sul)se- 
 quently, by the assent of the I'ontilT and of the Church, the 
 authority of an (Ecumenical Council, the absence of the Pon- 
 tiff, or his legates, is sufficiently accounted for. 'I'iie oriental 
 
 n/mirtp* TV r-i.iru JuSn^n it* i^urix ^Hfci/uttoc. Letter of Cel. lo Cyril, 
 c. xiii. Act. Cone. Eph. p. 3123. Coll. Hardouin, Tom 1 
 
164 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 bishops used every possible effort to induce Pope Vigilius, who 
 was then at Constantinople, to be present; but he, being appre- 
 hensive of a soiiism in the West, from tlie condemnation of the 
 works called the " three chapters," refused to attend. The 
 bishops there assembled deemed the scandal which the tolera- 
 tion of these works occasioned in the East greater than any evil 
 that might arise from their condemnation, and, after repeated 
 embassies to Vigilius, proceeded to hold the council without him. 
 They did not form a General Council, since the West was not in 
 any way represented : but they conceived that the condemnation 
 of these writings might take place in a council not absolutely 
 general, and they hoped ultimately to succeed, as they in fact 
 succeeded, in obtaining the assent and ratification of the Pontiff. 
 When you blazoned forth in capitals, that " the fathers of 
 
 THAT council DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR DOCTRINE," yOU 
 
 must have been but little acquainted with its acts and proceed- 
 ings. In their letter to Vigilius, they thus loudly profess their 
 veneration for the Apostolic See : " We receive and embrace 
 the epistles of the prelates of the Apostolic See of Rome, as 
 well of the others, as of Leo, of holy memory, written con- 
 cerning the right faith, and the four councils, or any one of 
 them."* They pray him to grant that the matters may be exa- 
 mined — "Your holiness presiding over us."t Prudence 
 prescribed to him a different course, but he granted permission 
 that the council should be held. " Knowing your desire," says 
 he, " we grant your petition, that a canonical synod be held, 
 about the three chapters, concerning which dispute has arisen."! 
 The Fathers read this document at the opening of the council, 
 as their authority for proceeding: and yet you say that tliey 
 did not acknowledge our doctrine! 
 
 You do not notice the great Council of Chalcedon, held in 
 the year 451, in which the presiding officers are thus stated: 
 "Paschasinus and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Boni- 
 
 * Collut. i. p. G2. Col. Hard. Tom. III. 
 
 X T))f C/uiTipct; itTViaim riv tt'o^ov iyvaKoric, iVivtva-af^sv ha 7r«g/ 
 
LKCATllS AT CIIALC KDO.V. 105 
 
 lace, a most religious priest, holding the place of the most 
 holy ami most beloved of God, Leo, Archbishop of ancient 
 Rome."* From these and other similar preambles and facts, it 
 is evident that the right of presiding was most formally and so- 
 lemnly acknowledged to belong to the Bishop of Rome, by the 
 Fathers of the liflh synod ; that it was unquestionably exercised 
 in the fourth great Council of Chalcedon, and the third Gene- 
 ral Council of Ephesus, by the legates of the Apostolic See; 
 and that its exercise in the great Council of Nice is the only 
 satisfactory means of accounting for the presidency of Osius, 
 and rests on the best historical evidence that exists as to this 
 j)arlicular fact. 
 
 You are careful to remark, with (libert, that in the acts of 
 ijic sixth General Council, which is the tiiird of Constantino- 
 [)le, the emperor is said to have presided ; but I should suppose 
 lliat this canonist must have added something to qualify this 
 .-tatcmtnt, since the acts expressly and repeatedly place the 
 two priests and the deacon of the Roman Church at the head 
 of all the bishops, as " holding the place of the most blessed and 
 holy Archbishop of ancient Rome," and these legates subscribe 
 lirsl, ** as holding the place of the Universal Pope Agalho."t 
 It was also worthy of notice, that Constantine Pogonatus sub- 
 scribed after all the bishops, as having read and assented to the 
 decrees. The kind of presidency ascribed to the emperor can- 
 not be mistaken. He sat in a place of honour, surrounded by 
 his ollicers, who are mentioned on the occasion ; but the synod 
 consisted of the l)ishops, and the acts accordingly make the 
 distinction, and invariably place the Roman legates at their 
 head. The emperor sat to witness the deliberations of the Fa- 
 ihers, and to encourage them by his favour and protection; but 
 the representatives of the Chief Bishop were the presidents ol 
 the synod, who directed and sanctioned its proceedings. The 
 admission of the Fmprcss Irene to presiile at the eighth session 
 
 • Cone. Chal. Pam. J, p.Jvl. Toin. II. Hard. C'ol. 
 
 f Tc» T9W6» »wi)^mr AymJ^miot m /MdU<{i«»T«'T* mat 6<it«juiri«»( TaT« 
 iTiKtai: V»fAii(. 
 
160 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 of the scveiuh General Council, must at once determine the ex- 
 pression to signify the mere honorary distinction of place; for 
 the degradation of the Episcopal character was not then so 
 complete that bishops should recognise in a woman the Head 
 of the Church, and the fountain of Ecclesiastical authority. In 
 this way also the Emperor Basil presided in the eighth coun- 
 cil. If you turn to the records of tliese venerable assemblies, you 
 will find the authority of the Apostolic See marked on almost 
 every page, in characters not to be mistaken. The seventh 
 General Council, which is the second of Nice, was opened, — 
 " Peter, the most reverend Arch-Priest of the most holy 
 Church of Rome, of tlie holy Apostle Peter, and Peter, the 
 most reverend priest, monk and abbot of the monastery of St 
 Sabbas at Rome, holding the place of the Apostolic See of the 
 most holy Hadrian, Archbishop of ancient Rome ;"* — and its 
 definitions were subscribed to by them before all others.! When 
 their proceedings were drawing to a close, and the doctrinal 
 decrees had already been made, the empress and her son signi- 
 fied their wish that the Fathers should assemble in their pre- 
 sence, which led to an adjournment from Nice to Constantino- 
 ple. The most honourable place was occupied by her. She 
 did not, however, preside with authority, but as an humble 
 disciple of faith, she begged that the definition which had been 
 made might be read in the hearing of her and of all the faith- 
 ful. | The eighth General Council was opened, — " Donatus and 
 Stephen, bishops most beloved of God, and Marinus, holding 
 the place of Hadrian, tlie most holy and blessed Archbishop of 
 ancient Rome."§ The emperor was not present before the 
 sixth session, when he is said to have presided, being seated 
 on the right; but he is distinguished from the synod, which 
 consisted of the bishops, with the papal legates at their head.|| 
 
 * Act. Cone. Tom. IV. p. 27. Hard. Col. Prima Actio. 
 
 t Ibid. p. 748. t Ibid. Cone. Hard. p. 483. 
 
 § Ibid. Tom. V. p. 764. 
 
 II Ibid. P. 824. " Proesidente eodem piissimo et amico Christi im- 
 peratore in dextera parte magni nominis templi magnce ecclesiae : con- 
 veniente sancta ac universali synodo, id est Donato, etc. 
 
WESTERN COl'NCILS. 107 
 
 The legates, as usual, subscribe before all others, as lioldint^ 
 the place of the Sovereign Pontiff" and Universal Pope ;"^ but 
 they specially limit the confirmation of the decrees to such as 
 may be approved of by him : — " Usque ad voluntalem ejusdem 
 eximii pnesulis." 'I'hus there is satisfactory evidence that the 
 eight councils held in the East were convened, either at the re- 
 quest, or wiih the concurrence of the PontifTs, who presided by 
 liieir legates in the six which were G^^cumenical. The right to 
 convene and to preside was distinctly admitted to belong to the 
 Pontiff by the other two, which originally were not of the 
 same higii authority. 'J'he Western councils olTer tiie most 
 incontrovertible proofs of the same riglits, inasmucli as they 
 were all solemnly convened by the Popes, who presided in 
 most of them in person, in the rest by their legates. You 
 assert, that even in the West " there were some instances to- 
 tally subversive of our doctrine," and you make special refer- 
 ence to the Councils of Pisa and Basle; but you shoukl know 
 that both these councils are of a questionable character, and 
 that even in them the Primacy of the Roman Bishop was ex- 
 plicitly avowed. The Council of Pisa was convened by some 
 cardinals, at a time when there were tv.o claimants to the Pon- 
 tifical chair; a case wherein Gibert, with other canonists, as 
 you have stated, maintain the right of assembling without the 
 summons of the Poniifl'. The cardinals acted on that j)rinciple, 
 but at the same lime declared, in the most solemn icrms, the 
 divine institution and j)riviicges of the Primacy. "Our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus (Jhrist, the Son of God," say they in their 
 letter to Gregory XII., " when about to ascend to his Father, 
 not to leave without a Shepherd the fiock redeemed by his blood, 
 laid the foundations of his militant Church principally on bless- 
 ed Peter; and in oriicr that he might distribute his gifts tiirough- 
 out the whole body from him, as from the head, and might 
 strengthen others in the Christian religion by the stability of 
 liis faith ; — tluit bv this one Head he might dcsijrnate one ori- 
 gin, and one Church, wliicli extends her branches through the 
 
 • Cone. Hard Tmi. V. p. 'J2t>. 
 
.168 GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 entire world with abundant fertility ; that thereby lie might 
 show to the successors of blessed Peter, and to the flock of the 
 Lord, that there is one spouse of Christ, uncorrupt and chaste, 
 guarding chastity with chaste modesty."* The Council of 
 15asle was called by Pope Eugenius, and was opened under the 
 presidency of Cardinal Julian, legate of the Apostolic See.t 
 These councils, then, whatever may be thought of their au- 
 thority, and whatever disputes were excited in the latter about 
 the extent of Pontifical prerogative, afford no grounds for ques- 
 tioning the right of the Pope to convene general councils, and 
 to preside in them, either in person or by his legates. As you 
 are silent as to the confirmation of councils by the Pontiff, I 
 have not introduced it into this discussion, though it is a still 
 more splendid evidence of his spiritual supremacy. From the 
 East, as well as from the West, their decrees were sent to 
 Rome to receive the sanction of him whose office it is to con- 
 firm his brethren. " We pray you," say the Fathers of Chal- 
 cedon, in their synodical letter to Leo, " to honour our judg- 
 ment by your decrees, and as we have added the harmony of 
 our assent to our head in what is good, so may your Holiness 
 vouchsafe to supply to your children what is wanting. "J Privi- 
 leges of this high character, voluntarily admitted by the assem- 
 bled prelates of the whole Christian Church, in all ages, are no 
 equivocal evidences of the Primacy. 
 
 * Cone. Pisan. X. Litteras Cardinahum ad Gregorium, Tom. VIII. 
 Col. Hard. Col. 15G. 
 
 t Cone. Bas. lb. Col. 1106. 
 t Act. xvi. Cone Chale. 
 
LETTER XIIL 
 
 NICENE CANONS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 To determine the meaning of laws, it is doubtless of great 
 importance to ascertain the occasion of their enactment. You 
 charitably suppose that the attempts of the Bishop of Rome to 
 extend his authority to the Asiatic and African churches, led 
 the Fathers of Nice to enact the celebrated sixth canon, with a 
 view to prescribe limits to his ambition. " Let the ancient cus- 
 toms," says the council, " be kept, which are in Egypt, 
 Libya and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria may have 
 general power overall these, as this is the custom also with the 
 Bishop of Rome. In like manner, also, in Antioch and in the 
 other provinces, let the privileges, dignities, and authority of 
 the churches be preserved."* Were tlie object of the Fathers 
 to restrain Roman power, they should surely have made some 
 direct prohibition, as you yourself argue, in regard to the detini- 
 
 * Coll. Hard. p. 432. This canon, as recited at Chalcedon, is trans- 
 lated by Clinch: "Let the imnieniorial usages prevail, which exist in 
 Egypt; so that the bishop of Alexandria shall have general authority there, 
 because such is the usage with the Bishop in Roinc." iti//« kxi ra ^v 
 PufxM tTnaiio7r(» THTo crvYif^K trt. Clinch justly observes, that " from the 
 Greek it appears, Hrst, that no confirmation was given at Nicea to the 
 usage of the Church of Rome : that, on the contrary, the usage of Alex- 
 andria wa.s confirmed, because it had the authority of Roman usage. Se- 
 condly, it is equally plain, that no boundaries arc either marked, or al- 
 luded to, within which the Roman ijishnp exercised that general autlu.rity 
 which the Fatln^rs had in view." See Letters on Church (Government, 
 by James Rernard Clinch, Esq, Barrister at Law, p. 27\. Dultlin, 
 1812. 
 
 P 
 
170 NICENE CANONS. 
 
 tion of the Council of Florence, and not limited themselves to 
 an incidental reference, which implies no restriction whatever. 
 On the contrary, the reference is expressly made in confirma- 
 tion of the usages and privileges of Alexandria, as conformable 
 to the usage of the Roman Bishop, without the least indication 
 of any undue exercise of authority by him. 
 
 The manifest object is to settle and maintain the rights of 
 the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch throughout the districts 
 immediately subject to them, as metropolitans, or as patriarchs, 
 according to a more modern appellation. Hence the canon 
 afterwards declares, that if any bishop be made without the 
 consent of his metropolitan, he is not a bishop. History has, 
 fortunately, recorded the true cause of this canon, which hap- 
 pens to be altogether different from that which you have ima- 
 gined. We are informed by St Alhanasius that Meletius, a 
 bishop of Egypt, having been deposed by St Peter of Alexan- 
 dria, formed a schism, and threw off* all dependence on the 
 bishop of that city. He even took on him to establish new 
 churches as Episcopal within his intended province.* In com- 
 manding then the ancient usages to be maintained, whereby 
 Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis were subjected to the bishop of 
 Alexandria, the Fathers indirectly proscribed these schismatics.! 
 Vv'hether the words or object of this canon be considered, your 
 inferences from it are unwarranted. You assert that it traces 
 the origin of the power of the Roman Bishop to custom : but 
 there is nothing in it to sustain this position. The Fathers 
 decreed nothing about Rome : they defined not the limits or the 
 origin of its authority; but they order the privileges of the 
 bishop of Alexandria to be maintainp,d, because it is customary 
 also with the Bishop of Rome. The sequel shows that it was 
 
 * Apol. 2. Athanas. 
 
 j Archbishop Potter admits that "this canon was enacted, upon a 
 complaint of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, that the metropoliti- 
 cal rights of his See had been invaded by Meletius, the schismatical 
 bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who had taken upon him to ordain bish- 
 ops without Alexander's consent."— Church Government, p. 188. See 
 also Theodoret, Hist., 1. 1, c. ix. 
 
SIXTH NIC F.N E CANON. 171 
 
 l!»e invasion of imMi-oj)()liiic';il riglils by scl^^;m:l^!t• ordinations, 
 not any ag-^ression on llie nietropolilnns by ibe Konian Hi.shop, 
 thai was souglit lo be guarded against. You thence, liowever, 
 take occasion to argue against llie Prinnacy, because the ap- 
 pointment or confirmation of bisliops is one of the prerogatives 
 exerci?ed, at present, by the Holy 8ce ; but you make no al- 
 lowance for dilTerence of discipline adapted to diversity of cir- 
 cumstances. We freely admit that recourse was not then had 
 from the remote parts of tlie Cliurcii, — from the provinces sub- 
 ject to the patriarciis of Alexandria and Anliocii, — to the Bishop 
 of Rome for iiis confirmation of Episcopal appointments. Each 
 patriarcli exercised within iiis limits ample jurisdiction'' in all 
 tilings appertaining to the ordinary government and wants of 
 the Ciiurch. This system was adapted to the times, and had 
 the full sanction of the Holy See. Did these two great patri- 
 archates still continue in their ancient splendour, there is no 
 probability that any attempt would be made to innovate on this 
 ancient order of things : but tiie Mussulman has long since over- 
 turned the chairs of Antioch and Alexandria; and the bishop 
 of that See, which alone has been proof against all the powers 
 of hell, is urged by the solicitude for all the churches, to pro- 
 vide them with pastors in a way best suited lo their wants. 
 The mode of the appointment of bishops is one of those matters 
 of discipline which depend on positive legislation or concession, 
 and which can vary according to the wisdom of the Church. 
 
 The commencement of this sixth canon of Nice, as recited 
 in the Council of Ephesus, states that " the Roman Church 
 always had the Primacy." You take occasion, hence, to ex- 
 press your ''sorrow at being obliged to notice one of those 
 cases in which our writers have thought it expedient to make 
 authority when they could find none." It may assuage your 
 grief lo learn that the fraud is iiotciuite so certain as you fancy. 
 The authority of Quesnel, whom you seem to have taken for a 
 devoted C'atholic, is not sullicienl to convince us that this por- 
 tion or title of the canon is a forgery, and the surmises of the 
 
 * tutrix. 
 
172 NICENE CANONS. 
 
 Jansenist, on this point, must be tested by an appeal to evi- 
 dence. In the fifteenth session of the great Council of Chal- 
 cedon, held in the year 451, a canon was passed^ giving to the 
 bishop of Constantinople the second place in the hierarchy, to 
 the prejudice of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. In the 
 subsequent session, the legates complained of this enactment, 
 and read for the Fathers the special instructions which they 
 had received from Pope Leo, to maintain the order approved of 
 at Nice, and the dignity of the Apostolic See. By consent of 
 the council the subject was re-opened for discussion, and per- 
 mission given to read the documents that had reference to the 
 case. Paschasinus, one of the legates, commenced by reading 
 the sixth canon in these words : " The Church of Rome always 
 has had* the Primacy : but let Egypt observe that the bishop 
 of Alexandria should hold general power there, because such 
 is the usage of the Bishop of Rome, &c." If the assertion of 
 the Primacy of the Roman Church, publicly made in the council 
 by the legate, were unfounded, — if it was an addition to the ori- 
 ginal canon, surely the attempt would have met with instant 
 exposure and vehement reprobation. But, perhaps, it was sub- 
 sequently added to the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, with 
 a view to sustain the Primacy. Why did not the bold inter- 
 polator add it rather to the collection of Nicene canons ? Be- 
 sides, the Primacy was fully acknowledged in the council by 
 the judges, even whilst they persevered in the measure against 
 which the legates had contended. " We consider,*' say they, 
 " that the Primacy of all, and that the chief honour, according 
 to the canons, should be preserved to the most beloved of God, 
 Archbishop of ancient Rome."t There was, then, no need of 
 foisting the passage into the text of the sixth canon; and the 
 reference made by the judges to the canons is proof that their 
 authority had been alleged. The legates entered their protest 
 against the privileges granted to the bishop of Constantinople, 
 
 * i^i hahuit. Bishop Hopkins puts hahcat. Is this a different read- 
 ing, or an attempt to make it appear that the Primacy was, at most, only 
 by concession of the council? Act. 16, Cone. Chalc. Col, 637. 
 
 t Ibidem, Col. 641. 
 
OBSOLETE CANONS. 173 
 
 until the Holy See should take such measures as might seem 
 necessary. 
 
 I do not wisli to dwell furliier on the authenticity of this 
 passage, as the proofs of the Primacy are otherwise unques- 
 tionable and abundant. It is enough to have shown that there 
 is strong ground to believe it to be authentic, and that there is 
 no shadow of reason for supposing it to have been added to the 
 text, from any wish or design to "make authority." As the 
 right of appeal, of which you speak in your note, on the autho- 
 rity of Quesnel, will probably occur in our progress, I shall 
 not notice, at present, the rash assertion of that writer, whose 
 opposition to the Apostolic See is easily intelligible, when we 
 recollect that one hundred and one Jansenistical propositions, 
 extracted from his works, were condemned by that authority 
 which lie insidiously laboured to undermine. 
 
 Let me now ask you, if the riglits and privileges of the Bishop 
 of Rome were to be determined by the words of the Nicene 
 canon, as it now reads, without that prefatory remark, would 
 it be possible to ascertain what they are ? If you were one of 
 a numerous assembly anxious to put a barrier against Roman 
 encroachments, would you content yourself with words so 
 vague and indefinite ? How then can you preteni^that such 
 was the view with which they were adopted ? You ask: " why 
 the Fathers did not put in some clause saving the rights and 
 privileges of the Apostolic See?" I answer that they did in 
 the terms recorded at Chalcedon. But, waiving this proof, I 
 maintain that, having specified no limits to its power, and left 
 wholly untouched its prerof^atives, they showed sufficiently 
 that its rights fiowed from a higher source than Ecclesiastical 
 legislation. 
 
 Your efforts to prove that whiUl wc claim infallible autho- 
 rity for the Nicene decrees, we do not ob^^erve them, will not 
 make much impression on those who understand the wide dif- 
 ference that exists between auihenlic declarations of revealed 
 truth, and laws appertaining to order and discipline. You hold, 
 I presume, as an oracle of the Holy Ghost, the decree of the 
 Apostolic Council, declaring the exemption of converted Gen- 
 
174 NICENE CANONS. 
 
 tiles from the Mosaic observances; and yet, notM'ithstanding 
 the prohibition of eating blood which accompanied it, you 
 would scarcely scruple to violate the letter of the enactment. 
 
 The canon prescribing the holding of provincial councils 
 twice in each year, though a wise and salutary enactment for 
 that period, is no longer in force ; and our present discipline 
 limits the obligation to triennial councils. The severity of 
 public penance has vanished with the decay of Christian fer- 
 vour; but the Chief Bishop of the Church still exercises that 
 indulgence which the twelfth canon leaves to the discretion of 
 bishops in favour of the penitent. The discipline of not bend- 
 ing the knees on the Lord's day, and on the day of Pentecost, 
 is retained in regard to certain prayers performed at other 
 times on bended knees ; though the more solemn acts of hom- 
 age are now performed in that most humble posture. How 
 you could seriously bring such things forward to disprove the 
 infallibility of the Church, or the Primacy of the Pontiff, is to 
 me surprising, especially as you know and feel the difference 
 between doctrine and legislation. 
 
 You refer to the seventh canon, which confirms the ancient 
 custom of giving special honour to the bishop of Jerusalem, 
 without pipjudice to the rights of the metropolitan ; and you 
 observe : " Here, as in the other canon {the sixth), we see the 
 council referring to custom and ancient tradition, desirous to 
 prevent encroachment, and altogether silent with respect to 
 Rome." There was no occasion for reference to Rome in 
 legislating on the relation between an Eastern bishop and his 
 metropolitan. You could, with much greater plausibility, have 
 expressed surprise at the silence observed with regard to the 
 patriarch of Antioch, to whom the metropolitan bishop of 
 Caesarea, and the bishop of Jerusalem, were more immediately 
 subject. The omission of all reference to the Roman bishop, 
 is only remarkable whenever the general interests of religion, 
 specially committed to his guardianship, are at stake : but on 
 such occasions you find him a prominent character, preceding 
 all his colleagues in the measures for maintaining truth and or- 
 der, or adding to their decrees the weight of his high authority. 
 
LETTER XIV. 
 
 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 You assert " that the Fathers of tlie age in wliicli the Coun- 
 cil of Nice was held, did not attribute any infallibility to it," 
 and, in proof of your assertion, you extract several passages 
 from the works of the celebrated champion of its faith, Athana- 
 sius. " He defends," you say, " the council by Scripture and tra- 
 dition, but never assumes the ground that its decisions were of 
 equal force with Scripture, and dictated by the Holy Spirit." 
 As there is some ambiguity in tliese last piirases, I should pre- 
 fer saying, — that its decisions were made under the guidance, and 
 willi tiie special assistance, of the Holy Spirit, 'i'o defend the 
 doctrines defined in a council by Scripture and tradition, is 
 quite conformable to our principles and practice, because we 
 claim for llie Churcli no right to invent doctrines, but to de- 
 liver them as they came down from the commencement. Wlieii 
 labouring to convince those who reject tlie Council of Trent, 
 and refuse assent to the proofs of its authority, we also are ac- 
 customed to show from Scripture and tradition the several doc- 
 trines which have been revealed ; nor do we urge solely, or 
 principally, the argument derived from Church authority. In 
 impugning the autliority of councils, 1 am surprised that you 
 should venture to appeal to a work of Athanasius, in which he 
 most expressly maintains the authority of the Nicene Council, 
 since in the very first passage which you have quoted, it is slated 
 that its adversaries were " condemned by all," and that their mur- 
 murs against its decrees resembled tiiosi; of the unbelieving Jews 
 Somewhat further on he says : " How is it possible, that they 
 
176 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 should not be regarded as impious, if they even entertain the 
 thought of contradicting so great and so (Ecumenical a Council ? 
 Are they not to be esteemed as outlaws, if they blush not ma- 
 lignantly to assail those decrees justly passed against the Arian 
 heresy ?"" The truth of the dogma which the Fathers defined 
 is powerfully sustained by Athanasius, by numerous testimo- 
 nies of Scripture which prove the divinity of Christ; and the 
 adoption of the term " consubstantial," as expressive of this 
 dogma, is vindicated, because, although new, and not found in 
 the Scripture, the adoption of this term was rendered necessary 
 by the artifices of the Arians, who contrived to conceal their 
 heresy under other forms of speech more strictly scriptural. 
 " Therefore," says Athanasius, " the synod, having well weigh- 
 ed the matter, justly declared him to be consubstantial, with a 
 view to overtiirow the malice of the heretics, and to show that 
 he was difi'erent from creatures : and immediately after the 
 decree, subjoined : ' The Holy Catholic Church anathematizes 
 such as say that the Son of God came into existence, or was 
 created, or is cliangeable, or is any created work, or came forth 
 from a difi'erent substance.' "t T know not what stronger evi- 
 dence need be given, that the Fathers conceived themselves to 
 be the organ of the Catholic Church ; infallible in expounding 
 the Scripture and defining the doctrines of revelation, and that 
 Athanasius sustained them in asserting that infallible authority. 
 "In these words," he continues, " ^ that he is from the Father ,'' 
 and '' tJiat heis consubstantiar the Fathers wished peremptorily 
 to eliminate the subtleties, that the Son was created, or made, or 
 was changeable, or did not exist before he was born in the flesh. 
 For whosoever entertains such sentiments, contradicts the sy- 
 nod : on the contrary, whosoever does not coincide in senti- 
 ment with Arius, ought necessarily know and think as the sy- 
 
 * *' Qui igitur fieri potest, ut non scelerati habendi siiit, si tanto et 
 tarn OEcunienico Concilio vel contradicere cogitent ? aut non pro legi- 
 rupis existlinandi, si malignis oculis non vereantur a decretis illis rite 
 contra Arianicani lia^resim factis obtrectarc !" S. Athanas. do. Syn. Nic. 
 p. 355. Edit. Basil, an. 15G4. 
 
 t Ibidem, p. 3G7. 
 
NICENK SYMBOL. 177 
 
 nod."* Ashe proceeds, he establislies that the doctrine whicli 
 ihe council professed was that of the Fathers and iUuslrious 
 writers of llie preceding ages; and lie lljus addresses the Ari- 
 ans, with holy indignation, as modern Jews and disciples of 
 Caiphas : *' All detest you, except the devil, the author of 
 your revolt from Christ. He originally insinuated this impiety 
 into your hearts, and now moves you to censure the council of 
 the worldjt for no other reason than because in that council, 
 doctrines were not sanctioned favourable to your error, but 
 those which were delivered from the commencement by those 
 who themselves were eye witnesses, and ministers of the 
 Word. For the faith which is sanctioned by the writings and 
 decrees of the synod, is that of the whole Church." In this 
 style of defence is seen the most perfect harmony with our 
 doctrine and our practice, so that you could not have brought 
 forward a witness less likely to sustain you in the imaginary 
 *' contrast" you have laboured to establish. Why you stated, 
 so emphatically, from Athanasius, that the Fathers were con- 
 strained to express in clearer words the divine dogma, I can- 
 not conceive, except it were your intention to convey the idea, 
 that the words contain an argument against the infallibility of 
 the council, which, certainly, they do not. You are careful 
 to remind us, that the followers of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and 
 not the Church historian of Ca?sarea, are spoken of by the saint, 
 when he inveighs against the Eusebians ; but sulVer me also to 
 remind you, that Eusebius of C^sarea is specially stated by 
 him to have rashly erred, and conibatted the true doctrine, to 
 which he afterwards gave a tardy and unwilling assent. :|: 
 
 In a letter concerning the councils which the Arians propos- 
 ed to hold at Kimini and Selcucia, Athanasius rejects the pro- 
 ject, because the Council of Nice had already determined the 
 controversy which it was their design to re-open ; and on the 
 authority of divine Scripture, and the constant faith of the 
 
 * P. :i4i7. Atli. (Je Syn. Nic. 
 
 f " Nunc vobis aullior est ut orbis Icrrarum concilium vituperetii." 
 P. 373. 
 \ S. Athanas. de isyn. Nic. p. 335. 
 
178 ST ATIIAXASIUS. 
 
 Church, liad anathematized witli an irrevocable decree, the 
 heresy of Ariiis.* " When treating of faith" he observes, *' they 
 did not write: ' i7 appears to us:'' but, '■the Catholic Church 
 believes in this way^^ and immediately the confession of faith 
 was added, that they might show that it was not a new opinion, 
 but Apostolic doctrine ; and that what they wrote was not 
 their invention, but the teaching of the Aposdes. Now what 
 just cause have they {the Avians) for holding their synods ? If 
 any new heresy has arisen subsequent to that of Arius, let 
 them state what are the tenets, and who are the authors of the 
 sect ; but in the mean time, let them anathematize, in their 
 writings, all heresies prior to their council, and amongst the 
 rest, even the Arian sect, as the Fathers of Nice did ; so that 
 they may seem to have some plausible reason for their pro- 
 ceedings. But if such be not the case, and they can allege 
 nothing of the kind, but speak rather because they are infect- 
 ed with the Arian heresy, and having been condemned, change 
 their form daily ; what use, I pray, is there in councils, since 
 the Council of Nice is sufficient to prostrate the Arian and 
 other heresies, which it condemned in conformity with sound 
 faith ?t .... In vain, therefore, they run to and fro, pretending 
 that they are asking for councils on account of the faith, since 
 the Divine Scripture is more powerful than all. "J If you can 
 infer, from this passage, that this illustrious doctor did not be- 
 lieve in the infallible authority of the Council of Nice, your 
 powers of reasoning are of a different nature from those which 
 have fallen to my lot. He objects to any re-opening of the 
 cause on which that council had pronounced judgment, and 
 maintains that a preliminary measure to any new synod must 
 necessarily be, the pronouncing of anathema against the heresy 
 which it anathematized. In adding, that the Scripture is more 
 powerful than all, he speaks of it as expounded by the unerring 
 
 * Ea causa fuit cur universus orbis in concilium coiret, ut haeresis 
 quae suppullulaverat, anathemate perculeretur : quod et factum est. S. 
 Athanas. de Synod. Arimini et Seleuciae, p. 477. 
 
 f Quum Niccenum Concilium adversus Arianam coeterasque hsereses 
 satis valeat, quas per sanam fidem condemnavit." Ibid. X Ibid. 
 
NICENE COUNCIL. 17U 
 
 aulliority of iliat cMumcil,' ami opposes it to the nianv discord- 
 aiU convenlicles wliicli the Arians held: *' I supjjo.scd," says 
 lie, writing to Epictcliis, bishop of Corinth, *' that the garrulity 
 of all heretics that ever existed, was silenced by the Council of 
 Nice: for the faith which there was delivered by tlie Fathers, 
 in accordance with the ISacred ^>criplures, and whieh was con- 
 firmed by their confessions, appeared to me well calculated and 
 sulliciently powerful to overthrow all impiety, and to establish 
 that piety and faith which are in Christ. For this reason, in the 
 different councils which were celebrated throughout Gaul, and 
 Spain, and at Rome, all who were in that assembly unanimous- 
 ly, and UNDER TliK IMPULSE OF THE ONE SPIRIT,t SlfUclv with 
 
 anathema tliose who shun liie light, who even at present con- 
 tinue to conceal themselves, and cherish the opinions of Arius, 
 namely, Auxentius of Mdan, Ursacius, Valens and Gains 
 of Pannonia, because these usurped for their conventicles the 
 names of synods, whereas no synod should be regarded in the 
 Catholic Church except that of Nice alone,| which should be 
 considered as the trophy of all heresies, and especially of that 
 of Arius : nor is this wonderful, since this synod was assem- 
 bled for the condemnation of that heresy particularly. "NVilh 
 what audacity, then, do liiey institute disputes and questions, 
 after the authority of so great a council ?§" Athanasius main- 
 tains, that there can be no synod in the Catholic Church but 
 that of Nice, — none, tiiat does not harmonize with it in faith, 
 as those of Gaul, Spain and Home, which issued anathemas 
 against its adversaries, being impelled by the same Spirit. lie 
 says elsewhere, that *♦ it is not lawful to seek any thing beyond 
 the definition of the Nicene Council. "i| " If they believed pro- 
 
 • *' Verbum antom illud Domini per CEcumcnicam Nicece Synoduni 
 in Kternum mane." Ad Kpiscopos in Africa, p. 520. 
 
 t Unius SpirituH incilalu." Ad Kpict. p. 73. 
 
 t " Quuri) nulla sit in Catlmlica Ikclcsia Synodus cxisliinanda prn'- 
 icr unicain Nico'natn, (\iiw. oinniiiin liuTcscon proflifjataruni, ac in j>ri- 
 niis AriantP trnphnMini lialx-nda est." Ibidem. 
 
 § ** Q'la i^ritiir nudacia fit, ut post lanli concilii autoritatfin, discrp- 
 tationcs aut qun'stioncH inntituant r" — Ad Kpictctuni, pp. 7'A, 71. 
 
 II " Ncfa.s rst quicqiiain ultra Nica;num Concilium rcquirer« ." — Ad 
 Antiocli. r. '■7. 
 
180 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 perly, they would be contented with the Nicene faith, promul- 
 gated by a council of the entire world."* Yet you say, that he 
 or the other Fathers of his age, did not attribute any infallibility 
 to it, and did not regard its decrees of faith as made under the 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit ! 
 
 You conclude your chapter with an imaginary contrast be- 
 tween our doctrine and that of Athanasius. Allow me to show 
 its harmony. He maintains, that the Nicene Council's ex- 
 position of Scripture, and its declaration of Apostolic tradi- 
 tion, and of the faith of the Catholic Church, must be embra- 
 ced ; that its judgment must not be re-examined ; — that its ana- 
 themas must be repeated by all the children of faith ; — that 
 the very terms which it consecrates to express divine doc- 
 trines must be adopted, even though they be not found in 
 Scripture. All this we hold. We claim for an QEcumenical 
 Council this authority in matters of faith, and no more : and 
 we exhort you, as Athanasius exhorted those whom he ad- 
 dressed, to admit the same authority, and to admire tlie zeal of 
 every council, truly (Ecumenical, in the maintenance of divine 
 truth, and its diligence in unfolding the ancient tenets. t You 
 have some illustrious examples in your own communion. 
 The celebrated defender of the Nicene faith. Bishop Bull of 
 the English establishment, applied to the Council of Nice the 
 promise of Christ to be with the apostolic ministry till the 
 consummation of the world, and ascribed to its decisions all 
 the weight which we are called upon to recognise in them : 
 "If," says he, "in a question of so vast importance as this, 
 we can imagine that all tlie governors of the Church could fall 
 into error so prodigiously, and deceive the people under them, 
 how shall we be able to vindicate the veracity of our blessed 
 Lord, promising to be with his Apostles, and in them with their 
 successors to the end of the world ? A promise whicli could 
 not be true, seeing the Apostles were not to live so long, unless 
 their successors be here comprehended in the persons of the 
 
 * Contra Arianos oral. 1. p. 109. 
 
 t See end of letter de Syn. NicKn. p. 37G. £d. Bas. 
 
ANGLICAN DIVINES. 181 
 
 Aposiles themselves :* — Saywell, anollier tiivine of the Cliuroli 
 of England, is still more explicit : '* We know well," says this 
 writer, *' that the Apostle foretold that heresies must come — 
 ' men will arise speaking perverse things.' 'I'hat may happen 
 in many councils : but nothing of the kind can be said of 
 councils truly Ecumenical, received and approved of by the 
 Catholic Church. Nor is there any ground for objecting 
 Scripture, and the tradition of the Church, to the tradition of an 
 (Ecumenical Council, generally received and approved of, for 
 they teach the same, and harmoniously announce the Evangeli- 
 cal faiih : nor is the testimony of the pastors spread throughout 
 the world difl'erent from that which they give when gathered 
 together in councils tiiat are truly free. The same truth is 
 contained in traililion, and is contained in (Ecumenical (Coun- 
 cils. — If the meaning cf the Scripture and faith of tlie Church 
 is matter of controversy, the pastors, being enlightened for this 
 purpose by the illustration of the divine Spirit, bear testimony 
 to the doctrine which has been transmitted, and to its true 
 meaning."! 
 
 To return from this digression, naturally suggested by the 
 defence of the Xicene faith, for which Bishop liuU obtained sucli 
 deserved celebrity, it is certain that Athanasius was still more 
 unequivocal in his maintenance of the authority of the council. 
 His regard for the prerogatives of the Holy See will be seen 
 from his own statements of the efforts made against him at 
 Rome. He relates that a synod, which had assembled at 
 Alexandria, consisting of the bishops of Egypt, Thebais, 
 Lybia, and Pentapolis, addressed a letter to all the bishops of 
 the Catholic Church, to repel the calumnies with which he 
 was loaded. Towards the end of it tliey observe that the 
 Eusebians excited the Arians, though anathematized by the 
 whole (Jhurch, and that they were incessant in their efforts to 
 disseminate the heresy by every artifice. ♦• Tiiey cast the 
 Church into schism ; they write in commendation of the 
 
 • See Life of I)r John Uull, p. 2^0. Ed. Oxiord, \SUk 
 t Saywell in prcef. ad Edit. Epist. Launoii, Canlabrigin^, an. 1089. 
 Q 
 
182 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 heresy, ami vituperate the Church, as you may discover from 
 their letter to the Bishop of the Romans, and perhaps to your- 
 selves."* Athanasius, who copies this letter into his Second 
 Apology, subjoins: — "The Egyptians, indeed, wrote thus to 
 all, and to the Roman Bishop Julius. Moreover, even the 
 Eusebians sent letters to Julius, and, in order to frighten us, 
 called for a synod, and referred the judgment of the causet to 
 Julius himself, should he be pleased to undertake it. "When, 
 therefore, we had reached Rome, Julius immediately wrote to 
 the Eusebians, by two of his priests, Elpidius and Philoxenus : 
 but they, when they had heard of our presence at Rome, were 
 greatly troubled, because, contrary to their expectation, I had 
 gone to Rome.t Having declined, therefore, to undertake the 
 journey, they devised sundry idle and vain pretences to excuse 
 themselves, whilst, in reality, they wexe kept back by great 
 fear, lest they should be convicted of the same crimes which 
 Valens and Ursacius had confessed. § Afterwards the priest, 
 Viton, brought more than fifty bishops to the council, where 
 our defence was admitted, and we were judged worthy of the 
 communion, and agape, !| and great indignation was felt against 
 the Eusebians, to whom they requested Julius to reply, as he 
 had received letters from them. Julius accordingly wrote, and 
 sent the letter by Count Gabianus." 
 
 You pause, after this quotation, to direct our attention to 
 some points which you conceive to be inconsistent with the 
 doctrine of the Primacy. The use of the Latin term ^' jusse- 
 
 * Apol. 2, p. 389. 
 
 t " Synodum jusserunt convocari, et ipsi Julio, si vellet, arbitrium 
 causae detulerunt." The sequel will sustain the translation. 
 
 X " Quod contra spem eorum me Roniam contulissem." 
 
 § These heretical bishops had acknowledged their unjust persecution 
 of Athanasius, and sought from Julius reconciliation with the Church. 
 They say tliat they embrace the communion of Athanasius, encouraged 
 by the pardon which the Pope had vouchsafed to grant them for their 
 past unjust hostility : '' maxime quia tua in Deum pietas veniam, 
 secundum genuinam suam probitatem, nostro errori impertiri dignata 
 est." See the document recorded by Athanasius. Apol. 2, p. 413. 
 
 II The friendly ban(]uet of Christian community and charity. 
 
RKFERENCE TO JILIL'S. 183 
 
 rimt,'' Nviiii'li you have iranslalcd " ordered," alVords the oc- 
 casion of your lirst remark, and the term ♦' arbitrium," ren- 
 dered by you *' arbitration," is llie subject also of observation. 
 " The Eusebians," you say, as giving the meaning of the text 
 of Athanasius, " sent letters to Julius, and in order to frighten 
 us, ordered a council to he called, and referred the arbitration 
 of the case to Julius himself if he was willing.''^ I shall not 
 trouble the reader with any literary disquisition on the force 
 of these terms, but refer him to the note ;* and merely rest on 
 tlie facts as attested by Athanasius, and by the early Church 
 historians, Theodore!, Socrates, and Sozomen. It is manifest 
 that the F^use'jians could give no order to Julius, who certainly 
 was not subject to their authority, and that they did not even 
 seriour^ly wish the council to be held. The facts are these: 
 Athanasius, in the year 33.5, whilst Conslunline was still alive, 
 had been condemned and deposed by a council in Tyre, at 
 which Flacillus, patriarch of Antioch, presided. Constantine 
 l)anished him, under the influence of the Eusebians, but towards 
 his death he relented, and his sons, after his demise, in com- 
 pliance with his wishes, permitted Athanasius to return. — 
 The Eusebians, mortified at his restoration, made every eftbrt 
 for his ruin, sent legates to Constance and Constans, and wrote 
 against him to Julius, the Roman Pontiflf. Without awaiting any 
 act of the emperors or PontifT, they held a council at Antioch 
 in 341, and regarding the restoration of Athanasius as irregu- 
 lar, chose Gregory of Cappadocia, an Arian, to be bishop of 
 Alexandria, and sent him with the prefect Philagrius, and a 
 military escort, to take possession of the Sec. They had pre- 
 viously sent Martirius and Ilesychius, two deacons, as depu- 
 ties to Rome, who meeting there the deputies of Athana- 
 sius, and failing to sustain the cliarges, found themselves un- 
 
 ' "JuRserunt," somctimcH means "ordered," hut it admits great 
 latitude of signification: ** Dionysium veUm salvere jubeas ;" says 
 Cicero : which may be translated : •* Please present my compliments to 
 Dionysius." .■irlntriuvi , sometimes means supreme power : " Arl)ilriuni 
 urbis Romulus habot :' — Odd. '' Koinuhis has the government of lh<- 
 city.'" In the text, il means ^^ judgment." 
 
184 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 der the necessity of calling for a trial,* in order not utterly to 
 abandon their cause. Julius accordingly called a council, in 
 order to have a full investigation. In the mean time Athana- 
 sius arrived at Rome, having fled from the violence of the in- 
 truder Gregory and his partisans. The Pontiff sent legates to 
 summon his accusers, and determined to institute inquiry into 
 the crimes which they, or their partisans, had committed, and 
 to punish them accordingly.t 'i'hey detained the messen- 
 gers, and in the end wrote an offensive letter, in which, how- 
 ever, they admitted " the pre-eminence of the Roman Church 
 as avowed by all, as having been from the commencement the 
 school of the Apostles and the metropolis of piety, "J but they 
 complained of the intended re-opening of the cause of Athana- 
 sius in a new council. Notwithstanding their opposition, Ju- 
 lius proceeded to examine the cause of Athanasius in a coun- 
 cil consisting of fifty prelates. The acts of the Council of 
 Tyre, and of the committee of bishops who were appointed to 
 examine the facts at Mareotis, where they were said to have 
 occurred, were submitted, and judged to be irregular and un- 
 just: and Athanasius was acquitted by the unanimous judg- 
 ment of the Pope and his colleagues. They requested Julius 
 to communicate by letter the result of their investigation, which 
 he accordingly did in the admirable letter which has been pre- 
 served by Athanasius, and which unites mild persuasion with 
 authoritative judgment. 
 
 Without cavilling on words, the complaint made by the Euse- 
 bians in their letter of the re-opening of the cause in a new 
 council, shows that they had not ordered, or seriously asked 
 
 * " Concilium indici postularunt, litterasque et ad Eusebianos, et 
 Athanasium Alexandriam, quibus convocarentur mitti, ut coram omni- 
 bus justo judicio de causa cognosci posset : turn enim se de Athanasio 
 probaturos esse, quod jam nequirent. — Epist. Julii, p. 391. 
 
 t " Certe fratres nostri Romae anno superiori infensi prioribus eorum 
 factis,quum nondum scelera ista accesserant, pro ultione sumenda con- 
 cilium indici, celebrariquevoluerunt."—S.Athanas. ad Orthodox. P. 338. 
 
 t <>«/>6/v ^tiv yiip 7ra.7i (^iKoToixidLV tvv pa/udieev ejtKA«(7/stK iv Toi{ ypot/u.- 
 f/.a.!riY, Ufxcxoycvv, &>? i7ro<^oKa)V (ppcvri^nptov, kxi »u(TiQti{i.i (JLnipovroKiy 
 *? ^?X^^ yfyivvufAivuv. Sozomen. 1. 3. Hist. Eccl. c. viii. 
 
Jl'DGMENT OF JLLll .-. 185 
 
 lor a council, and that ihe demand made by llieir deputies was 
 the last subterfuge, when they liad failed to substanliale iheir 
 charges in the less solemn discussion with the deputies of Atha- 
 nasius.* It is for this reason tliat they expressed themselves 
 as willing to abide by the judgment of Julius, if lie should 
 please to undertake the investigation. They hoped that he 
 would not ; and when their olfer was accepted, those who had 
 sent them shrunk from the trial, and sought by every frivolous 
 pretence to excuse their default. No order then was given by 
 them for the holding of the council, and no order was given by 
 the council to Julius. It was tiis decision ; for to him the 
 cause had been referred, and consequently those whom he iiad 
 voluntarily associated with him in its cognizance, to give it a 
 character of greater equity and solemnity, could not give him 
 any command as to the procedure which he should adopt. 
 They might counsel and suggest, but they could not order. It 
 is spoken of as Jns judgment by ilie council subsequently held 
 at Sardica. You say, that the Arians " referred the cause to 
 the arbitrement of Julius, if he was willing," and offered to 
 make him " arbitrator." I pity the cause whose advocate is 
 obliged to avail himself of the ambiguity of a term or phrase. 
 It is expressly called a judgment by the council just referred 
 to, and it has all the qualities that constitute a real exercise of 
 judicial authority. Complaints had been lodged with Juliu* 
 against Athanasius, as with a judge and superior; and tlie ex- 
 ercise of his authority had been called for, before the alleged 
 proposal for an arbittation : afterwards, the cause proceeded 
 entirely against the will of the party in whose name the inves- 
 tigation had been demanded. This is manifestly the exercise 
 of a supreme and independent judicial power, not derived from 
 the voluntary act of the parties conrcrned. You assert that 
 Julius claims in his letter no superior rights, and pronounces 
 no official judgment. I beg you to observe, that he claims, 
 distinctly, the right of summoning all the parlies to his tri- 
 
 " Id cniin eoruin Icgati, quuni so vinci aiumadvcrlerent, i>ottuIa- 
 rnnt." — Athanas. a<l vitain sol. agento*. p. 440. 
 
186 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 buiial. At the head of the accusers was Fiacillus, patriarch of 
 Antiocli: — the accused Athanasius was the patriarch of Al- 
 exandria, the highest dignitary after the Roman Bishop; and 
 yet all were embraced within the jurisdiction of the Pontiff. 
 As a proof of the innocence of Athanasius, Julius alleges 
 that he freely presented himself in Rome, and a year and a- 
 half awaited the arrival of his accusers. He adds, that " by 
 his presence, he put them all to shame, for he would not have 
 presented himself for trial, were he not confident of his in- 
 nocence, nor would he have spontaneously appeared, but call- 
 ed to trial by our letters, as we summoned you in writing."* 
 After this, can you doubt that the judgment was official, and 
 proceeded from a recognised tribunal? The details of the 
 proceedings, as given in that letter, are such as constitute a 
 trial. The accusations had been communicated in letters writ- 
 ten by Eusebius and his adherents against Athanasius ; the 
 crimes were stated for which he had been condemned at Tyre, 
 on the report made by a committee of bishops which sat at 
 Mareotis ; the records of that trial were presented by Marty- 
 rius and Hesychius on the part of the accusers ; the leading 
 accusers were absent by default; Athanasius was heard in his 
 defence ; a number of witnesses were examined, and the 
 sentence of acquittal was pronounced on the double ground of 
 irregularity in the proceedings, and falsehood in the accusa- 
 tions. At Mareotis the liberty of defence had been denied to 
 Athanasius, and he and his witnesses had been excluded, 
 whilst his accuser alone was heard : " This we know," says 
 the Pontiff, " not merely from his statement, but from the re- 
 cords of the acts brought by Martyrius and Hesychius ; for on 
 reading them, we found that Ischyras his accuser was present, 
 but that Macarius and Athanasius were not present, and that 
 the priests of Athanasius were not admitted, though they ear- 
 nestly demanded it. Dearly beloved, if indeed that trial were 
 
 * " Suaque prajsentia pudefecit omnec : non enim judicio stetisset, 
 nisi sui fiduciam habuisset, neque sponte, sed litteris nostris ad judicium 
 vocatus comparuisset, quemadmodum vos per litteras citavimus." — Julii, 
 Ep. apud. Athanas. Ap.2, p. 396. 
 
JUDICIAL FORMS. 187 
 
 carried on \viili siiiccriiy, it was necessary llial not only ihe 
 accuser but the accused should be present."* You see, that 
 llie Pope had some idea of the regular forms of trial. He felt, 
 likewise, that in virtue of his ofllce, he could annul this irregu- 
 lar sentence, as he could, if Athanasius had been guilty, liave 
 condemned him. The merits of the case had been canvassed, 
 no less than the mode of proceeding. It was proved from the 
 very records of the former trial, that the chief accuser, Ischy- 
 ras, was convicted of perjury by his own witnesses. " Since, 
 then," says Julius, ♦' these things were brought forward, and 
 so many witnesses appeared in behalf of Athanasius, and he 
 made so just a defence — what was it becoming us to do? — Was 
 it not our duty to proceed according to the hZcclesiastical ca- 
 non ? Sliould we not therefore abstain from condemninsT the 
 man, and rather admit, and regard him as a bishop, as in truth 
 he is ?"t He complains severely of their proceedings whilst 
 the cause was pending before his tribunal — the Eusebians hav- 
 ing violently intruded Gregory into the See of Alexandria 
 without awaiting the decision : " For in the first place," con- 
 tinues the Pontiff, *' to speak candidly, it was not right that, 
 when we had issued letters for the celebration of a synod, any 
 one should anticipate the judgment of the synod." — lie also 
 intimates tiiat the Eusebians themselves would have been put 
 on trial, had they appeared ; and states distinctly, that accusa- 
 tions had been formally presented against them, and accuses 
 them of contumacy for neglecting to appear to stand their trial. J 
 I believe these extracts will satisfy most readers, that, at that 
 (;arly period of the Church, the Hishoj) of Home exercised real 
 jurisdiction in the most important causes, in whatever part of the 
 world the parties resided, or whatever rank they occupied in 
 
 • " Oportcbat auteni, dileclissinii, siquidem sincerilcr illud judicium 
 agcbatur,non »(»luin accusatorem, sed ct reuin pra'sentcm sisti." — I'. 31>1. 
 
 t ** An non quod Ecclesiaalici canonis est? hotnincinquc proinde non 
 condemnaremuB, sed potius rccipcreinua ?" — P. 305. 
 
 I " Alacrius a vobia el sine rccusalionc occurrendum fuit, nc qui 
 iiactenus infamia istorum sccleruni laborant, contumacia non conipa- 
 rendi in judicio, hbcllos contra sc dales, vidcantur rcfcllcre non potu- 
 isse. " — Ibid 
 
188 ST ATIIAXASIUS. 
 
 the hierarchy. You acknowledge that the close of the letter 
 indicates some advancement towards the Primacy ; but had you 
 read the letter wiihout undue bias, you would have found the 
 exercise of that high authority marked in almost every line. 
 Julius, indeed, complains that the Ecclesiastical canon has been 
 violated ; but he speaks plainly, as the authoritative guardian 
 of the canons. To him, as such, and as the divinely constituted 
 ruler of the whole Church, not only Athanasius and Marcellus, 
 " but also many other bishops from Thrace, Caelosyria, Phoe- 
 nicia, Palestine,"* came complaining of the wrongs which 
 they had endured, and which had been inflicted on their re- 
 spective churches. The plea that the Eusebians offered for filling 
 the Sees of Athanasius and Marcellus, could not be put forward 
 to palliate the violence by which these were driven away from 
 their Sees. — "Suppose," says Julius, "that Athanasius and 
 Marcellus, as you write, were removed from their Sees ; — what 
 can you say of the others, who, as I have said, have come 
 hither from various places, both priests and bishops ? — for they 
 also affirm that they have been driven away, and that they have 
 suffered similar outrages. O! beloved. Ecclesiastical trials are 
 no longer conducted in conformity with the Gospel, but with a 
 view to exile or death. If, as you say, they were absolutely 
 guilty, the trial should have been carried on according to the 
 canon, and not in that way. You should have first written to 
 us all, that so what is just might be decreed by all. For they 
 who suffered these things were bishops, and not of an ordinary 
 Church, but of one which the Apostles themselves had by their 
 labour instructed in the faith. Why then have you neglected 
 to write to us any thing, especially concerning the city of Alex- 
 andria ? do you not know that it is the custom to write first to 
 us, that what is just may be hence determined? Wherefore, 
 if suspicion of that kind had fallen on the bishop tiiere, it should 
 have been reported to our Church. Now, after having done 
 as they pleased, without informing us at all, they wish us to 
 approve of their sentence of condemnation, in which we had 
 
 * P. 397. 
 
ORDER OF rUOCEEDlNG. 189 
 
 no share. Such are nol llie ordinances of Paul — sucli is not 
 the teacliing of tlie Fathers — but lliis is arrogance and innova- 
 tion. I beseech you, liear me willingly : 1 write for the gene- 
 ral advantage. I intimate to you wliat we have learned from 
 the blessed Apostle Peter; nor would I write things which I 
 am persuaded you know already, had not the transactions filled 
 us with affliction." — 
 
 All this does not convince you tliat Julius exercised the pre- 
 rogatives of Chief IJishop. You observe, " here we see plainly 
 a claim set up for the Church of Rome, to be first informed of 
 what is amiss, that justice may be done:" but you add, that he 
 contemj)lales the action of a council ; — but of what council ? Is 
 it not of such of his colleagues as he might gather around him, 
 to aid him to form a just and equitable judgment ? Socrates, the 
 Greek historian, explaining this claim, says, that "the Eccle- 
 siastical canon forbids the churches to take any measures with- 
 out the sanction of the Roman IJishop.* *' This giving in- 
 formation to the Church of Rome is," you say, " put on the 
 score of custom, and not one word is to be found that looks like 
 a claim by divine right." Custom is, indeed, alleged; the 
 canons of the Church are likewise referred to ; but that custom 
 and those canons were conformable to the ordinances of l*aul, 
 and to the teaching of Peter, as the holy Pontill' is careful to 
 observe. *' There is here," you say, " no jiersonal authority 
 for Julius himself." It was to Julius liimself, " ./; Jio 2/;5i," 
 the reference was made : the sanction of the Roman Bishop, ac- 
 cording to Socrates, was required. Wjien, then, Julius speaks 
 in the plural number, he modestly unites with himself his col- 
 leagues whom he was wont to associate with him in judgment. 
 
 Tiie splendid evidence of the Primacy, aflbrded by these 
 documents, is no wise affected by the sequel of the history of 
 Athanasius. You say that the Council of Rome and the letter 
 of Julius *♦ produced no result," because the Council of Sardica 
 was subsequently summoned by the emperors, Constantius and 
 
 " m inxxwy/ar/jiK na'rsrtc «iAH/'e»T6c, /uji Jtlr ^$1^^ -^rae/uny t« it/*'. 
 Kiirn pw/xifc Kxtoti^tit Tctc imnKtivUt. — Socrates, 1. 1. Eccl. HiBt. c. 17. 
 
190 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 Coiistans, on the same case. But the circumstances must be 
 taken into consideration. Gregory, the intruded Arian, was in 
 actual possession of the See of Alexandria : the Eusebian fac- 
 tion were powerful at the court of Constantius, and used every 
 effort to prevent the execution of the decree of Julius. To 
 give it effect, it was necessary that the civil power should 
 concur, and that concurrence could not be hoped for, unless 
 Constantius were undeceived. It was with this view that 
 Julius urged the Catholic emperor Constans to prevail on 
 Constantius, his Arian brother, to hold a council of the Eastern 
 and Western bishops, that the facts of the case might be placed 
 in a true light, and Athanasius put in possession of his See. 
 Sozomen assures us of it,* and Socrates tells us that the Euse- 
 bians ascribed to Julius the holding of the Sardican Council.t 
 Athanasius tells us, "that it was summoned lest those who 
 had been wrongfully treated should suffer further injury, or the 
 aggressors should continue to inflict outrages. "± 
 
 In enumerating the bishops who assembled in this council, 
 you begin by Spain, although the inscription of the council 
 is : " The Sacred Synod through the grace of God assembled 
 at Sardica from Rome, Spain, Gaul," &c.§ As you pass from 
 the beginning to the end, observing, however, that mention was 
 made by the Fathers " of the fruitless effort of Julius and his 
 brethren in the Council of Rome" to terminate the troubles, it 
 may be allowed me to give the precise words that have reference 
 to it. The Fathers observe that the accusers of Athanasius, 
 though present at Sardica, " did not dare appear in the council 
 of the holy bishops : from which circumstance the justice of 
 the judgment of our brother and fellow bishop Julius most 
 clearly appeared, who passed sentence not with rashness, but 
 
 * Sozomen, 1. iii. Hist, c x. 
 
 i Socrates, 1. ii. Hist. c. xx. 
 
 t Athan. ad Solit. Vitam Agentes, p. 442. 
 
 § Col. Cone. Hard. Tom. T. Col 65G. This would scarcely be worth 
 notice, did it not seem designedly done, as elsewhere the order observed 
 by Eusebius, " Rome and Alexandria," is reversed. These are trifles, 
 but look badly. 
 
COUNCIL OF SARDICA. 191 
 
 after malme clclibcraiion." Here you peri'eive ilial ihe sen- 
 lencc is wholly allribuled to him, so that hence you may solve 
 for yourself those dilKcullies which you have found in expres- 
 sions that seem more directly to refer to the council in whicli 
 he presided. In tiie letter of the Fathers of tSardica, to the 
 Eg)'plian and African bishops, they mention the accusations 
 preferred to Julius, Bishop of the Roman Church, against 
 Athanasius, — liie letters written to him by bishops of various 
 places in his defence, — tlie summons issued to the Eusebians to 
 appear, and their shrinkiuo- Irom the trial: whence they infer 
 their guilt, — " because being summoned by our beloved fellow 
 minister Julius, they did not present themselves for trial."* 
 It is towards the end of this second letter that the j)assage is 
 found which you have quoted as the conclusion of the pre- 
 ceding one. Your inferences from these documents are totally 
 incorrect. The innocence of Athanasius was fully established 
 by the judgment of Julius ; but the violence of his enemies 
 was not subdued, and the intruder, who was sustained by the 
 civil power, was not ejected. Hence the Fathers of this 
 council, in their tirst letter, implore the emperors not to suffer 
 the public olFicers to pass sentence on clergymen, or to molest 
 the brethren, but to leave every one at liberty to follow the 
 Catholic and Apostolic faith, without being subject to the 
 violence of persecution, 'i'hey make known to him, likewise, 
 that Gregory, the intruder into the See of Alexandria, is de- 
 posed. These things may explain how matters were settled 
 at Sardica, if, indeed, the sentence of this venerable assembly 
 had put an end to the sufferings of Athanasius, but his own 
 writings give us melancholy proofs that heretical outrages 
 were not even then repressed. The mention of Osius, in the 
 first place, and then of Julius, by his priests, as subscribing the 
 letters, on which you lay some stress, is not satisfactory evidence 
 that Osius was not the chief legale of the Pontill*. Athanasius 
 has not given us the actual subscriptions, but the names of 
 those who subscribed, so that we do not know the peculiar 
 
 * *' Judicio non steterunt." 
 
192 ST ATHANASIUS. 
 
 title which Osius assumed : but we do know, from all the 
 records of all councils, that the dignity of each See, rather than 
 individual merit, determined the place of each bishop in the 
 council, and the order of signatures. Tiie inscription of the 
 first letter states that the synod was gathered from Rome, 
 Spain, and Gaul, which is no small indication that the first 
 signers of the decrees were the representatives of Rome. The 
 great importance justly ascribed, by Catholics and by Arians, 
 to Osius, for his piety and zeal, could never make him, as bishop 
 of a petty diocess in Spain, rank, in an assembly of bishops, 
 above the other bishops of the Catholic world. 
 
 You have neglected to observe that the Fathers of this coun- 
 cil bore the most splendid testimony to the privileges of the 
 Primacy. Osius proposed, " If any bishop be condemned in 
 any cause, and thinks that his cause is good, and that a trial 
 should again take place, if it meet your approbation, let us 
 honour the memory of the holy Apostle Peter, and let those 
 who investigated the case write to the Roman Bishop, and if 
 he 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. Is this the will of all ? The synod answered. It 
 is our will."* Gaudentius, a bishop, then proposed an amend- 
 ment, that should an appeal be lodged to Rome, no bishop should 
 be ordained in place of the deposed prelate: which was agreed 
 to. These canons were adopted by the council, and report was 
 made of the whole proceedings to Julius, the actual Bishop of 
 Rome, in a synodical letter, in which tiie Fathers say: "This 
 will seem to be excellent and most suitable, if the priests of 
 the Lord report to the head, that is, to the See of the Apostle 
 Peter, from the several provinces."! 
 
 * Sardic. Cone. Can. iv. Tom. I. Cone. Hard. Col. C40. 
 
 t " Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si 
 ad caput, id est, ad Petri Apostoli sedem, de singulis quibusque provinciis 
 Domini referant Sacerdotes." Ep. Synod. Sardic. Apud. Hard. Col. 
 Cone. Tom. I. Col. C53. 
 
DISHOl' OF THE CATHOLIC ( liriU II. IW 
 
 This council was lu kl a lew years nfler llial of Nice, Osius 
 being present at both. Koine is recognised by the Fathers as 
 the See of Peter, and the mode of proceeding in Ecclesiastical 
 causes is regulated with a marked deference to its Bishop. It 
 is acknowledged to be the head, and Julius is requested to ad- 
 monish by his letters all bishops not to communicate with 
 those whom the council had condemned. I leave you to reflect 
 whether your cause is served by reference to this venerable 
 assembly. 
 
 The ** few other little matters" which you notice in connex- 
 ion with Athanasius, might have been passed over without any 
 detriment to your cause. The term "Pope" applied by Con- 
 stantine to Athanasius, was given in ancient times to bishops 
 in general, as being *' Fathers" of the faithful ; but '• Pope of 
 the Universal Church" was an appellation given exclusively 
 to the Bishop of Rome, as early, at least, as tiie Council of 
 Chalcedon. We do not rely on an ambiguous term for the 
 Primacy, which we believe to have been divinely conferred on 
 Peter. Custom, so arbitrary in the use of titles, has, for many 
 ages, appropriated the term to the Father of Bishops ; but au- 
 thorities and facts prove that he has thereby gained no ac- 
 cession of prerogative. 
 
 The title of " bishop of the Catholic Church of Alexandria," 
 given somewhere to Athanasius, is perfectly correct, but long 
 before, in the days of Cornelius and Cyprian, the Bisliop of 
 Rome was styled " Bishop of the Catholic Church."* It was 
 unnecessary to qualify it by the mention of the particular Church 
 of Rome, for thou<rh also truly styled Bishop of Rome, he, pos- 
 sessed authority tliroughout the whole Catholic (yhurch. 'i'he 
 same style is still retained in all the solemn acts of the Church, 
 and the addition of the term " Roman," in popular use, neither 
 limits nor changes the power of the Chief Bishop, or the eha- 
 
 * Cornt'lium Kpiscopun) yanctiHsiiiui- CaUiohcJL- Ecclcsia', Ep. 10, 
 inter Cypr. p. 107. Tom. III. Ed. Wirceb. The penitent schisinatics 
 were obliged to acknowledge Cornelius by this title, whicli, I btliive,iii 
 nowhere in antiquity applied to any one but th«' Roman liishops. All 
 other bishops rccoive it with the qnalifyin<; (lo«i«rnati<'ii of their >'••■. 
 R 
 
194 ST ATHANASItS. 
 
 racier of the Churcli. Alhanasius was a Roman Catholic in 
 the same sense as any bishop in communion with the Apostolic 
 See at this day. High as was his station in the Church of God, 
 pure as was his faith, ardent his zeal, unblemished his virtue, 
 he did not refuse to stand at the tribunal of the successor of 
 Peter, and await with humility his sentence. In this he had 
 the example of those who had preceded him in the See of Alex- 
 andria, amongst whom he mentions Dionysius, who being ac- 
 cused to the Roman Pontiff of the same name, wrote to him to 
 repel the charge, and satisfy him as to his orthodoxy.* 
 
 You " find the terms in which Liberius and Rome are spoken 
 of rather inconsistent with our doctrine." I find them perfectly 
 consistent, and I thank you for directing attention to them. 
 Speaking of the Arian persecutors, Athanasius says : " In the 
 lirst place, they have not even spared Liberius, the Roman 
 Bishop, being restrained by no consideration either of its being 
 an Apostolic See, or of Rome being the metropolis of the Ro- 
 man dominion ; or that they themselves had styled him ' Apos- 
 tolic' in their writings, but confounding all things together, 
 they were equally forgetful of all, having no regard for any- 
 thing but impiety alone." Allow me to continue the quota- 
 tion : "For when he [Constantius) saw that Liberius was or- 
 thodox, and detested the Arian sect, and was eager to reclaim 
 all from that heresy, impious men thought within themselves : 
 If we succeed in gaining Liberius to our opinion, wo shall 
 shortly overcome all : they, therefore, propose the matter to 
 the emperor; and he, hoping through Liberius to be able to gain 
 all, sends to him a eunuch, of the name of Eusebius, with a 
 letter and gifts, to allure him with the gifts and threaten him 
 in the letter. The eunuch then having set out for Rome, first 
 
 * llomam ascenderunt, ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nomi- 
 nis Romanum pra^sulcm accusavei'unt." De Sent. Dionys. Alex. p. 
 345. Also de Syn. JNic. p. 371. Bishop Bull makes mention of "the 
 Roman synod held under their bishop Dionysius, in the cause of Dio- 
 nysius of Alexandria, who was accused by some of the Church of Penta- 
 polis, of denying the consubstantiality of the Son of God." — Discourse 
 IV. p. 189, vol. 2. Oxford Edit. 181G. 
 
LIBERIUS. 1(J5 
 
 uracil Lihcrius lo subscribe agiiinst Albanasius, and comrnuni- 
 cale wiili ihe Ariaiis, because ibe emperor desired it and rom- 
 inaiuled il absolutely; then, poinlins^ lo ibe gifts, be continued 
 to persuade bim, and taking Liberius by ibe hand, addressed 
 him : Obey the king, and lake lliese gifts. 'J'lie Hisbop, in re- 
 ply, asked bini how could ibis be done against Albanasius .' 
 how shall we condemn (said he) a man whom not one, but two 
 synods, entirely acquitted of all guilt, and whom the Roman 
 Church dismissed in peace ? who would approve of our con- 
 duct, were we lo condemn in his absence a man whom we 
 treated with aflTection when present, and with whom we held 
 communion ? 'I'his is not the Ecclesiastical canon : nor the tradi- 
 tion which we received from our Fathers, and which they de- 
 rived from the blessed and great Apostle I'eter."'^^ I willingly 
 leave to the reader to judge whether the incidental mention of 
 the greatness of the seat of empire which Constantius should 
 have respected, can detract from the testimony here borne to 
 il as being an Apostolic See, preserving the tradition of the 
 great Apostle Peter, and whose prelate was, on that account, 
 styled *' Apostolic," the gaining of whom was considered, by 
 the enemies of faith, the conquest of all. Tho terms in which 
 Osius is spoken of cannot refer to anything but great personal 
 merit connected with the conspicuous part he had acted, and the 
 high functions committed lo him ; for as bishop of Cordova, he 
 could not l)e of great influence or rank: whilst those applied 
 to Liberius, plainly regard his ollice as successor of Peter in 
 the Apostolic See of Rome. How anxious the enemies of the 
 Primacy are lo find a rival, or a superior to the Roman Bishop ! 
 You say, that "perhaps you ought not to close the extracts 
 from Aibanasius, without taking notice of the forgeries which 
 have been palmed upon the world for some centuries under hi^ 
 name." Vow ought not to have wasted your valuable timt 
 with any document confessedly false, nor should you have in- 
 sinuated that such forgeries were at any time thought necessary 
 to sustain the rights of the Holy See. Candour would liave 
 
 * Alhan. ad Vitatn Solil. agcntcs, p. 4.'>1 
 
196 ST ATIIANASIUS. 
 
 avowed that in documents of undoubted authenticity, express- 
 ions and passages are found which probably tlie contriver of 
 that literary fraud had before him. The title of "Apostolic," 
 which he uses, is, at least, as ancient as Tertulliau — " Pope of 
 the Universal Church" can be found at Chalcedon — " root and 
 mother of churches" in Cyprian — "the head" in the synodical 
 letter of the Fathers of Sardica. The letter of Pope Agatho, 
 which was read and received with acclamation in the sixth 
 council, as the voice of Peter, contains as strong language in 
 regard to the providence that has watched over the Apostolic 
 See, and seems to have been borrowed or imitated by the 
 pseudo-Athanasius. Allow me to submit an extract from it. 
 " For this is the rule of true faith which the Apostolic Church 
 of Christ, this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire 
 (the Pontif}' writes to Constantine Pogonatus) warmly held, and 
 defended, both in prosperity and in adversity, which Church, 
 through the grace of Almighty God, is shown to have strayed 
 at no lime from the path of Apostolic tradition, and never suc- 
 cumbed, perverted by the novelties of heretics ; but as from the 
 commencement of Christian faith it received from its founders, 
 the princes of the Apostles of Christ, so it incormptibly re- 
 mains to the end, according to the promise of our Lord and 
 Saviour himself, which he declared to the Prince of his Apos- 
 tles, as in the Gospel, saying: ' Peter, Peter, lo ! Satan hath 
 sought to sift you as one sifteth wheat : but 1 have prayed for 
 thee, that thy faith may not fail : and thou being once convert- 
 ed, confirm thy brethren.' Let, then, your serene clemency 
 consider that the Lord and Saviour of all, whose gift faith is, 
 and who promised that the faith of Peter should not fail, charg- 
 ed him to confirm his brethren : and it is notorious to all that 
 the Apostolic high priests, my predecessors, have always done 
 so intrepidly."* Having solemn and authentic documents of 
 this kind, which attest not merely the claims of the Pontifi', 
 but the conviction of a General Council, composed especially 
 of oriental bishops, you may conceive that we easily dispense 
 
 ' Cone. Constant., iii. Act. iv. c. 1081. Col. Hard. Tom. III. 
 
FORGERY. Jy? 
 
 with any aid lo be tlerived from a work falsely ascribed lo 
 Alhanasius, or any olher individual Fallier. Your reference lo 
 such a work exposes you to the suspicion of seeking lo dimi- 
 nish the lustre of the evidence which dazzles and overwhelms 
 you, by insinuating that forgery was a necessary means for 
 sustaining our tenets. Hut forgery is not our besetting sin. A 
 divine of the establishment, the celebrated antitiuary, Dr Whi- 
 taker has made a humiliating acknowledgment on this subject: 
 " Forgery — I blush for the honour of Protestantism while I 
 write it — seems lo have been peculiar to the Reformed — I look 
 in vain for one of these accursed outrages of imposition amongst 
 the disciples of Popery."* 
 
 * See his words, quoted in tile Dubhii Review, No. 2, p. 540. 
 
LETTER XV. 
 
 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 St Cyril, who was bishop of Jerusalem about the middle 
 of the fourth century, follows in your list of authorities. " The 
 Lord," says he, " is merciful and prompt to pardon, but slow 
 to avenge. Let no one, therefore, despair of his salvation. 
 Peter, the highest and the prince of the Apostles, denied the 
 Lord thrice in the presence of a vile handmaid, but being 
 touched with compunction he wept bitterly."* I am surprised 
 that you translate the Greek terms as if a mere " foreman" or 
 *' leading preacher" were designated, and venture to assert 
 that they do not warrant the Latin translation of the learned 
 Touttee. It is painful to trouble the general reader with dis- 
 cussions of verbal criticism ; but as you have endeavoured to 
 destroy the force of these terms, it is proper to state distinctly 
 that the former signifies, according to the use of the classical 
 authors, and the explanations of lexicographers, "the highest," 
 "the most eminent," "the first in power," "the greatest in 
 dignity."! The second term designates " the foremost in bat- 
 tle," and in a secondary sense, " a prince" or "leader."^ It 
 is now easy to judge whether you, or 'i suttee, represent the 
 author's meaning with greater exactness. As the same terms 
 occur in the second passage, with some slight variation, the 
 
 - S. Cyril, Hieros. c. 11, § 19. Ed. Paris, A. D. 1720, p. 31. Edit. 
 
 Oxon. p 32. Uirpof KOpufxtoratroc itcti TrpceToarxTyK Tiuv aTToa-roKMy . 
 t Herod, vi. 23, " the very highest, the most eminent." 
 t Sec Jones's Greek and English Lexicon, Danimii Lexicon Home- 
 
 ricum, Hiderici, Schrevelii Lexic. Herod. 
 
peti:k, I'UIM k ov Tni: apostles. 11)U 
 
 same observnlions may be applied to lliem. " IVier, the prince 
 of the Apostles, ami tiie supreme herald of the Church."' 'J'lie 
 term "preacher," but feebly expresses the idea conveyed bv 
 the Greek word, which signifies raliier the auiiiorilaiivc pro- 
 clairaer of sovereijrn mandates, the chief organ of the Church. 
 The use of the adjective in the positive det^ree in Greek, does 
 not at all prove, as you allege, amplification on the j)art of the 
 translator, because its meaning, in its simplest form, is — " placed 
 on the top ;" the substantive, itself, signifying " head," or " sum- 
 mit;" and it is in the other passage ai)plied to Peter in the super- 
 lative. I must refer you to the'aiithors and to the dictionaries, 
 as also to Milies, the IVoleslant editor of the Oxford edition of 
 the works of this saint, who gives the sam(} Lalin translation 
 of these words as 'I'oullee.t 
 
 It may gratify some readers to know on what occasion these 
 appellations were given to St Peter. It is in reference to the 
 confession of the divinity of Clirist, which he made when the 
 Apostles were questioned whom they believed him to be: "All 
 of them remaining silent," says St Cyril, " for the doctrine 
 was beyond the reach of man, Peter, the prince of the Apos- 
 tles, AND the supreme HERALD OF THE Church, nol following 
 his own invention?, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but 
 enlightened in his mind by the Talher, says to him: 'Thou 
 art Christ,' not simply this, but ' tiie Son of the living God.' " 
 It is easy to perceive that no allusion is made to his preaching, 
 but to his ollice as prince of tlie Apostles, and the cliiof organ 
 of the failii of liie Ciniicli ; so that your commentary, — " the 
 preacher who look the lead, inasmucii as he preached the first 
 sermon to the Jews," is surely inadmissible. 
 
 Your third extract from St Cyril is found in the fourteentli 
 discourse. The saint is engaged in proving the resurrection of 
 the Saviour, and thus aj)peal3 to the witnesses of tlie fact: 
 
 «ji>w^. 8 Cyril Hior. p IM) Edit. Tar. p. i:U). KcJit. Oxon. ("at xi 
 
 § 1 
 
 t " relrurt pnncrpn ApoHtoloruni fxcrilcnlissimus," ia the translation 
 of Milies in the Oxford edition 
 
200 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 " Peter, and John, and Thomas, and all the other Apostles.— 
 Peter testifies it, who before, indeed, denied him, but having 
 thrice confessed him, was ordered to feed his spiritual sheep." 
 These passages precede thai which you have quoted, in which 
 the saint exhorts the faithful, when disputing with the Jews, to 
 show the excellence of the glory of the Saviour, by the greater 
 privileges granted to tlie Apostles above Moses and the pro- 
 phets : " Be not ashamed of thy Apostles," he says to each 
 Christian, " they are not inferior to Moses, nor second to the 
 prophets, but they are as good as the good, and better than the 
 good : for Elias was taken up into heaven ; but Peter has the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven, since lie heard : ' whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' 
 Elias was taken up only to heaven ; Paul to heaven and to 
 paradise." The sequel offers nothing to diminish the force of 
 his assertion, that Peter was more privileged than Elias, 
 though the prophet was snatched up in a fiery chariot; for the 
 Apostle received the power of the keys of the kingdom of hea- 
 ven — a sublimer gift — a more divine privilege. To him was 
 given the commission to feed the spiritual sheep of Christ. 
 — You say : " it is evident that, on the whole, the saint ex- 
 presses himself more fully and warmly in favour of the privi- 
 leges of Paul." Let us not trifle about the length of sentences, 
 or the beauty of expressions. lie makes no comparison be- 
 tween the Apostles : but he ascribes to Peter special power and 
 authority, which he does not ascribe to l^aul, though he speaks 
 of his raptures, his preaching, and his martyrdom. 
 
 Your fourtii quotation takes us back to the sixth discourse, 
 in which St Cyril relates the overthrow of Simon the Magi- 
 cian, effected by the prayers of Peter and Paul ; to render 
 which credible, he refers to the power of the keys which Peter 
 had received, and the rapture with which Paul had been favour- 
 ed : "Let it not" says he, "appear wonderful, however won- 
 derful it be in itself; for Peter was he who carried around* the 
 
 * Trtpi^fipeev. Tliis teini expresses very strongly the habitual power 
 and its exercise. 
 
ri:TKK CAKIilKS ABOUT THK KKVS. 201 
 
 keys of heaven : nor i.s it surprising; i<ince Paul was he wlio 
 was wrapt up into the third heaven and to paradiise, and who 
 heard ineffable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter." 
 In this passage, every thing confirms the power wiiich we as- 
 cribe to I'cier. — Hut it is in the manner of introducing tlie nar- 
 rative that you find room for objection. 'J'hc saint states, that 
 as the errors of Simon Magus were being spread, " a pair of 
 good men, Peter and Paul, the prelates of the Church,"* in- 
 terposed, and checked their progress by the miraculous over- 
 throw of their author, 'i'he application of the same term •' pre- 
 lates" to both Apostles indicates, you imagine, an equality of 
 office and authority ; but the same style is observed by us iH 
 speaking and writing of these Apostles, though no one can sup- 
 pose that we thereby exclude the Primacy of Peter. Both 
 were prelates and princes of the Church ; Peter as supreme 
 ruler, Paul with Apostolic power, but subordinate to Peter, who 
 is peculiarly styled prince of the Apostles, a iille which, I be- 
 lieve, you will never find given to Paul unless in conjunction 
 with him.t 
 
 'i'he inferences whicii you draw from these passages are 
 strange indeed, and the assertions which are made to sustain 
 them are equally surj)rising. *' 'J'he strongest epithet applied 
 to Peter — that of a president of the Ciiurch — is given to St 
 Paul in connexion with liim." Allow me to reniind you of 
 these much stronger epithets, no where given to the Apostle 
 Paul : — " Peter the most eminent and the prince of the Apostles 
 
 t It is nowise strango, as Hishop Hopkins appears to think, that the 
 version should vary, whore the orijrinal terms are different, npcrrarea 
 is correctly rendered •' prtesules," as this term is determined by general 
 Ecclesiastical usage to signify "bishops" or "prelates," nol presidents, 
 OM tin- bishop rrndeiH it. MiUes presents the same variation : " EcclesitE 
 pra'fccli." Neither interprelt-r could have meant to diminish the force 
 of the term. Uftinvr^THc, having; an immediate reference to the other 
 Apostles, has l>een proprrly renden'd " prinrops," prince, chieftain, or 
 leader. It is {uiinful to obiwrvc (rri)undless charges of infidehty or cor- 
 rupt desi{jn advanced or inHiiiuatrd against int«-rpreters, by those who, 
 in their attempt to sustain lliem, lay Uiemselves open to similar imputa- 
 tions. 
 
202 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 — the supreme herald of the Church." I cannot persuade my- 
 self of what you say every one knows, that tliese terms do not 
 import jurisdiction. Never was there a more idle and perni- 
 cious abuse of words than if they were used to " signify sim- 
 ply a certain precedency among equals." Power and authority 
 were necessarily implied by them, and their signification was 
 determined and confirmed by the often repeated declaration — 
 that Peter received and carried about the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, and that he was commissioned to feed the sheep of 
 Christ. You state that " his having the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, is compared with Paul's being taken up into hea- 
 ven." I cannot discover a vestige of such a comparison. I 
 see that the possession of the keys by Peter, and the raptures of 
 Paul, are referred to with a view to prove that the Apostles of 
 Jesus Christ were more privileged than the prophets of the an- 
 cient dispensation: but this implies no comparison between 
 the power of Peter and the favours granted to Paul. The 
 comparison lies between the Apostles and the prophets. In 
 like manner the power of Peter and the raptures of Paul are 
 alleged to render credible the fact, that the artifices of Simon 
 Magus were defeated by both, and resulted in his miraculous 
 overthrow ; but no comparison is made between the Apostles 
 themselves. The author's silence as to the erection of the Ro- 
 man bishopric by Peter, is no wise surprising, since he was 
 engaged in pointing outtiie heresies regarding the Deity which 
 had been broached by Simon Magus ; and he merely digressed 
 to relate the miracle that had marked his overthrow : so that 
 this cannot have even the semblance of a negative argument, 
 since his subject did not call for a second digression. 
 
 I regret you have rendered our investigation so tedious, by 
 having recourse to reasoning of a purely negative kind, which, 
 if it do not create confusion in the mind of most readers, will 
 certainly niake the study of this subject less interesting. How- 
 ever, 1 must glance at the passages you have adduced. " Christ," 
 says St Cyril, " is a High Priest, having a priesthood that 
 passes not away,* who neither began his priesthood in time, nor 
 
 * a.7ra.fiA^(t.T0\/ . 
 
I'KTFR CAUKIKS AnOl'T THE KKVS. !>03 
 
 has a successor in his lii<fli-prit'.sihoo(l."* Wliy is he silenl 
 aboiil ihe viccgereiicy of the Pope ? — Because he is engaged in 
 instructing the Catechumens or Neophytes in llie divine func- 
 tions and character of ('hrisl. You would liave him unneces- 
 sarily digress, and speak of the organization of the hierarcliy, 
 and the powers left for the government of tlic Church. The 
 Pope, you well know, does not claim to be successor of Christ, 
 who, as he livelh for ever, lias a perpetual priesthood, and is 
 the Head over all the Church. 'I'iie vicarial powers, wi)ich 
 are exercised by his authority, are not inconsistent, as you ac- 
 knowledge, with this sublime doctrine. 
 
 The saint, in his lificcnlh discourse, deplores the schisms 
 and scandals that already existed, and speaks of the still greater 
 evils that will prevail in tlie days of antichrist: " 'i'he wars 
 among the nations terrify me ; the schisms of the churches ter- 
 rify me ; the mutual haired amongst brelliren terrifies me." 
 Why, you ask, does he not point out the cause of liie evils, 
 departure from the See of Peter ? — Because he was neither 
 treating of the causes or remedies of the evils, but strengthening 
 the catechumens against existing scandals, whilst he explained 
 to them what Christ liad predicted was to come to pass. 'I'he 
 great cause of the evils at that lime was not, however, de- 
 |)arture from the See of Peter, but obstinacy in maintaining the 
 impiety of Arius, and separating thereby Uourisliing churches 
 from the Catholic communion. 
 
 The beautiful passage from the sixteenth chapter appears to 
 you hardly reconcilable with our dogma. The saint invites 
 the catechumens to consider the boundless influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, whose graces and gills are dillused in abundance over 
 the countless multitude of the faithful throughout the whole 
 world. After the enumeration of nations, he refers to the dif- 
 ferent classes of men: " See," says he, " in each nation the 
 bishops, the priests, the deacons, the monks, the virgins, and 
 the laity, and consider this great Ruler :uul Dispenser of (Jifls, 
 
 Cat. \. § xiv. J). 1 13. Edit. Paris. § vii. Edit. Oxon. p. KU 
 
204 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 how throughout the world he gives to one indeed chastity, to 
 another perpetual virginity, to another the love of poverty, to 
 another the power of resisting adverse spirits." You look in 
 vain for the Pope, whom you expect to find every where ; but, 
 once more, you should remember that the saint is expatiating 
 on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and not on the organization or 
 powers of the hierarchy. He refers to tlie various classes, with- 
 out specifying their relations, which had no connexion with his 
 subject. Had he professed to describe the whole constitution 
 of the Church, the rank and powers of its officers, you would 
 no doubt have seen the Bishop of Rome at their head, as you 
 find him in all monuments of antiquity that present a view of 
 the hierarchy. Your comparison of the historian forgetting the 
 king, in describing a monarchy, is not exact, since Cyril was 
 not an historian, but an orator, and undertook no description of 
 the Church. 
 
 That, in speaking of the communication of the Holy Ghost 
 to the Apostles, when they were empowered to forgive sins, St 
 Cyril should have given no intimation that Peter was consti- 
 tuted their head, is no matter of surprise, since it was not on 
 that occasion the special power of governing the flock of Christ 
 was conferred on this Apostle. It was when he was charged 
 to feed the sheep, as the saint has elsewhere specified. 
 
 It was scarcely proper to introduce here the remarks of the 
 translator of St Cyril, who, as you must admit, in observing 
 that Jerusalem was the mother of all tlie churches, merely meant 
 that the divine religion of Christ was first preached and esta- 
 blished there, and did not at all call in question the right of the 
 Roman Church to be called m.other of all others, because most 
 have been brought forth to Christ by Apostolic men whom she 
 sent to preach the Gospel, and all are governed by her with 
 maternal authority and aflJection. Wliat end is attained by 
 availing one's self of an ambiguous phrase, where the author's 
 meaning is manifest? 
 
 In the seventeenth discourse, whence you cite the next testi- 
 mony you bring from St Cyril, you complain that no intima- 
 lion is given of the Primacy of Peter, yet you will find it thus 
 
CATHoi.ir cHrRcii. 205 
 
 clearly and strongly expressed: — " In ihe same power of ihe 
 Holy Ghost, Peter, also, the prince of the Apostles, and the 
 key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, cured iEneas, a palsied 
 man, in the name of Christ, at Lydda, now called Diospolis.* 
 
 You have furnished your readers with some admirable ex- 
 tracts from ihe eighteenth discourse, wherein the article of the 
 creed — " I believe in the Holy C'aiholic Church," — is heaulifully 
 expounded. " Many things," says the saint, ** might he said of 
 her, but we shall be brief. She is called Catholic, therefore, 
 because she is dill'used throughout the world, from one ex- 
 tremi-ly to the other. And because she teaches in a Catholic 
 manner, and without imperfection,! all the dogmas wliich 
 should come to the knowledge of men, concerning visible and 
 invisible things, heavenly and earlhly. And because she sub- 
 jects every class of men, the rulers as well as their subjects, 
 the learned and unlearned, directing them to piety. And be- 
 cause universally curing and healing every species of sins, 
 committed by the soul or body, she possesses in herself every 
 kind of virtue, by whatever name it may beJvnown, in works 
 and words, and sj)iritual gifts of every kind. — She is also 
 properly styled a (Church, or convocation, on account of the 
 calling and assembling of all in her. The Psalmist says : * I 
 will confess to thee in the great Church : 1 will praise thee in 
 the numerous people ! ' Before, it was sung in the Psalms : ' In 
 the churches bless ye the Lord («od from the fountains of 
 Israel :' but after the Jews fell from grace, in consequence of 
 the snares laid for the Saviour, he instituted another society, 
 formed of the Geniiles — our holy Christian Church : of which 
 he said to Peter: * On this rock I will build my Church, and 
 the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' — Of this lioly 
 Catholic Church, Paul writes to Tinu)lhy : ' that thou mayest 
 know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, 
 which is the Church of the living (.'od, the pillar and the 
 groimd of truth.' 
 
 ♦♦ But since the name of church is applied lodiircrent things, 
 
 • r. 2o:{. Edit. Ox. t JtAO-CAuarc icxi «HKAI/T«r;. 
 
 8 
 
206 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 as it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians ; 
 'And saying these things he dismissed the Church' — and witli 
 justice and truth one might say, that the church of the wicked 
 is the conventicles of heretics, to wit — Marcionites, Manicheana 
 and the rest ; therefore, now faith lias delivered to you most 
 firmly this article — and in one holy Catholic Church, that you 
 may shun the polluted conventicles of these men, and persevere 
 throughout in the holy Catholic Church, in which you were 
 regenerated. If, perchance, you travel abroad in cities, do not 
 simply ask : where is the Lord's house ? for even the various 
 sects of the impious endeavour to call their caverns the houses 
 of the Lord : nor ask simply : where is the Church? but where 
 is the Catholic Church ? for this is the proper name of the holy 
 mother of us all, which truly is the spouse of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the only begotten Son of God."* 
 
 I would compliment but little the intellect of my readers 
 were I to offer any comment on this text. You, however, 
 cannot find in it any thing like our doctrine. What unbiassed 
 man, who compares them, will hesitate to pronounce them one 
 and the same ? The Pope is there, though you cannot see him, 
 for on Peter, as on a rock, the saint declares that the Church 
 is built. Strange infatuation ! You complain of not finding, the 
 privileges of Peter, where nothing warrants you to expect 
 them, and you close your eyes on those characters of light in 
 which they are recorded ! 
 
 You add some passages from Cyril's works to show the 
 authority of Scriptures. With Cyril we venerate the oracles of 
 God. With him we say : — " we recognise salvation in Christ 
 Jesus: Was Christ incarnate to no purpose? the God- 
 man whom the Scriptures declare. Are these doctrines 
 fond inventions and sophisms of men ? Are not the divine 
 Scriptures our salvation ? are not the predictions of the pro- 
 phets ? Keep, then, this permanent deposit, and let no one 
 shake your faith : believe that God became man."t — Concern- 
 ing the Holy Spirit we likewise hold what the Scriptures teach, 
 
 * Catech. xviii. § 23, 25, 26. \ 12 Cat. p. 155. Edit. Oxon. 
 
8T THOMAS OF AQl'lV. 207 
 
 nor do we venture to search, with rash curiosity, into this 
 mystery beyond wliat he lias been pleased to reveal of liiinself. 
 This is all tliat the saint states. 
 
 You mii^Iit, Right Heverend Sir, liave cried "alas!" for 
 very dinereiit reasons than those wiiich you sul)join in your 
 affectionate appeal. Alas ! lor the prejudi(;e that is not dissi- 
 pated by the blaze of evidence presented by the sainted bishop 
 of Jerusalem ! But how could you venture to close your chap- 
 ter with an insinuation against the memory of the illustrious 
 doctor, St Thomas of Aquin ? Because, in an age when the facili- 
 ties of judging of the authenticity of works were not such as 
 we possess, a passage was quoted by him from a work, which 
 passed as genuine, you write as if it were a forgery, contrived, 
 or sanctioned, by that venerated writer. I feel for the accuser 
 of such a man. 
 
LETTER XVI. 
 
 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 From Jerusalem you transfer us to Gaul, to receive the de- 
 positions of St Hilary, bishop of Poictiers. In his treatise " On 
 the Trinity^'''' he addresses God the Father, declaring his belief 
 in the divinity of the Son, and beautifully states the grounds of 
 his faith by a reference to the authority of Moses, the Prophets, 
 the Evangelists, and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Were he in 
 error, he boldly says that his ruin should be laid to their charge. 
 Of these he speaks in those terms : " Matthew, from a publican, 
 chosen to be an Apostle ; John, through the familiarity of the 
 Lord, made worthy of a revelation of heavenly mysteries ; and 
 after his confession of the mystery, blessed Simon, lying be- 
 neath, that the Church might be built on him,* and receiving 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and all the others preach- 
 ing by the Holy Spirit; and the vessel of thy election, Paul, 
 from a persecutor made an Apostle, living in the depth of the 
 sea, a man raised to the third heaven, in paradise before martyr- 
 dom, the offering of perfect faith being accomplished in his mar- 
 tyrdom. By these I have been instructed in what I hold: with 
 these doctrines I am unalterably imbued. And forgive me, O 
 Almighty God, for adding, that in these doctrines I cannot im- 
 prove, but I am able to die in their belief."! — You maintain that 
 the words which refer to Peter, taken in connexion with the 
 
 * Edification! Ecclesiae subjacens." Bishop Hopkins has rendered 
 
 : " Lying at the foundation of the Church." 
 
 t S. Ilil. de Trin. 1. vi. Tom. VIII. n. 20. Edit. Wirceb. p. 154. 
 
PETER TIIK lOLNDATION. 209 
 
 rest, prove nothing for our doctrine ; hut I cannot discover what 
 they lose by tliat connexion. The saint, indeed, is not hihouring 
 to prove tiie prerogatives of Peter, but tlie divinity of Ilim 
 whom Peter confessed to be the ^on of the living God. Inci- 
 dentally, however, he mentions that Peter was the foundation 
 on whicii the Ciiurch was built, — for this surely is the force of 
 the words, — and lie declares that he received the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven. This proves clearly the intimate and im- 
 portant relation which Peter bears to the Churcli, and the high 
 authority which he specially exercises ; and as the building 
 must have at all times its foundation, the inference of the per- 
 manence of the power in the successors of Peter is too obvious 
 to be fairly called in question. The strength of the proof is ra- 
 ther increased by the indirect manner of the reference to the 
 powers of Peter, because it indicates that they were admitted 
 facts. 
 
 In the address of Hilary to the Apostles, you appear to your- 
 self to find a positive demonstration, that in the passage just 
 alleged no peculiar power or prerogatives were ascribed to 
 Peter. He thus aposlropliises them : " O holy and blessed 
 men, wiio llirough the merit of your faiih ol)tained the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and received the power of binding and 
 loosing in heaven and on earth, you had seen so great prodi- 
 gies, so worthy of God, performed by our Lord Jesus Christ."* 
 This does not at all demonstrate the point in question, for in 
 addressing a number of persons, one of whom possesses some 
 peculiar power, whilst others have powers of a similar character, 
 though with a certain subordination, it was most natural to use 
 language common to all without any nice distinction. It is not in 
 rhetorical apostrophes that you should expect tlie accurate distinc- 
 tions of the schools. To all the Apostles Christ gave the power 
 of binding and loosing: — to Peter, on account of the excellence 
 of his faith, lie gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. When- 
 ever this Apostle is spoken of in particular, you will find this 
 specially observed; and if at any time the power of the keys 
 
 • Hilar, dc Trin I vi Tuiu VIII p. ]iA'j. Ed. Wire p. IH. Kd. Par 
 8» 
 
210 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS. 
 
 is attributed to the otliers, it is without any derogation to the 
 eminent mode in which it belongs to him. Although we strenu- 
 ously maintain his Primacy, we are accustomed to speak of the 
 exercise of the ministry by the most lowly of the priests, as of 
 the exercise of the power of the keys. The use, then, of simi- 
 lar language does not detract from his high prerogative. 
 
 When speaking of the confession made by Peter, Hilary 
 shows that it was extolled by the Saviour, as divinely revealed, 
 because it was an acknowledgment, not merely of his being 
 the Messiah, or the adopted Son of God, but that he is his true 
 and eternal Son : " For praise," says he, " was given to Peter, 
 not merely on account of the confession of the honour (due to 
 Christ), but on account of his acknowledgment of the mystery, 
 because he confessed not merely Christ, but Christ the Son of 
 God.* The Father saying, ' This is my So7i,^ revealed to 
 Peter, that he might say, ' thou art the Son of God.' On this rock 
 of confession, therefore, the Church is built. This faith is the 
 foundation of the Church : through this faith the gates of hell are 
 powerless against her. This faith has the keys of the heavenly 
 kingdom. What this faith binds or looses on earth, is bound and 
 loosed in heaven. This faith is tlie gift of the Father's revela- 
 tion, not falsely to assert that Christ is a creature drawn forth 
 from nothing, but to confess him to be the Son of God, accord- 
 ing to his natural property. O ! impious frenzy of wretched 
 folly, that does not understand the martyr of blessed old age 
 and faith, the martyr Peter, for whom the Father was prayed, 
 that his faith might not fail in temptation — who, having twice 
 repeated the profession of the love God demanded of him, 
 siglied, on being a third time interrogated, as if his love were 
 doubtful and unceriain, thereby also meriting to hear thrice 
 from the Lord, after being purified of his weaknesses by this 
 threefold trial : ' Feed my sheep :' — who, whilst all the other 
 Apostles remained silent, understanding, in a manner beyond 
 human infirmity, from tlie revelation of the Father, that he was 
 the Son of God, merited pre-eminent glory by the confession 
 of his faith ! To what necessity of interpreting his words are 
 
 * S. Hil de Trin. 1. vi. p. 168. 
 
PETER 8 FAITH. 211 
 
 we now brought ? He confessed Christ to be the Son of God : 
 
 but you {Jlr'uin), the lyiuir priesthood of a new Apostolate, 
 urge nie to believe* that Clirisl is a creature brought forth from 
 nothing. What violence you ofler to his glorious words ! He 
 confessed tiie Son of God : for this lie is blessed. This is the 
 revelation of the Talher, tliis is the foundation of the Church, 
 this is the security for eternity. Hence, he hast the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven — hence his judgments on earth are rati- 
 fied in heaven. He learned by revelation the mystery hidden 
 from ages — he spoke the faith — he declared the nature — lie 
 confessed the Son of God. Whoever, rather acknowledging 
 him a creature, denies this, should first deny the Aposlolate of 
 Peter, his faith, blessedness, priesthood, martyrd«)m ; and then 
 let him understand that he is estranged from Christ, because 
 Peter, confessing him to be the Son, merited these things. . . . 
 Let there be a diflerent faith, if there be difl'erent keys of hea- 
 ven. Let there be a dillercnt faith, if there is to be another 
 Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Let 
 there be another faith, if tlierc will he another Apostolatc, binding 
 and loosing in heaven what it binds and looses on earth. Let 
 there be another faith, if Christ shall be preached a diflerent 
 Son of God than he is. liut if this faith only that confessed 
 Christ to be the Son of God, merited in Peter the glory of all 
 beatitudes, that which acknowledges him rather a creature from 
 nothing, must necessarily be not the Church, nor of Christ, 
 since it has not obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 and is contrary to the Apostolic faith and power.**| 
 
 I have been somewhat more difl'use than you, in my quota- 
 tions from this Father, that the reader might have a full and 
 correct view of his sciitinicnls. Yon " find our witness de- 
 
 • " Mihi ingoriH. " The correct translation is hort' given. iJishop II 
 inistakfs it for castinir nut ( hrtst. 
 
 t *' Hinc rrgni ctrlorum liabct clavca. " IJishop Hopkins's transla- 
 tion iH Burcly not a fuitliful r^'proscntation of the text: ** hence, arc the 
 keys of the kingdom ofht-aven !" Why thia? 
 
 t S. Hil. dc Trin. I. vi. p. lO'.K 
 
212 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS. 
 
 daring, that not Peter, but the faith which he confessed, was 
 the foundation of the Church." — Point to the passage wherein it 
 is said that Peter was not the foundation. It nowhere occurs. 
 The object of St Hilary is to show tliat tlie Arian heresy had 
 no part or share in the power of tlie keys, or the privileges 
 granted to Peter, because it had not the faith which obtained 
 for Peter these privileges. There is not the least effort to es- 
 tablish a distinction between Peter and the confession of faith 
 which he made : but the Arians are confounded by being told, 
 that, as they deny Christ to be the Son of the living God, they 
 have no power of the keys, and are not inheritors of the pro- 
 mises made to the Church. Peter, then, confessing the divinity 
 of Christ, is the foundation: his is the Apostolate, the acts 
 whereof are confirmed in heaven : the Church connected with 
 him is that against which the gates of hell cannot prevail : there 
 can be no other faith, no other power, no other Church. 
 
 Your translation of the passage of St Hilary, wherein he 
 speaks of the cure of the mother-in-law of Peter, and says that 
 Peter is " the prince of the Apostolate,"* appears to me inac- 
 curate, and the earnestness with which you solicit attention to 
 your remarks on the term " princeps," occasions some sur- 
 
 * S. Hilar, in Matt. c. vii. "Primus credidit, et Apostolatus est 
 princeps." Bishop Hopkins translates this passage — '' he first believed, 
 and is the beginning of the Apostolate," He maintains that "princeps" 
 may be rendered " beginning," and that *' prince" is only a secondary, 
 or rather a third meaning, its primary signification being first, original, 
 primitive. I shall not dispute with the bishop as to its primary meaning; 
 but the learned will admit that its general acceptation is a c/iie/, or ruler, 
 and it is manifest that in most of the passages of the Fathers, it cannot 
 receive any other explanation. Though " princeps mensis" means " the 
 first month," I know no passage of sacred or profane authors, where 
 "princeps" means <Ae beginning. Perhaps the bishop had principium 
 in his mind. He remarks, in a note, that a bishop is styled by Hilary 
 " princeps ecclesiae," which certainly does not mean the beginning of 
 the Church, but "a prince of the Church," a governor, a ruler. Peter 
 was " prince of the Apostolate," governing the others, that no schism 
 might arise. All bishops may be called princes of the Church, because 
 they are governors of portions of it ; but one is set over all. 
 
APOSTROPHE TO PETKR. 213 
 
 prise. I refer the reader to the note, and only remark, that if 
 there were any amhiguity in the term, the many passages in 
 the writings of this Father, in which he speaks of Peler, with 
 holy enthusiasm, should have removed all doubt from your 
 mind as to its meaning. In his commentary on tiie glorious 
 confession of this Apostle, he observes: *' The confession of 
 Peter obtained a siiiiable reward, because he saw the Son of 
 God in the man. Blessed is he, who was praised for observ- 
 ing and seeing beyond what human eyes could see; — not be- 
 holding what was of llesh and blood, but discerning the JSon of 
 God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and who was 
 judged worthy to be the first to recognise in Christ his divine 
 nature. O thou foundation of the Church, happy in the new 
 appellation which thou rcccivest ; O! rock, worthy of that 
 building which is to destroy the infernal laws, and the gates of 
 hell, and all the bars of death ! O ! happy gate-keeper of hea- 
 ven, to whose discretion the keys of t!ie eternal porch are de- 
 livered, and whose judgment on earth is a prejudged authority 
 in heaven, so that those things which are bound or loosed on 
 earth, obtain in heaven a like condition and determination."* — 
 The elTort which you make to explain away the force of this 
 passage, by referring it to the faith of Peter, as if this were 
 elsewhere distinguished by the saint from Peter confessing 
 Christ, needs no reply. Whoever does not wish to mistake 
 the meaning of the author, can easily discover it. 
 
 You quote a passage in which Hilary says: "This is to 
 be considered in regard to Peter, that he preceded tiic others 
 in faiih : for when the others were ignorant, he was the first 
 to answer: *Thou art the Son of the living (iod.' He was the 
 first to reject the idea of his sulVerint?, thinking it to be evil. \\v 
 was the first to pronjise that he would die rather than deny Him. 
 He was the first to refuse to have his feel wahhed. He also drew 
 the sword against those who came to seize on the Lord." To 
 this (quotation, you subjoin this remark : " This passage is one 
 
 • S. Mil. Comm. in Malt., c. xiv. p. 110. Wire. Kdil. p. r*7J Tar 
 Edit. 
 
214 ST HILAllY OF POICTIERS. 
 
 of many which explain what the ancients meant by Peter's 
 Primacy. But Hilary is not here engaged in explaining the 
 Primacy, or the Scriptural texts by which it is sustained. He 
 is speaking of the walking of Peter on the waters : and he cer- 
 tainly says nothing inconsistent with the Primacy, — nothing to 
 weaken the force of those passages in which he expressly treats 
 of the prerogatives of Peter. I need not trouble the reader with 
 the passage from the commentary on the 118lh Psalm, where 
 the saint takes occasion to dwell on the answer of Peter to 
 the cripple who sought alms: " Silver and gold I have not: 
 but what I have, 1 give you : in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 I say to thee, arise." You think that St Hilary should have 
 observed, that Peter, besides the power of miracles, had pleni- 
 tude of power over the Apostles. Did the occasion demand 
 any such reference ? 
 
 In the commentary on the fifty-second Psalm,* you find a 
 passage in which, speaking of the Apostles, Hilary says that 
 " they received the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The ex- 
 planation already given of a similar expression, in the sixth 
 Book on " The Trinity," will be found stricdy applicable to 
 this. He was not labouring to prove that they all had 
 equal power; but since the Psalmist complains of the general 
 corruption of men, and says, that there is none good — no, not 
 one — Hilary inquires, "how then was Abel pleasing to God, 
 Seth approved of, Isaac made heir, Enoch translated, Noe 
 preserved, Melchisedech sanctified, Abraham chosen, Jacob 
 made Israel, Job declared without blame, Moses the friend of 
 God, Aaron his anointed, David a man according to the heart 
 of God, the prophets spiritual men, and how did the Apostles 
 receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven ?"t Such a phrase 
 could be correctly understood of the Apostolic College, even 
 were that power vested in only one of them, because such ge- 
 
 * Bishop Hopkins calls it fifty-first, because it is thus numbered in 
 the Protestant Bible : but it is fifty-second in Hilary, as well as in our 
 Vulgate ; and in quotations accuracy of reference should always be ob- 
 served. 
 
 t P. 243. Edit. Wire. p. 70G. Edit. Paris. 
 
POLITY OF THE CHURCH. 216 
 
 neral phrases applied lo coninuinilies, or collections of men, are 
 sullicienily verilietl if llie jiower is lodged somewhere in the 
 body. Wc cheerfully admit that all ihe Apostles had the 
 power of the keys, inasmuch as thai jiower is idenlified with 
 the general funciions of the Christian ministry, especially the 
 authority to bind and loose: though we contend that the grant 
 of that power lo Peter individually, and by this peculiar em- 
 blem, proves the possession of it in an eminent degree, espe- 
 cially for the general government of the kingdom of Christ on 
 earth.* 
 
 The epithets " Master," or " Teacher of Nations," *' Doctor 
 of Nations," "Chosen Teacher of the Church of Christ," and 
 any others applied by St Hilary, or the other Fathers, to St 
 Paul, are given by us also to this great Apostle, without any 
 detriment to the ofticial prerogatives of Peter : nor are our proofs 
 of the Primacy dependent on words of similar import. The 
 terms which we allege in support of it, are such as denote supe- 
 riority and power, and their meaning is determined by the cir- 
 cumstances in which they are used, and by clear and unequivo- 
 cal testimonies and facts. 
 
 You ofler us, in addition, some passages, which you say 
 " exhibit clearly the polity of the (Jhurch, and tlie regard paid 
 to councils in the days of Hilary." In his letter to the Arian 
 emperor, Constantius, he complains of his banishment, occa- 
 sioned by faction and false messengers of the council, who de- 
 ceived the emperor.t Of what council ? Of the Arian synod, 
 held at Hcrry, in which Saturnine, the Arian bishop of Aries, 
 
 " Archbishop Potter acknowledges the keys to be the emblem of 
 !»upremo power : " Our blessed Lord, an the kin<j of this household, who 
 has the supreme power lo admit and exclude whoinH<K'ver he ploaselh, 
 is said to have the keys of David." He «*ndcav(>ur8 lo cxtnid this power 
 lo all bishops, though il was given especially to I'etrr. *• The supreme 
 power of the keys, thai is, the authority of admitting and excluding, be- 
 longs to Christ, the King; but the name is ex«'rris<'d by his Aposlh-s and 
 their successors, whom he has nppointrd to govern Ihr Church, as his 
 stewards or vicegerents."— On Church Guvcinmcnt, p. 300." 
 
 t ilil. 1. 'J. ad Constant. Aug. 
 
216 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS. 
 
 prevailed against Hilary, precisely because he strenuously de- 
 fended the Nicene faith.* You say he refers the emperor to 
 Scripture. Not certainly with a view to render questionable 
 the doctrine defined at Nice, which his whole life was spent in 
 sustaining. His abundant quotations from Scripture are all di- 
 rected to this end. In vain would he have urged the authority of 
 Nice to an Arian : — it was necessary to proceed at once to the 
 cause in question, and show that nothing new had been intro- 
 duced in that council, but that the ancient and divine doctrine 
 was simply propounded. Yet he does not fail to observe, that 
 those who reject that council are involved in uncertainty, and 
 are daily coining new confessions of faith : " Whilst," says 
 he, " as there is but one God, and one Lord, and one baptism, 
 so also there is but onefaith,t we depart from that faith, which 
 is the only one, and whilst many forms of faith are invented, 
 the matter is brought to tiiis, that none exists. "J He speaks 
 here as if he were one of the composers of new creeds ; but I 
 need not tell you that it is a rhetorical communication of phrase, 
 adopted to render less painful his poignant remarks. What he 
 adds of the many jarring councils of his time, is evidently di- 
 rected against the Arian conventicles, in which the power of 
 the emperor was employed to induce the Catholic bishops to 
 recede from the great symbol of Nice. Hence, in his first 
 book, he speaks with applause of the conduct of Eusebius, 
 bishop of Vercelles, who, in a council convened at Milan, 
 through Arian influence, being called on to subscribe to the 
 condemnation of Athanasius, would not suffer the measure to 
 be at all entertained, until the faith of the bishops was mani- 
 fested by their assent to the Nicene formulary, and thereby 
 broke up the assembly. § His appeal to the Scriptures in sup- 
 port of this faith, was very unlike that of modern sectarists : 
 
 * See Ilil. 1. un. adv. Constant. § 2. 
 
 j " Excedinius ab ea fide, quae sola est." Bishop Hopkins, or the 
 translator whom he follows, has mistaken the verb, and translated, " cut 
 out." 
 
 X S. Hil. ad Constant. Aug. 1. ii. n 4. Tom. IX. Ed. Wirceb. 
 
 § S. Hil. 1. i. ad Constant. § 8, p. 5. Wire. ed. 
 
SKXSE OF scRii'Trui:. 217 
 
 " Remember, however," he says, " ihal there is none o\ ihe 
 lieretics wlio does not falsely allege, that tiie blaspliLMiiics which 
 he preaclies are accordiii'; to the Scriptures. All ol" iliein speak 
 Scripture, without regardin«r the sense of Scripture, and boast 
 of faith, wiiilst they have no faitii. For tlie Scriptures do not 
 consist in the reading, but the understanding, nor are thev in 
 prevarication, but in ciiarity."* This is what immediately pre- 
 cedes tlie last passage wliich you have adduced, and wiiicii, 
 you would have your readers believe, contain a pledge on the 
 part of Hilary, to confine himself to the Scriptures alone, with 
 total disregard of the Nicene decree. You sliould have known 
 that, like Athanasius, Hilary was the chanjpion and the martyr 
 of that definition. You deduce tlie total inefllcicncy of coun- 
 cils to command acquiescence or general assent, from the dis- 
 tractions of the Church, as staled by Hilary: but ho drew a 
 very different inference from the Arian intrigues and persecu- 
 tions, which you call ♦' the distractions of tiie Church." " 'J'he 
 integrity," says he, ♦* of this faith is commended by the au- 
 thority of the Gospel, and the doctrine of the Apostles, and by 
 the vain intrigues of heretics, murmuring on every side. For 
 this foundation stands strong and immovable, against all winds, 
 rains, torrents: it is not to be blown down by storms — it can- 
 not be penetrated by rain — it cannot be washed away by floods : 
 and that must be excellent, which, assailed by many, can be 
 overthrown by none."t 
 
 May I add the observation of a learned bishop of the Fn- 
 glish establishment ? *' When Christ sj)ake first i)arlicujarlv to 
 St Peter, he sealed his speech willi a powerful promise of per- 
 petuity, saying: * Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
 build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 
 a: "I 
 
 " S. III!. 1. ii. p. 11. ad Connt. 
 
 I S. Ilil. 1. ii. lit- Trill. § 2*2, p. 45. Edit. Wirccb. 
 
 I Binhop reafHon on the Creed. Art. ijc. p. 515. 
 
LETTER XVIL 
 
 ST BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 I pass with you to St Basil, bishop of Caesarea, to whose 
 works you assign the date A.D. 370. Your first quotation is 
 from his second book against the Apologetic of Eunomius, in 
 which he observes, that the names of individuals designate the 
 distinction of their persons and qualities, but not the difference 
 of their nature. He illustrates this remark, by referring to 
 Peter, the mention of whose name immediately suggests to us 
 his distinctive qualities : " Immediately," says he, " on hear- 
 ing this word, we understand Peter the son of Jonas, of Beth- 
 saida, the brother of Andrew, who, from a fisherman, was 
 called to the function of the apostolate ; who, on account of 
 the excellence of his faith, received upon himself the edifice 
 of the Church."* This passage clearly establishes the fact, 
 that Peter is distinguished from all others, inasmuch as he was 
 made the foundation of the Church, in reward of his divinely 
 inspired confession. As his faith was eminent, so was his pri- 
 vilege peculiar. — " We see here," you say, " the oft repeated 
 fact, that Peter was the first foundation-stone in the building of 
 the Church, because he was the first to acknowledge his Re- 
 deemer." This, however, is not the reason assigned by the 
 illustrious bishop of Caesarea. He says, that " on account of 
 the excellence of his faith, he received on him the edifice of 
 
 • S. Basil, contra Apol. Eun. lib. ii. Tom. I. p. 240. Edit. Bened. 
 Paris, p. 322. Basil edit. 
 
DIPTVCHS. 219 
 
 the Church.""^ He does not distinguish him as the first foiin- 
 daiionslone ; but, with reference to the metaphor used by our 
 Lord, he says, that he received the editlce on Ijimself, as tlie 
 foundation receives the material building. You think he should 
 have said, that Peter was called to the government of the 
 apostolate, had he received superior authority; but I need not 
 tell you, that the highest ruler \\\ the Church is but the minis- 
 ter of Christ. 
 
 The extract given by you from tlie liturgy bearing the name 
 of Basil, in \vliich prayer is oflered for the bishop of Alexan- 
 ilria, and not for the Pope, oilers no evidence against the Pri- 
 macy. At Caesarea the prayer must have been rather for the 
 bishop of Anliocli, to wliose patriarchal authority it was subject. 
 But the omission of prayer for the Pope is sulliciently account- 
 ed for by the use of tlie diptychs^ or sacred tablets, on which 
 the name of the reigning PontifT was invariably inscribed, so 
 that when Acacius, tlie heretic bishop of Constantinople, to- 
 wards the close of the fifth century, presumed to cancel from 
 them the name of Felix, who then held the chair of Peter, the 
 act was regarded as the climax of impiety. Nicephorus, the 
 Church historian, speaking of it on the authority of Basil of 
 Cilicia, describes it as an act of frenzy. t The names even of 
 the deceased Popes were preserved on these tablets, as is ga- 
 thered from the letter of the Emperor Constanlinc Pogonatus 
 to Pope Domnus, in which he states the wish of the patriarch 
 of Constantinople to cancel from the diptychs the name of 
 Pope Viialian, on account of the disscntions that had arisen in 
 regard to Moiiollielism. Yet liiough the memory of Ilonorius 
 was clouded by the suspicion either of favour to the rising 
 heresy, or negligence in suppressing it, still the patriarch liim- 
 
 TQ1 im T*( irineic i/^t^oX"* ** **uror rut iiM.oio/uin¥ txc tKK\Hriaii 
 Si^Afjt%iii, Adv. Kunoiii. lib. ii. Bishop Hopkins translates it: ^^ be- 
 cause he stood be/lire others in faith." Tliis neitlier expresses the text, 
 nor the Latin ycTH\nn Jldr pnrstnbat. 
 
 \ Nin-phoruH, 1. xvi. c. 17. " Acacium usque adeo condeninationein 
 eain non reapexisse, ut niente scnsuque orani captus, primus ipsr rapti! 
 nomcn e aacro albo excmcrit." 
 
220 ST BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 self observed, that his name was retained through reverence for 
 the Apostolic throne of ancient Rome."* The emperor re- 
 sisted the attempt to cancel the name of Vitalian. In the canon 
 of the mass, according to the Latin rite, there is no more than 
 the simple mention of the name of the Pope, the priest praying 
 for the Catholic Church, " togeliier with thy servant our Pope 
 Gregory," so that this usage corresponds with that of the an- 
 cient diptychs. No argument, therefore, can be derived from 
 the omission of a special prayer for the Pope in the liturgy of 
 Basil. Neither is the prayer for the patriarcli any evidence 
 against the Primacy ; because it became the foithful specially 
 to pray for him to whom they were more immediately subject, 
 and who was watching over them, " being to render an ac- 
 count to God for their souls." The term, " Pope," applied 
 in the prayer to the patriarch, is conformable to ancient usage, 
 which gave this title indiscriminately to the highest members 
 of the hierarchy, and is, confessedly, no criterion whereby the 
 authority of the person so named is to be determined. Where 
 terms are ambiguous, or are variously used in different ages, 
 the power of the officers to whom they are applied must be 
 learned from other sources. All the learned agree that the 
 Greek terms denoting "bishop" and " priest" were at first in- 
 discriminately used ; would you admit this to be a proof of an 
 equality of power ? 
 
 The long passage which you have given from St Basil's pre- 
 face to his moral treatise, styled " On the Judgment of God,'''' 
 relates to the dissentions caused by the Anomaeans, and other 
 Arian heretics. You observe, that the original Greek signifies 
 those " who were unlike each other;" but you know that the 
 term was applied in a far different sense, to those Arians who 
 denied that the Son was like in nature to the Father. When 
 the saint speaks of such prelates as being in the Church of 
 God, he must be understood of those who did not avow the 
 
 * ^£tO-;tOVT6f OvODpiOy /UVUJUOVil/iO-B'OLl iV TO/f SlTTTV^OiC Si:t TDV Tly.HV 
 ToZ CtTTOTOKlKH •3'fOVK TJ*; 7rpi7 ^VTif^ti; Vu/LiU^. Ep. Const. Ill ActlS. D, 
 
 Cone. Tom. HI. Hard. 
 
ordi:r of the cml'rch. 221 
 
 heretical setuimcnls which ihey secretly cherished ; or he re- 
 gards the Episcopal character which they had received, and the 
 aialion which ihey occupied : whilst in reality, as he attests, 
 *' they cruelly strove to tear the Church in pieces, and ihev 
 harassed the llock violently and atrociously, so that in them, 
 doubtless, at that time the prediction of the Apostle was ac- 
 complished, this new heresy being cherished in their minds : 
 * or your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things, 
 to lead away disciples after them.' "* All the evils which 
 arose from the intrigues of the Arian bisjiops, he justly ascribes 
 to their rejection of the Omnipotent King atui (Jod, Jesus 
 Christ, and to the abandonment of his doctrine. This is the 
 sum and substance of what he says, adding: " lor I perceived 
 that in any njultitude, discipline ant! harmony are usually pre- 
 served, as long as all agree to obey the authority of one j)rince : 
 and on the contrary, dissentions and discord, and a numi)er of 
 rulers arise, when there is no one who has supreme command : 
 and this I perceived, even in a collection of bees, who, by an 
 instinct of nature, follow their king: — If order of discipline 
 and harmony are found in those who depend on the will of 
 one, and obey one king, doubtless all disturbance, and all dis- 
 cord are proofs that there is no one to govern. "t All this is 
 intelligible enough to any one acquainted with the history of 
 those times, and the actions and writings of this great doctor of 
 the Church. The faith of the Church was one : all its bishops 
 harmonized in maintaining the Nicene symbol: there was one 
 ruler in it, governing in the name of Christ. Hut there were 
 also many bishops secretly infected with Arianism, or notori- 
 ously avowing it, who were irUruded into the places of Catlio- 
 lic prelates. They dissented Irom the faith of the Nicene Fa- 
 thers, and they were at endless variance among themselves, 
 seeking to disguise, from others, and from themselves, in a 
 variety of ways, the heresy which they sustained, contrary to 
 the Divine Scriptures, as expountled and dec-lared at Nice. It 
 
 • Protpm Dc judicio Dei, p. 1M3. Edit. Col ;> r.V2 Kdit Ho-hiI 
 t Ibid. 
 
222 ST BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 was embarrassing for a youth, or even for a man of maliire age, 
 to see this division among bisliops ; but Basil traced the evil to 
 its source, and saw that it was the judgment of God on those 
 who denied the Lord who bought them. Though in the pass- 
 age in question no distinct reference is made to the council, 
 or to the Pope, yet as the dogma itself was that which the 
 council defined, and which the bishops in communion with the 
 See of Peter defended, there is an implicit reference which the 
 comparisons adduced by the saint strongly sustain. 
 
 His remarks, that he had been from his childhood instructed 
 in the Scriptures, and that in the perplexity of his mind, occa- 
 sioned by the dissentions which he witnessed, he adverted to 
 the truth which he recognised in the divine writings, are quite 
 in harmony with his known devotedness to the Nicene faith. 
 When we, at this day, appeal to the Scriptures as affording 
 manifest proofs of the Eucharistic mystery — when, amidst the 
 wanderings of the mind, or the sophisms of unbelievers, we 
 sustain ourselves by calling to our recollection the words of 
 Jesus Christ, — we surely do not speak or think in any way in- 
 consistent with our belief in the authority of the Pope, or of 
 councils. The saint had not undertaken, here, to explain by 
 what means revealed truth could be ascertained amidst the 
 conflicts of opinion, or what authority had been left by Jesus 
 Christ for the remedy of schism ; but he meant to moralize, 
 and to show how the judgments of God are provoked by that 
 species of sin which is directed immediately against himself. 
 In treating the subject, he makes, however, very intelligible 
 reference to the authority which God has placed in the Church, 
 and which all should obey. 
 
 *'It is," says Basil, " worthy of our attention, how great is 
 the indignation which the Divine Scripture manifests against 
 such as hearken not to the decree of the priest or judge. ' He 
 that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the 
 priest who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, or the 
 judge who shall be in those days, that man shall die, and thou 
 shalt take away the evil from the midst of Israel ; and all the 
 people hearing it shall fear, and they shall not afterwards do 
 
PtTER I'RKl EKKKD. 223 
 
 impiously.' From which words wo may easily Miulcrsland 
 liow solicitous wc should be, and how greatly wc should Tear. 
 ♦Bringing,' says the Apostle, 'into captivity, to the obedience 
 of Christ, every understanding,' not this or tliat one: * and hav- 
 ing in readint'ss to revenue all disobedience.' " He refers sub- 
 sequently to the punishment of Ananias, in regard of which 
 he says : ** What did Peter do, I'.ie executioner of so awful a 
 judgment, the indignant minister of the decree of God against 
 the author of the sin ? That hlkssed one, who was preferred 
 TO THE other DISCIPLES, and who alone received a testimony 
 above all the others, and was pronounced blessed, rather than 
 all the others, and to whom the keys of the heavenly king- 
 dom WERE ENTRisTED."* 'I'licsc passages, wliicli are taken 
 from the very work Iroin which you have drawn your object- 
 ion, prove that Basil acknowledged that Peter had received, 
 in a special manner, the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and 
 the previous mention of the authority of the high priest under 
 the old law, warrants the inference that he ascribed to Peter 
 ihe right of definitive judgment. You will now, perhaps, be 
 able to answer some of the questions which you iiave put to 
 us ; since you plainly see, that there is reference to the appoint- 
 ed and authoritative mode of terminating the divisions which 
 the pride of man creates, by judging of the mysteries of faith, 
 without regard to the teaching of that tribunal which Christ 
 established. Were there no such tribunal, in vain would Basil 
 have exhorted the fiitliful to be subject to the heavenly king, 
 since men would still deny his divine attributes, however clearly 
 Uiey might appear to be marked in the Sacred Writings. 
 
 The letter of St liasil to Si Alhanasius, in which he entreats 
 liim to urge the l)ishoi)s of the West to use their inlluence with 
 the emperor Valens, does not make any special reference to 
 the Bishop of Rome ; l)ut in all ecclesiastical concerns, especi- 
 
 • r. 246, Edit. Colon. " Illr in«|iiatu t)oatu9, qtii ct en lor'.H nntelatus 
 disciptibs fuil, cuiquo mnjjnifirfntiiis quani rcliqiiis t>mnibus dnttiin Irs- 
 tiinonium rst, inagLsqur quam reli(jui «)inno8 bcatus appellatus, cui clave« 
 regni coulestifl commiMS." 
 
224 ST BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 ally of the Western church, he was always included, as will 
 appear from another letter. The Arian emperor, however, was 
 not likely to be moved by his individual authority, but rather 
 by the great number of the bishops who might address him, 
 whicii the saint aptly calls, " the authority of the multitude."* 
 In a case of this kind, where the person to be addressed was 
 an alien from the faith, it would be idle to urge the individual 
 power of the Roman Bishop ; but the remonstrances and peti- 
 tions of many might prove efficacious. 
 
 When addressing Athanasius with a view to procure the ex- 
 tirpation of heresy, and the correction of scandals, by the im- 
 mediate action of the proper ecclesiastical authority, Basil dis- 
 tinctly specifies the Bishop of Rome, who, though accustomed 
 in matters of importance to act with the concurrence of his col- 
 leagues assembled in synod, radically possessed all the power 
 necessary for the wants of the churches. " It appears to me 
 proper," says he, " that a letter should be written to the Bishop 
 of Rome, that he may take into consideration what has here 
 taken place, and decree;! and since it is difficult that any per- 
 sons should be sent thence by a common and synodical decree, 
 he, himself, using his authority in this case, may choose men 
 able to support the fatigue of the journey, and also calculated, 
 by the meekness and facility of their disposition, to correct 
 those amongst us who are crooked and perverse ; tempering 
 their discourse aptly and providently, and bringing with them 
 all the documents of what has been done for the necessary re- 
 scinding of the acts of Rimini. — Some there, also, desire, and, 
 as we think, properly, that when they come they should ex- 
 press their execration of the heresy of Marcellus, as evil and 
 pernicious, and opposed to sound faith. — And when those who 
 may be sent shall arrive, with the divine blessing, let them not 
 occasion schisms in the churches ; but rather let them draw to 
 unity by every means those who entertain the same sentiments, 
 
 * Letter xlviii. p. 415. <' Qui rerum potiuntur multitudinis auto- 
 ritate permoveantur." 
 
SIGNAL FACT. 225 
 
 althoiij[Th they may meet with some who may allo^o peculiar 
 •^rounds of clisseiiiioii ; lest they separate the orthodox people 
 from their prelaii's, and divide them into many parties. For 
 care must he taken that all ihinirs must he sacrificed to peace : 
 and especially thai the churcli of Antioch be healed, lest in that 
 sincere (orthodox) church a portion, becoming weak through 
 personal attaclimenls, he cut off."* In this you cannot find a 
 sentence to warrant our doctrine, though the saint solicits the 
 exertion of the authority of the Bishop of Rome,t independently 
 of any synod — an authority sufficient, in his mind, to heal the 
 wounds of the patriarchal cliurch of Antioch. 
 
 Basil gives a signal instance of the exercise of that author- 
 ity which was admitted by an oriental svnod, thous[h the 
 Fathers were conscious that the Pope had been deceived by 
 the wiles of the heretical bishop, Eustathius, whose character 
 he depicts in dark colours. 'J'hisman having been deposed for 
 heresy and other crimes in the synod of iMelite, devised a plan 
 for recovering his station, namely, to have recourse to the 
 supreme authority of the Pontiff: *'What was proposed to him," 
 says Basil, •♦ by the most blessed bishop Liberius, and what he 
 consented to, we know not; but he brought back with him a 
 letter directing that he should be restored, and having present- 
 ed it to the synod at Tyana, he was replaced in his station. *':J^ 
 This surely was a manifest recognition of the right of the Pon- 
 tiff to rescind by his authority the judgment of the synod: 
 since it was respected, though exercised on false information. 
 
 After so many testirtionies and evidences of the authority of 
 the Holy See, I scarcely need notice your attempt to derive an 
 argument from expressions used by Basil in regard to Antioch, 
 and other churches. In exciting the zeal of Athanasius to 
 cause the Western bishops to aid in the settlement of the dis- 
 sentions of Antioch, he dwells on the great importance of that 
 See, and observrs, that ;is n sKilful physician attends, in the lirst 
 
 * Epittt. lii. ad Aliian. p 41G. 
 X Lc-ttrr 71, p. r-iir 
 
226 
 
 ST BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 instance, to the more dangerous disorders, afiecting the princi- 
 pal parts, so should the cure of Antioch be first effected, that, 
 like a sound head, it niiglit impart health to the whole body. 
 This might be said of that patriarchal See, which was the most 
 important church then labouring under the malady of schism, 
 by reason of the contentions of the friends of Eustathius and Me- 
 letius. When, however, he addresses tlie bishops of the West, 
 he uses language which can only be applied to Damasus, their 
 head, as well as the head of all the churches : ''Since, then, the 
 head cannot say to the feet I have no need of you, neither will 
 you reject us." — After the statement of the desolation of the 
 churches, he adds : "Think not that we speak thus with a 
 view to teach you, or excite your diligence, for we know that 
 you never forget us, no more than a mother forgets the chil- 
 dren of her womb. Stretch forth your hands to the churches 
 that are tossed by the storm, lest being entirely abandoned they 
 suffer shipwreck. It was fit that many *of us should hasten 
 to your Reverence, and that each one should be the reporter 
 of his own affairs and sufferings."* 
 
 WHien addressing the clergy of the church of Nicopolis, he 
 warns them, as you observe, not to indulge in strife with their 
 mother, the church of Nicopolis, and calls this church a ten- 
 der mother, — the nurse of piety; but who does not perceive 
 the propriety of these terms, and that they involve no compa- 
 rison with other churches? Each particular church is a mother 
 to the clergy and faithful witliin her limits: each church that 
 has sent forth Apostolic men to etablish other churches may be 
 styled mother in their regard: each church of higher dignity 
 is a mother of the subordinate churches ; but the Roman 
 Church is the mother of all churches, by reason of her autho- 
 rity, and of that tender solicitude which Basil has so affectingly 
 described. 
 
 You here introduce a rule of St Basil concerning the bap- 
 tism administered by heretics, with a view to prove that he 
 disregarded the authority of the Roman See. In his letter to 
 
 * Ep. Ixx. p. G70. 
 
• COUNCIL OF NICE. 227 
 
 Ampliilocliiiis he slates, that cerlaiii heretics, wljo did nut use 
 the iiivoi-aiion of l!ic Trinity, siiouUl by all means be baj)lised, 
 on coinin<^ to the Cliurch. In lliis lie is in pcrlcct liarniony 
 witli the decree of Pope Stephen, whicli regarded those wiio, 
 in baptism, invoked the Trinity. He makes reference to ilie 
 opinion of Cyprian and Firmilian, wlio rejected baptism admi- 
 nistered by heretics, even though the rite were strictly observ- 
 ed; but adds, that since it appeared riglu to many Asiatic bishops 
 that those baptized in the regular way sliould be received 
 into the Church without a new baptism, through a motive 
 of economy and dispensation, — by whicli he seems to mean 
 prudential considerations connected with the harmony of the 
 prelates, and peace of the Church, — let them be received. In 
 this, likewise, he assents to the practice which Stephen had 
 inculcated. With regard to tlie Encrutites he observes, that 
 as nothing had been clearly determined in their regard, he 
 thinks no account should be had of their baptism, for reasons 
 peculiar to this sect : but in case a contrary usage some- 
 where prevailed, he does not insist on this, to the prejudice 
 of harmony. This is the substance of the first canon, or 
 rule, as given in the translation of (Jentian Ilervelus.* In it 
 there is nolliing in direct opposition with the principle laid 
 down by Stephen, as the whole question is reduced to the case 
 of the Encrutites, on which special case no decree had emana- 
 ted, and whose mode of baptizing may not have been ascer- 
 tained with certainly. The version which yon used must have 
 given a difierent meaning. 
 
 The mode in which he speaks of the Council of Nice seems 
 to you inconsistent with the high authority which we ascribe 
 to a General Council. lie says, indeed, that those who reject 
 the term ♦' consubstantial," sanctioned by those Fathers, are 
 censurable, though some may be, in some degree, excused on 
 account of their not understanding it correctly, especially as 
 they heard it fiercely assailed. Vou a.sk : " Did Basil ihink 
 that the Nicene creed was inspired ?" — Neiih.er do we deem it 
 
 • Edit. Col. p. 5C0. 
 
228 ST BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 such, in the sense in which inspiration is strictly applied to 
 Scripture. He believed, as we do, that the dogma defined by 
 the Fathers and declared in that creed, was a revealed truth, 
 whicli they were divinely assisted to define, and to propound 
 correctly. In this consisted tiieir unerring authority. He be- 
 lieved them further empowered to express that dogma by a 
 term which they should deem best calculated to meet all the 
 cavillings of heretics, and to make its profession in that way 
 a necessary condition of Churcli communion. This exercise 
 of autiiority resulting from the governing power of the Church, 
 and from the ciiarge given her to guard the divine deposite of 
 revelation, is closely connected with her right to define, and 
 commands the respect of all her children. 'J'iiere may be cir- 
 cumstances, however, that extenuate, in some degree, the fault 
 of those who, holding the doctrine in all sincerity of heart, 
 might regret the adoption of a term which had become the sub- 
 ject of fierce disputation. This is all that the holy doctor 
 teaches. Not only did he repeat the creed of Nice, with the 
 anathema of the Catholic and Apostolic Cjjurch against those 
 who deny Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, true God of true 
 God, but he added, " according to this formulary we cling to 
 the faith of the Church :"* and he proved his faitli by his suffer- 
 ings, which he has so eloquently pourtrayed, in giving us the 
 picture of the desolation caused by Arian impiety. 
 
 In the passage wincii you have quoted from his epistle to 
 Cyriacus, you have a splendid evidence of his profound vene- 
 ration for the formulary of laith adopted by the Ni(;ene coun- 
 cil. Ho exhorts the faithful at Tarsus to " profess the faith 
 set forlli by our fathers wlio ("onnerly came together at Nice, 
 and not to reject a word of it, but to be convinced that these 
 three hundred and eighteen Fathers, who, without dissention, 
 agreed on that formulary, had so spoken not without the assist- 
 ance of the Holy Spirit. "t You understand by this, no more 
 than iIk; ordinary tiid of divine grace whereby the faith is pro- 
 fessed by any individual : because " no man can say : Lord 
 
 * Ep. Ix. Eccl. Antioch. t P. 207. rar.ed. 
 
ASSISTANCE OF TIIK IIOl.Y OIIOST. 2*29 
 
 Jesus, but by llie Holy Ghost."* liul surely, there' wns no 
 need of such solemn asseveration to prove that ihe I'aihers had 
 such aid as all receive. How vain are all the efTorls of human 
 ingenuity to evade the expressions of this illustrioiis doctor! 
 He speaks evidently of an extraordinary light from above, sucli 
 as that which authorized the first council to say: *' It hath 
 seemed good to the Holy (ihost and to us:" he speaks of that 
 special assistance which Jesus Christ promised the pastors of 
 his Church, in the person of the Apostles, when he said : •' I 
 will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete, 
 that he may abide wiih you for ever: the Spirit of truth;!" 
 ♦♦ ho will tearli you all things, and will bring to your mind all 
 things whatsoever I shall have said to you."| — When he inti- 
 mates that the explicit profession of the divinity of this Holy 
 Spirit should follow the creed, he does not suppose any error, 
 or neglect, on the part of the Nicene Fathers ; but the temerity 
 of man having, subseciuenlly to the holding of the council, as- 
 sailed the divinity of the Holy Ghost, it was proper to give 
 Him, in the most express manner, that homage which was al- 
 ready implied in the simple words of the symbol. 'J'hesc Fa- 
 thers had added nothing to its meaning, when they declared 
 i!ie consubstantiality of the Son ; for from the commencement 
 of the Church he was always believed and adored as the True 
 God, as well as Saviour : nor did the faiihfid detract from their 
 authority, when, to express their horror of a new blasphemy, 
 they proclaimed aloud, that the Holy Spirit was no creature ; 
 but the same God as the Father and the Son. 
 
 " 1 Cor. xii. 3. ( John liv. IC. \ John xiv. 2(3. 
 
LETTER XVIIL 
 
 ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 The intimate friendship that existed between St Basil and 
 St Gregory of Nazianzura, has led you to subjoin the testi- 
 nriony of the latter to that of the eloquent bishop of Caesarea. 
 Your introductory passage is from his twenty-sixth discourse, 
 in which he shows, that order is perceivable in all the works of 
 creation, and in the human body in particular; — in the Aaronic 
 priesthood and in the Church ; whence he infers that all ought 
 not to take on themselves to discuss the mysteries of faith, still 
 less should they indulge a bitter and unrestrained spirit of con- 
 tention. His remarks are pungent indeed : " If we chance," 
 says he, " to acquire triflino- fame, or not even this oftentimes, 
 but if we have got by heart two or three passages of Scripture, 
 and these in a mutilated way, and without attention to their 
 meaning — with this knowledge attained in a day, and like that 
 of the tower-builders at Chalan [Babel), where the tongues 
 were divided, we rise up senselessly in revolt against Moses, 
 and we become contumelious and impious, like Dathan and 
 Abiron, whose arrogance we should avoid, and not imitate 
 their frenzy, lest we meet with their end. Do you wish that 
 I should present you with another instance of order, one wor- 
 thy of praise, and also worthy of being mentioned and seriously 
 considered on the present occasion? Do you see that among 
 the discii)les of Christ, all of whom were sublime and worthy 
 of their election, one is called a rock, and is entrusted with the 
 foundations of tiie Church ; another is loved more, and rests 
 on the breast of Jesus ; and the others bear patiently the prefer- 
 
I'IMKR THK ROCK. 231 
 
 ence/'* The use of the lerin " chicresl," in your iiaiislalion 
 of llii;? passage, is liable lo exception, as the ori<fiiial term, and 
 its Laliti version, is in the positive degree, and siiould be ren- 
 dered *' bigl>" or sublime. t The obscurity of the phrase " re- 
 ceives in faith the foundation of the Church," is scarcely ex- 
 cusable, and still less your version given in the note — *' be- 
 lieves in the foundation of the Church," — this not being the 
 meaning of the author, as may be seen below. j The ob- 
 ject of St Gregory being to show, that there is order in all 
 things, and that even among the Apostles — all of wliom were 
 elevated in dignity and power, and were worthy of their high 
 calling — this order was established ; so that Peter was a rock, 
 and was specially entrusted with the foundation of the Church, 
 whilst John received marks of special love, and the other Apos- 
 tles witnessed and bore without jealousy the privileges and 
 preference of the favoured two, we must infer, that ]*eter was 
 specially invested with authority, as John was specially belov- 
 ed. 'J'he whole scope of the discourse warrants this conclu- 
 sion. When he asks, " where is austerity observable in the 
 mode of acting of the Apostles ? where lust of domination ?§" 
 he only shows the meekness wliich marked their exercise of 
 
 • S. Greg. Naz. 20. cd. Colon, an 1(>(>0. t C-^^Mhrnr. 
 
 Bishop lloj)kins reads tc/c ^^tjuty^iitc — but he must have mistaken the 
 contracted for the ordinary Greek. This contraction appears in the 
 Paris edition of 1G30. In that of Cologne, 1 «»:)(), there is no contrac- 
 tion. The edition of Basle, in 1550, and Sclielstrate in his Antiqui- 
 ties, have tlie same readinfr^ wliich is the only one which the con- 
 text will bear. Bishop Hopkins says, that the orirjinal term does not 
 warrant the Latin viision. With jrreal deference, I submit that it 
 docfl, for •' Ecclesia; fundamenta in fidem suam recipiat," means, " he 
 takes charge of the foundations of the Church," aa may be seen by the 
 use of the phrase in /idem recipere, in Cicero, and other classical au- 
 thors. The Greek verb, which, in the active voice, means /o belirrr, or to 
 ifire in rfuirffr, in the middle and passive voices, joined with the accusa- 
 tive, means to bt chnrfrcd or cntruslrd irith, as in 1 Cor. ix. 17, eiaero. 
 juiur ntrn-tvfjiai: "a. dispi-nHAtion is committed unto me." See Dioge- 
 nes LaiTtiuH.l. vii. c. 1. § 2'^, Tifiu^ttrc( mt tt \\tp')m./uf» lii^Kn^tixtti 
 ** brine fntrustrd tcith the rhar/rf of the library in Pergamus." 
 
232 ST GREGORY OF XAZIANZUM. 
 
 authority, and the submission with which it was embraced. In 
 speaking of " Peter, John, and James, as being before the 
 others, and being regarded as such," he does not establish an 
 equality between these three Apostles; but he mentions the 
 peculiar favour shown them, and he specifies particularly, in 
 regard to Peter, what that favour was, since ho was styled the 
 rock, and specially entrusted with founding and establishing 
 the Church. Hence, he calls him elsewliere " the strength or 
 support* of the Church" — " the most honoured of the disciples. "t 
 When St Gregory, in speaking of the virtues of his departed 
 father,! dwells on his faith, and on the glory that resulted to 
 the church of Nazianzum, from his administration, no one can 
 so far mistake his meaning, as to suppose that he is asserting 
 any prerogative for that church. You state, that he styles 
 " the church of Nazianzum a new^ Jerusalem, an ark borne on 
 the waters," and *' as much as it was inferior to others in num- 
 ber, so much did it surpass them in celebrity, resembling, in 
 this respect, Bethlehem, which, though a small city, was yet 
 the metropolis of the world." All this is true, but let the sen- 
 tence be read entire, and its meaning will be manifest. "That 
 great man of God, and truly worthy to be styled a theologian, 
 entertaining these sentiments (in regard to the Trinity), 
 and being moved by the Spirit concerning these things, what 
 else can we say, than that, as that great Noe of old, the father 
 of this new world, he caused this church to be called a new 
 Jerusalem, and an ark borne on the waters ? And this, because it 
 raanifesdy rose above the deluge of souls, and the malicious 
 attacks of heretics : and as much as it was inferior to others in 
 the number [of its children), so much did it surpass them in 
 celebrity ; resembling, in this respect, Bethlehem, which, al- 
 though a small city, was yet the metropolis of the world, being 
 the nurse and mother of Christ, who made and overcame the 
 
 * risT/joy — TO Tiff gxxx»<r/*f i/!£/o-^st. Apolog. ad Patrem. Orat. vii. p. 
 141. 
 
 t Uirpa TH ri/utet^ATH rav /ua^nTtrv. P. 157. Orat. ix. 
 
 I St Gregory, the elder, was married before his baptism, and long 
 after the birth of his son Gregory, was elevated to the priesthood. 
 
VIRTUES OF THK ELDER CREOORV. 233 
 
 world."* I deem it quite unnecessary to give any explanation 
 of this oratorical elFusion, which, as every one sees, is not di- 
 rected to set forth the authority of tlie ciiurch of Nazianzum, 
 but the eminent virtues of its deceased |)aslor. 'I'he letter of 
 the elder Gregory, to wiiich you next refer, fully confirms what 
 even this panegyric implies, that Nazianzum was a small flock 
 — a Bethlehem, whose whole glory the piety of the son attri- 
 butes to the distinguished zeal of the father. The archiepiscopal 
 dignity of the church of Ca?sarea, gave it far greater import- 
 ance in the hierarchy, and hence the election of its bishop en- 
 gaged all the solicitude of the venerable bishop of Nazianzum. 
 He wrote to the people of that church during its vacancy, and 
 recommended Basil as the fit person to be chosen for that See: 
 ** Care, indeed, must be taken," says he, " of every church, 
 as of the body of Christ, but especially of yours, which was 
 from the beginning, and now is, and is considered, the mother 
 of almost all the churches, and to which the communityt looks, 
 as a circle inscribed around a centre, not only on account of its 
 orthodoxy, proclaimed to all in times past, but also for the gift 
 of harmony granted to it manifestly by God." I have made 
 this translation literally from the original which now lies be- 
 fore me, because I find you avail yourself of the literary flour- 
 ish of the ordinary version, to make it appear that Ca^sarea was 
 regarded as the centre of the whole ('hrislian world.; No 
 doubt all Christendom felt interested that the metropolis of 
 Cappadocia should have an orthodox bishop ; but the churches 
 which were in its vicinity, and were subject to the authority 
 of that See, whicli was the mother and foundress of almost all 
 of them, fell most deeply this interest, since they were as the 
 radii issuing forth from her, as from the centre. The saint 
 never could have entertained the idea that a metropolitan 
 church, subject to the patriarchal See of Antioch, shoulil be 
 
 • S. Greg. Naz. Oral xix. p *il)7 Edit. Col. 
 
 t Tfic «» Ts «c/f:» 0KtTu, mc «i»t;» Kt/«A^ wtfiypa^iun^. £p. 22, 
 ad Cesar. P. 7ri5. Edit. Col. 
 
 ; " Ad quam tota Rospublica Christiana oculos conjicit." 
 
234 ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZU3I. 
 
 regarded as the mother of almost all churches of the universe, 
 and the centre of the whole Christian commonwealth. Basil 
 has beautifully declared which Church is the mother of all 
 churches, when addressing the Roman Church in behalf 
 of the See of Caesarea, and the other Eastern churches, he so 
 touchingly remarks, " that he is convinced she does not forget 
 them, as the mother forgets not the children of her womb." 
 
 The will of Gregory, who was afterwards transferred to the 
 church of Constantinople, begins thus: "I, Gregory, bishop 
 of the Catholic church, which is in the city of Constantinople, 
 have consecrated all my property to the Catholic church at 
 Nazianzum, for the service of the poor belonging to the said 
 church." You remark this phrase, in order to deprive us of 
 the benefit which the numerous testimonies of the Fathers bring 
 to the Catholic cause ; but, I conceive, it refutes triumphantly 
 a hackneyed objection of Protestants, that the phrase, " Roman 
 Catholic Church," is a solecism. Gregory speaks of the 
 Catholic Church in a particular city, without destroying, by 
 this limitation, or specification, its universal character as a por- 
 tion of the orthodox Church spread throughout the world. 
 With equal propriety we can speak of the Catholic Church of 
 Rome, having reference to the principal See, with which all 
 the churches communicate, without detracting any thing from 
 its universal character or authority. It is to offer violence to 
 the obvious meaning of their words, to suppose that the Fathers 
 spoke of any other Church than that which alone is orthodox, 
 and alone universal, " because," as St Cyril of Jerusalem so 
 forcibly remarks, " it teaches, without imperfection or diminu- 
 tion, all truth," and because " it is spread throughout the world." 
 This passage sufficiently refutes your observation, that the 
 Fathers — writing at the time when the world was said to be 
 leagued against Athanasius, — did not mean, by Catholic faith, 
 the faith which was then universal, but that which had been 
 universal from the beginning. Notwithstanding the persecu- 
 tion which that champion of orthodoxy endured, and the appa- 
 rent prevalence of Arianism, from the violent intrusion of Ari- 
 ans into many Sees, the faith was still Catholic, in the mean- 
 
ONE FAITH. 235 
 
 Ing of Cyril and the other Fathers, because it was in reality 
 spread tliroii<;hout tlie world, and everywhere professed and 
 taught by bishops in communion with the See of Peter. Hence, 
 somewhat later, St Auguslin confounded the Donalisls hy the 
 very fact of their sect being confined to a corner of Africa — 
 whilst llie Ciuircli of Christ, according to the divine promises, 
 is necessarily, in all ages from her first establishment, Catholic, 
 spreading the splendour of one faith from the rising to the set- 
 ting of the sun. 
 
 The distracted state of Christendom, which Gregory, in the 
 funeral j)anegyric of Hasil, so graphically describes, does not 
 imply any diversity of faith in the Ciiurch itself. 'JMirough the 
 violence of the Arian emperor, V'alens, " bishops professing 
 the orthodox faith were driven from the churches ; others were 
 intruded, professing the pestilential and destructive heresy sup- 
 ported by the emperor,"* but one faith was common to all those 
 who communicated with tlie Apostolic See of Peter, as Basil 
 himself testifies. " We have not," says he, '♦ a different faith 
 at Seleucia, a diflferent one at Constantinople, and a diflerent 
 one at Zelis, and a different one at Lampsacus, and a different 
 one at Rome ; ami that formulary which is now used, is not 
 different from the preceding, but one and the same."t The 
 calamities which afllicted the Church arose from imperial vio- 
 lence and Arian intrigue. There was no freedom, as you as- 
 sert, claimed or exercised by any of the portions of the Church, 
 to take any course different from that which the Nicene Fathers 
 had pointed out, and whicji the See of Rome laboured to main- 
 tain. Gregory, and IJasil, and all the illustrious bishops of that 
 age, spent themselves, and suffered in defence of that faith : 
 whilst false bishops yielded to the will of Caesar, or employed 
 his power to disturb llie peace, and destroy, were it possible, 
 the faith of the Church, 'i'he eloquent panegyrist aptly styles 
 their faith, ** the imperial pestilence. "+ You may now under- 
 
 • Oral. XX. p. :M7. E.lil. Col. 
 
 t S. litutW, Ep. 72, p. (171. Basil. 
 
 t rti( (iartKitii Awmkuac. P. 348. Oral. xx. S. Greg. Na«. 
 
236 ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 
 
 stand how, notwithstanding the recognition by the Catholic 
 world of the chieftancy of the Roman Bishop, and the belief of 
 the doctrine expressed in the symbol of Nice, Christendom 
 was still torn to pieces, and provinces were desolated which 
 once had been the chosen vineyard of the Lord. A wild boar 
 laid them waste. No Church authority could subdue the ob- 
 stinacy of heresy leagued with the civil power. 
 
 The sentiments of Gregory in regard to the councils of his 
 time, which you gatiier from his letter to Procopius, are not in- 
 consistent with his known veneration for the definitions of faith 
 made by an OEcumenical Council. During the greater part of his 
 public career, the violence and intrigues of the Arians had pre- 
 vented any happy result from the various synods that had been 
 convened ; and though in the Council of Constantinople the 
 error of Macedonius had been proscribed, yet even there the 
 jealousies and contentions of some bisliops had given the saint 
 just cause of pain. Having resigned the government of that 
 church, thus to remove every occasion of dissatisfaction, he 
 did not wish to abandon his retreat, and in his advanced age 
 take part in the proceedings of any such assembly. You pre- 
 tend to discover his true sentiments in this letter, in which 
 he declines to attend a council, and begs of Procopius to ex- 
 cuse him to the emperor, especially on account of his age and 
 infirmity ; as if you would insinuate that such a man did not 
 always profess his real sentiments, and act in accordance with 
 them. We need not examine the private letters of a Gregory, 
 or a Basil, to discover their true sentiments, for throughout 
 life both of them proved, that not even the frowns or threats 
 of an emperor could intimidate them. When, then, they 
 avowed their unreserved belief in the Nicene creed, they real- 
 ly venerated the definition of an GScumenical Council: and 
 when Gregory, in the Council of Constantinople, united with 
 his colleagues in anathematizing the heresy of Macedonius, he 
 was firmly persuaded that God had charged the bishops of the 
 church to guard the deposite of revelation, and that such doc- 
 trinal definitions as are the expression of the general faith, are 
 pronounced under the influence of divine assistance. That 
 
COUNCILS. 237 
 
 council was not indeed a'cumenical, but it was a larL'^e col- 
 lection of oriental bishops, whose faith was known to accord 
 with their Western colleagues ; and its act was a n»easure 
 adopted on the spot where the error was broached, and it assu- 
 med the character of a general definition, when the Western 
 bishops with Daniasus proclaimed tlieir failh with similar so- 
 lemnity. Gregory had never been in a council strictly cecu- 
 menical ; but had this last council been such, still he might 
 have said with regard to the councils of his time in general, 
 that he had never witnessed the happy termination of any of 
 them. Such general expressions would not necessarily em- 
 brace every council without exception. IJut in regard to Ge- 
 neral Councils themselves, we are far from denying, that the 
 members of them are liable to imperfection and sin. We claim 
 for them only what is guaranteed by the divine promises, in- 
 fallibility in their doctrinal decisions. AA'hen your author Gi- 
 bert stales that a General Council can neither sin, nor err, he 
 does not certainly mean, that no sin can be committed by its 
 members, even in their solemn deliberations. Men vested 
 with the most sacred authority, and discharging the most so- 
 lemn functions of a divine ministry, are still liable to the im- 
 perfections and weaknesses of humanity. There was much 
 discussion, most probably attended with some fault, under the 
 eyes of the Apostles themselves, in the first council: but the 
 decree which went forth, determining the controversy, had the 
 sanction of the Divine Spirit, whose assistance is granted to 
 the tribunal of the Cliurch, in virtue of the prayer of Christ, 
 without regard to our unworthiness. 
 
LETTER XIX. 
 
 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 From the East, desolated by Ariaii impiety and imperial 
 persecution, we return to the West, to hear the testimony of 
 Ambrose, the illustrious archbishop of Milan. The remarks 
 by which you commence the examination of his sentiments 
 sufficiently indicate how forcible is the testimony he renders to 
 the Primacy of Peter and his successors in the Roman See. In 
 his commentary on the fortieth Psalm, he says : " 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 : and 
 therefore he added: 'and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it : and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven.' Blessed Peter, against whom the gate of hell did 
 not prevail, and tiie gate of heaven was not closed : but, on 
 the contrary, he destroyed the porches of liell, and laid open 
 those of heaven : therefore, whilst on earth, he opened heaven, 
 and shut hell."* Saint Ambrose wrote thus when refuting 
 the Arians. He speaks of the question put by our Redeemer 
 to his disciples as to what opinions were current among men 
 concerning him. He observes the silence of Peter in this cir- 
 cumstance ; but he calls our attention to his promptitude in 
 answering the question as to their own belief, *' This, there- 
 fore, is Peter, who answered rather than the other Apostles, 
 yea, for the others, and he is therefore styled the foundation, 
 
 * S. Ambros. in Psalm xl. enarr. § 30, p. 7C2. Ed. Paris, an. IGGl. 
 
I'KTF.Il TMF, FOINDATION. 239 
 
 because lie knew how* lo preserve not only that whicli was 
 his own, but also which was common to all. To him Christ 
 gave his approbation; the Father revealed it: for he, who 
 speaks of the true generation of the Father, learned it not 
 from flesh, but from the Father. Faith, therefore, is the foun- 
 dation of the Church : for it was ncU said of the flesh of Peter, 
 but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it: but the confession overcame hell. And this confession 
 does not exclude one heresy only : for since the Church, like a 
 good ship, is lashed oftentimes by many waves, the foundation 
 of the Church ouglit to prevail against all heresies. 'I'he day 
 would close before I should have enumerated tlie names of the 
 heretics and difl'erenl sects : but against all of them that faith 
 is general, that Christ is the Son of Cod, eternally proceeding 
 from the Father, born in time of the Virgin."! When Amhrose 
 says, tliat faith is the foundation of the Church, he speaks of 
 that faith as professed by Peter, that is, of Peter professing the 
 faith. He is, therefore, styled the foundation, in reward of 
 his promptitude to confess (yhrist before the others, and in 
 their name, because he showed his solicitude for their general 
 welfare and happiness. The confession which he made of the 
 divinity of Christ, was, indeed, the expression of his divinely 
 inspired individual faith, but it was made by him in reply to a 
 question that regarded all ; nor did he give it in as his own parti- 
 cular faith. Thus he knew how to preserve the common inte- 
 rest, and was worthy to be made the foundation, and principal 
 member of the Church. St Ambrose insists that the Church 
 was not built on the flesh of Peter, but on his faith ; because 
 it was no mere natural (jualily that gained for him this prero- 
 gative, but his faith in the divinity of Christ, and this faith is 
 ever to prove the bulwark of the Church against the endh^ss 
 varieties of heresy. As the saint wrote against the Arians, he 
 
 " Hie v»l CTgo I'l'trus, qui nspondit prtr cceleris Apostolis, inio pro 
 ca'toris, rt idco fundninontun) dicitur, quia novit non soluui proj)riuin, 
 Bod etiauj cotunuinc scrvaic Iluic a«tipulatu8 est Christus, rovrlavit 
 Pater. 
 
 t S. Anibros. dc incarn. c. 1 and."), p. 2-2\. Tom. II. Kdit. Basil. 
 
240 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 particularly insisted on the necessity and efficacy of this di- 
 vinely inspired belief. The text is obviously to be understood 
 of the faith of Peter, not as distinct from him ; and numberless 
 testimonies of Ambrose confirm this meaning. Thus, in his 
 work on faith, he observes : " That you may know that what 
 he asks as man, he ordains by his divine power, you have in 
 the Gospel what he said to Peter : ' I have prayed for thee, 
 that thy faith may not fail.' And when Peter said before : 
 
 * Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,' he answered: 
 
 * Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, 
 and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' 
 Could he not, therefore, strengthen the faith of him to whom 
 he gave a kingdom of his own authority, and whom, in call- 
 ing A ROCK, HE MADE THE STRENGTH OF THE ChURCH ? Con- 
 sider when it is that he prays — when it is that he commands. 
 He prays when he is about to suffer; he commands when he 
 is believed to be the Son of God."* Peter, then, according to 
 this holy doctor, is the rock of strength on which the Church 
 rests : he has received a kingdom from Christ. Elsewhere he 
 says : — " In consequence of the solidity of his devotion, he is 
 styled the rock of the Churches, as the Lord says : ' Thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church :' for he is 
 called a rock, because he was the first to lay the foundations of 
 faith among the nations, and like an immovable stone he 
 
 HOLDS TOGETHER THE STRUCTURE AND MASS OF THE WHOLE 
 
 Christian fabric. "t — Speaking of the cure of the lame man, 
 he observes: "We have said frequently, that he was called 
 Peter by the Lord, as he says : ' Thou art Peter, and on this 
 rock I will build my Church.' Since, therefore, Peter is the 
 rock on whicii the Church is built, it is meet that in llie first 
 instance he should heal the feet The rock sustains and 
 
 RENDERS firm THE NATIONS LEST THEY FALL. "J 
 
 * S. Ambros. de Fide. l.iv. p. 99 Edit. Basil. 
 
 t " Tamquam saxum immobile totius operis Christian! compagem mo- 
 lemq: contineat." S. Ambros. Serin. 47, p. 35G. Edit. Basil. 
 X Serm. Gd, p. 3G1. 
 
KXHORTATION TO lAlIH. 211 
 
 It is manifest llial St Ainhrose inlcrprolcd l!;e texts of Scrip- 
 ture precisely as u e interpret tliein, atul recognised in i*eler 
 special powers and ])rer()gatives not granted to ilie (Ulier Apos- 
 tles of Christ. He was tlie rock, — the lonndation, — the sirengili 
 and support of the Clinrch, — sustaining ail the parts of the vast 
 fabric, hokhng then) togi'lher in unity, and imparting to them 
 strengili and durability. He received a kingdom from Clirist, 
 — that lieavenly kingdom wiiose keys were entrusted to him. 
 But you refer us to texts in which the saint exhorts every one 
 to believe as Peter believed, that he also may be blessed, and 
 asserts that whosoever overcomes the flesh, is a foundation of the 
 Church. — Surely in this no more was intended than an exhorta- 
 tion to faith and piety, with the assurance that those who imi- 
 tate the faith of Peter, will receive a divine blessing, and be- 
 come serviceable to religion. Such as are familiar with the 
 writings of llie Fathers know, that it was their constant prac- 
 tice thus to take occasion from every fact, or sentence of Scrip- 
 ture, to moralize and to exhort, 'i'he saint mostclearly intimates 
 it in the very sentence itself: " Whosoever," says he, ♦* over- 
 comes the llesh, is a foundation of the Church, and if he can- 
 not equal Pttrr, he can iuiitafc him.''* It is in the same 
 spirit that he continues in this paragraph to treat of the term 
 *' rock.'" " Christ," says he, " is a rock : ' for they drank of 
 that spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was 
 Christ.' He did not deny the favour of this appellation even 
 to his disciple, that he may also be Peter, because from the 
 rock he derives the solidity of constancy, and the firmness of 
 faith. "t Thus far he retains the literal meaning of the text, 
 and often and strongly inculcates it. Thence he takes occa- 
 sion for exhortation. " Strive, then," continues he, " that 
 thou also may be n rock. Look not out of thee, but within 
 thee, for the rock. Thy rock is thy action : thy rock is thy 
 mind. On this rock h-t thy house be built, that it may not be 
 lashed by the storms of ilic spiri'.s of wickedness. Thy rock 
 
 ' S. Aiiibrns 1. vj Liir. c ix. j>. Mi. IMil. liasil, anno l't'.V<. 
 
 ♦ Ibid. p. to. 
 
 V 
 
242 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 is faith — tlie foundation of the Church is faith. If thou art a 
 rock, thou wilt be in the Church, because the Church is on the 
 rock. If thou art in the Church, the gates of hell will not 
 prevail against tliee. The gates of hell are the gates of death : 
 but the gates of death cannot be the gates of the Church. But 
 what are the gates of death, that is, the gates of hell, unless 
 the several sins ? If thou art a fornicator, thou hast entered 
 the gates of death : if thou hast violated thy faith, thou hast 
 entered the gates of hell: if thou hastcommitted mortal sin, thou 
 hast entered the gates of death."* You justly observe the corres- 
 pondence of Origen and Ambrose in this strain of edifying, but 
 mystic, interpretation. No interpreter of Scripture would ven- 
 ture to adopt it as the genuine and literal meaning ; nor is there 
 the least reason to believe that it was givesi as such by its ingeni- 
 ous authors. St Ambrose, speaking of the name of rock as com- 
 mon to Christ and to Peter, says: " Some believed the Lord 
 to be Elias, some Jeremias, some John the Baptist. Peter alone 
 confesses him to be Christ, the Son of God. There are cer- 
 tain gradations of faith, and he who believes more devoutly, 
 confesses more religiously. In consequence of this devotion 
 it is said to Peter : ' Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh 
 and blood liath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in 
 heaven. And I say to thee : thou art Peter, and on this rock 
 1 will build my Church.' His name then being Simon, he was 
 called Peter on account of this devotion. We read in the 
 Apostle of the Lord himself: ' they drank of the Spiritual Rock, 
 and the Rock was Christ.' Justly, since Christ was a Rock, 
 Simon was named Peter, that he who enjoyed the communion 
 of faith with the Lord, might have, with the Lord also, the 
 unity of the Lord's name ; that as the Christian is called from 
 Christ, so also the Apostle Peter should derive his name from 
 Christ the Rock."t Peter, then, is a rock in a peculiar sense, 
 made such in reward of his faith, and that he might be the 
 strength and support of the whole Church. " Peter," says 
 be, elsewhere, " is therefore styled a rock for his devotion, 
 
 * S. Ambros. 1. vi. Luc. c. ix. p. 89. Edit. Basil, anno 1538. 
 t Ambr. Scrm. 84. Tom. III. p. 383. 
 
I'ETKR, inSIlOP OF Tilt; ROMAN (MU'RCII. 243 
 
 and the Lord is slyled a Kock lor his power, as the Apostle 
 says ; ' they drank of the Spiritual Kock that lollowed them, 
 and ilie Kock was Christ.' lie jiisiiy deserves the conimuni- 
 catioii of the name, uho is made worthy to partake of the work, 
 for Peter in the same house laid the foundation. Peter plants, 
 the Jjord gives an increase, the Lord waters."* As for the 
 passage wherein it is said, that " all the chddren of the Church 
 are priests, "t as it has no connexion willi our j)resent investi- 
 gation, 1 can only e.xpress my surprise at its unseasonahle in- 
 troduction. Besides, its explanation is immediately subjoin- 
 ed : ** for we are anointed to the priesthood that we may offer 
 ourselves spiritual victims to God." Peter was a priest in a 
 far snhlinjer sense ; lie was, as St Ambrose teslilies, " Bishop 
 of the Koman Church. "t 
 
 The passage which you object from tlie commentary on the 
 thirty-eitrluh Psalm, to be properly understood, must be read 
 in coimexion with the context of the place whence it is taken. 
 The last verse of the Psalm reads thus, in our Vulgate trans- 
 lation : — "O forgive me, that I may be refreshed, before I go 
 hence and be no more." On these words St Ambrose writes — 
 *'F«)ri;;ive me, that is, fori^ive me here where I have sinned. 
 Unless you forgive me here, I shall not be able to find there 
 the repose consequent on forg'veness: for what remains bound 
 on earth, shall remain bound in heaven, what shall be loosed 
 on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Therefore, the Lord gave 
 to his Apostles, what previously was reserved to his own judg- 
 ment, the discretionary power§ of remiitintr sins, lest what 
 should be speedily loosed should remain bountl for a long time. 
 Finally, hear what he says: ' I wdl give to thee the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on 
 earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
 loose on earth, shall be looseil also in heaven.' 'i'o thee, he 
 
 • S. Arnbros. i. v. § :V3. Kdit. Par. p. 13(V4. 
 t Smn. 47, p. WM. 
 
 * S Ami., dr Sac.l. lii. c. 1, p. 37}. T-.m. IV. Kdit. U lail. 
 § ./Ecjuilalt'in. 
 
244 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 says, I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou 
 mayst loose and bind. Novatian did not hear this, but the 
 Church of God heard it : therefore, he is in his fallen state ; 
 we are in the way of forgiveness : he is in a state of impeni- 
 tence ; we, of grace. What is said to Peter, is said to the 
 Apostles. We do not usurp the power, but we obey the com- 
 mand : lest, when the Lord shall afterwards come, and find 
 those bound who should have been loosed, he be excited against 
 the dispenser who kept the servants bound, whom the Lord 
 had ordered to be loosed.'** Li this beautiful vindication of 
 the power of forgiving sin, as exercised by the Catholic Church, 
 there is nothing that destroys the distinction which Christ 
 made in the powers of the Apostles. The saint quotes the 
 words addressed to Peter, to prove tliat the Church, founded 
 on Peter, has the power of forgiving sins. He observes that 
 this power was not confined to Peter, Christ having spoken in 
 like manner to all the Apostles. He does not say, that he 
 spoke precisely the same words, or gave the same degree of 
 power; but he says, that he gave to them, likewise, the power 
 of forgiveness. He does not treat, here, of the governing power 
 of the Church, as typified by the keys of the heavenly kingdom, 
 which were peculiarly given to Peter, but of the power of for- 
 giving sin, of binding and loosing, which was common to all. 
 When speaking distinctly of the power of the keys, he ascribes 
 it to Peter alone : " Peter, says he, who received the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, went up to the mountain: Jolm, to 
 whom his mother is entrusted : James, also, who first ascended 
 the Episcopal throne."! The reception of the keys of the 
 heavenly kingdom was consequently his characteristic, as it 
 was the peculiar privilege of Jolin to receive in his charge the 
 mother of the Lord, and of James to govern with Episcopal 
 authority the church of Jerusalem. You discover equality of 
 privilege where " Peter, James, and John, and Barnabas" are 
 
 * Enar. in Psahn xxxviii. p. 744. Edit. Par. an. 1662. 
 t S Ambios. Comm. in Lucam, 1. vii. c. 9. p. 92. Tom. V. Ed. Col. 
 See also in Psalm cxviii. Serm. 20. 
 
I'KTKU S l'RKRi)OATI\ i;. 245 
 
 Styled pillars, :i.s if lliij^ ironornl rxprossion (Iclermiiu'd llie de- 
 gree f.f miiliorily with which llicy were rcspiMiivcly vested. 
 And even when liie saint calls Peter — " an eternal gate, against 
 wlion) the gates of hell shall ni)t prevail,"^ you imagine that 
 his prerogative is destroyed by the application of the same 
 symholical expression to John and James, though lie assigns a 
 quite different reason, namely, the appellation of " sons of 
 thunder," which was given them. It appears to me lliat a 
 distinction, evi^ry where so strongly marked, manifestly de- 
 notes special prerogative. 
 
 When Si Ambrose says, that " not only in Peter the one 
 operation of the Father, fc>on and Holy Ghost is found, but also 
 the unity of the divine operation in all the Apostles is revealed, 
 and a certain authority of the divine ap|)ointment ;t for the di- 
 vine operation implies command, not service ;J he d«)es not at 
 all speak of the degree in which the lliree divine persons 
 wrought in Peter and in the other Apostles. He was engaged 
 in proving that the operations of tlu' Deity are common to tlie 
 Father, Son, aiul Holy Ghost, and he illustrated the principle 
 by reference to Peter. As Paul was expressly set apart lor the 
 ministry hy the Holy Ghost, and as he testilied that the same 
 who had wrought in Peter for tliose of the circumcision had 
 wrought in him for the Gentiles, he shows that the Holy Spirit 
 wrought in Peter. The operation of the Father is established 
 by the testimony of Peter himself, who declares, that God chose 
 that the nations should hear the Gospel from his lips : " Be- 
 hold, therefore," Si Ambrose remarks, " God wrought in Peter 
 the grace of preaching: in which thing, since he was certainly 
 chosen and assumed hy Christ, who dares call in question the 
 operation (jf C'hrisl, since the JiortI himself says: 'Feed my 
 
 • S. Ambros. de fide, 1. iv. c. J. § tl't. Tom. H. p. [Hi. Ed. Bas. 
 
 \ " Qua-darn superno) constituliunis auloritas." The tcnn " consti- 
 lutio," is applied by St Ambrose to the appointment and establishment 
 of the Apostles: "Nam si constitulionem separes el polestatem, qua' 
 erat causa ut quos posuernt Apnstolos ('bristiis, poneret deus pater, po- 
 ncret et Spirituii Sanclus^" — S Ambros dc Spir. S. I. ii. c. I'i, p. lf*'.\. 
 Tom. II. Ed. Una. I Ibidem. 
 
 V» 
 
246 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 lambs?' The operation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is, 
 therefore, one." His object, then, is not to prove tlie equality 
 of the Apostles, but the imitij of the operation of the three di- 
 vine persons ; so that whatever grace, or power, was commu- 
 nicated to the Apostles, shoukl be ascribed to the Holy Ghost, 
 equally as to the Father and the Son, — as " all the Apostles 
 were not only disciples of Christ, but also ministers of the Fa- 
 ther, and of llie Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I may admire 
 the skill by which texts having no relation whatever to the 
 subject in dispute are thrown together, because the words taken 
 by themselves, apart from their context, appear favourable to 
 your position ; but I cannot deem it the most effectual method 
 of arriving at an author's meaning, or of conveying that mean- 
 ing to others. You add, from the same work, — " Therefore, 
 we behold unity of government, — unity of system, — unity of 
 bounty." Of what government does the author speak? You 
 introduce him as if he was establishing equality of powers in 
 the Apostolic government; and yet he speaks not of them, but 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost concurring in the estab- 
 lishment of the Church ! I shall recite the passage, with its 
 context, and leave the reader to judge of the fairness of your 
 application of it. " The Spirit gives," says St Ambrose, *' what 
 the Father gives, what the Son also gives. Let us, then, un- 
 derstand more expressly what we touched upon before, that the 
 Father and Son, and likewise the Holy Ghost, ordain the oflice, 
 and establish the same persons. For Paul said : ' Take heed 
 to yourselves, and to the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost 
 has placed you bishops to rule the Church of God.' There is 
 unity, then, of ordinance, unity of appointment, unity of com- 
 munication.* For if you separate the establishment and power, 
 what reason was there that God the Father, and the Holy 
 Ghost, should place those whom Christ had constituted Apos- 
 tles ?"t The unity of command, of which he speaks, is the 
 concurrence of the three Divine Persons in ordaining the ofKce ; 
 
 * " Unitas igitur imperii, unitas constitutionis, unitas largitatis." 
 I Ibid. 
 
EQUALITY OF MFMHT. 247 
 
 — llie unity of appoinlnuMit is llioir concurreiico in ronstiuiting 
 the iiulividiials who are to tlisclrar<;e it, — the uniiy of coiiimu- 
 nication is their coiieurreiice in beslowiiitr the graces whereby 
 it is to he exereiseil. 
 
 It is in connexion with this that tlie saint proceeds to dwell 
 on this unity of majesty in tiie Father, Son, and Holy (Jhost, 
 which, lie says, tnight be more aptly termed by a Greek word — 
 T«wTCT«:, or '* identity," which is not a mere union of afTection, 
 but is the very ** substance of the Trinity." " 'I'his," he sub- 
 joins, " is the inheritance of Ai)oslolic faith and devotion, which 
 may be seen from their acts. 'I'herefore did Paul and Harna- 
 bas obey the commands of the Holy Spirit: and all the Apos- 
 tles obeyed, and immediately ordained those whom the Holy 
 Spirit had ordered to be set apart: ' Set apart for me,' he says, 
 *Paul and Barnabas.' " It is impossible, sir, that the text of 
 St Ambrose could have been before you when you endeavoured 
 to prove an equality of power among the Apostles, from a 
 passage in which the author establishes only the identity in 
 substance of the three divine persons, and the obedience yield- 
 ed to the commands of the Holy Spirit by the Apostles. 
 
 The last passage you bring forward is tlie only one which 
 appears to refer to the (piestion at issue between us : yet it can 
 easily be seen that the equality of Paul to Peter is asserted, 
 not as to the power of office, but as to the merit of virtue ; and 
 this with a view to prove that the choice of the Holy Spirit was 
 full of wisdom. "You see," says Ambrose, " the command 
 of Him who orders: consider the merit of those that minister. 
 Paul believed; and, because he believed, he forsook the pur- 
 suits of a persecutor, and bore away the crown of justice. He 
 who laid waste the churches bclieveil; and, being converted to 
 the faith, he preached in the spirit what the spirit commanded. 
 The spirit anointed his chamj)i()n, and liaving shaken of]' from 
 him the dust of in)j)iety, presented to the various assaults of 
 the impious, an invincible concjueror of unbelievers, and, by 
 divers sulTerings, prepared him for iUo. j)rize of the heavenly 
 vocation in ('hrist Jesus. IJariiahas also I)elieved, and, because 
 he believed, lie obeyed. '1 herefore, being chosen by the com- 
 
248 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 mand of the Holy Spirit, wliioh is abundant evidence of the 
 excellence of his merits, he was not unworthy of so great a 
 college. For the same grace slione forth in those whom the 
 same spirit had cliosen. Nor was Paul inferior to Peter, 
 
 THOUGH THE ONE WAS THE FOUNDATION OF THE ChURCK, and 
 
 the other a wise architect, knowing how lo establish the steps 
 of the nations that believe. Paul, 1 say, was not unworthy of 
 the college of the Apostles, since he also may be con)pared 
 with THE FIRST, and was second to none: for he who does not 
 acknowledge himself inferior, makes himself equal."* The 
 meaning of the saint is obvious. lie is careful to mark even 
 here the distinguishing characteristic of Peter as the founda- 
 tion of the Church, and first of the Apostles, whilst he sup- 
 poses Paul equal in merit, and, on that account, to be compared 
 even with the first. 
 
 The pastoral and governing authority of Peter is clearly set 
 forth by St Ambrose in many places', wherein he treats of the 
 commission given to him by Clirisl to feed his sheep. In his 
 forty-sixth sermon he observes : " When he (Peter) was thrice 
 questioned by the Lord: 'Simon, dost thou love me?' He 
 answered thrice : ' Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.' The 
 Lord says : ' Feed my sheep.' This was thrice, which, being 
 thrice said, served to compensate for his former fault, for he 
 who had denied the Lord thrice, confesses him thrice, and as 
 often as he had contracted guilt by his delinquency, he gains 
 favour by his love. See, therefore, how profitable to Peter was 
 his weeping ! Before he wept, he fell ; after he wept, he was 
 chosen, and he who had been a prevaricator before his tears, 
 after his tears was made Pastor, and he received the govern- 
 ment of others, who before had not governed himself."t In 
 his commentary on the one hundred and eighteenth Psalm, he 
 says : " therefore did Christ commit to Peter to feed his flock, 
 and do the will of the Lord, because he knew his love. "J In 
 
 * S. Ambros. 1. de Sp. S. § 158. 
 t S. Amb. Serm. 4G, p. 335. 
 X Serm. 13, p. 516. 
 
ROMAN CIllKCH. 249 
 
 liis commentary on LiiUo, 1h» says of Peter: " lie is aniicted, 
 because he is questioned ihc tliircl lime: ♦ Dost iliou love me?' 
 But the Lord does not (loul)t ; he interroirates him not to learn, 
 but to teacli him, whum, when about to he elevated to heaven, 
 he left to us as thk vicar of iiis lovk. For thus you liave : 
 * Simon, son of John, dost thou love me V ' Thou knowest, 
 Lord, that I love thee.' Jesus said to him : ' Fvvd niy lambs.' 
 And because lie alone of all professes his love, hk is pre- 
 ferred TO ALL."'' l*eter then was made pastor and governor, 
 and vicar of Jesus Christ, to jjerform towards men the kind 
 ofTices which the love of our Redeemer inspired, and he was pre- 
 ferred TO all in this pastoral ofhee. 
 
 To these exi)lieii and splendid testimonies of the superior 
 authority of the Prince of the Aposdes, you oppose what you 
 conceive to be '♦ a direct proof of the independence which Am- 
 brose exercised with rcganl to the Church of Rome." The 
 reader may ask, does it regard any detined doctrine? — or any 
 general law? — or the communion with that Church? The 
 answer must necessarily be negative. JNol only did he firmly 
 hold the symbol t)f faith, which, as he aHlrms, "the Roman 
 Church always guards and preserves inviolate,! but he even 
 declares that he " follows the example and form of that ('hnrch 
 in all things. "I He conceived, ho^vever, that, without disre- 
 spect to its authoriiy, he might retain a pious usage of the 
 church of Milan, though not adopted in the Roman Church, 
 namely, the washing of the feet of the neophytes, on their 
 coming forth from the font, in commemoration of what our 
 Lord performed at his Last Supper. In this he violated no law, 
 but was sustained by the ancient usage of his church, which, 
 in regard to reli<:ious rites, and other discij>linary matters, has 
 the fori!eof law. Besides, the rite naturally recalled to the mind 
 of the neophyte the prayer of Peter, that not oidy his leel, but 
 his hands and head should be cleansed; wherefore Si Ambrose 
 
 • S. Ainbros. in Liir. I. 10. n. IT.'j. 
 
 1 L. I. Kj). 7, ad Siricium. 
 
 I "Cujuslypuiii in omnibus Bequiimir elfunnain." — L. iii. do sac. c. 1. 
 
250 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 remarks: " We follow the Apostle Peter himself: we adhere 
 to the example of his devotion. What does the Roman Church 
 say tt) this? Truly the Apostle Peter himself, who was Bishop 
 of the Roman Church, is our authority for this assertion."* 
 The saint shows liis profound respect for the authority of that 
 Church, of which Peler was Bishop, and says that it is his 
 " anxiruis desire to follow it in all things. "t You profess your 
 vvillinjrness to he a "Catholic of the primitive stamp, and ask 
 no hetter rule than the example of the sainted Ambrose." — 
 Follow then his example: acknowledire Peter to have been the 
 Bishop of the Romaii Church: cherish its communion; hold 
 its faith, and endeavour to follow its example in all things. 
 
 The a(tts of the Council of Aquileia, which you present as 
 evidence of the senliments and practice of Ambrose, who took 
 the leailing part in its proceedings, are rejected as suppositi- 
 tious by the learned Chitflct; but as they are generally admit- 
 ted by others, you are entitled to the full benefit to be derived 
 from them. They do not, indeed, wear the usual form of the 
 proceedings of councils, the (/bvjons reason of which is, that 
 they are the plain record of the trial intended to be presented 
 to the emperors, who had called together the Fathers, at the 
 solicitatioti of Palladius and Secundianus. 'J his will explain 
 to you an obscure sentence, the meaning of which you have 
 evidently mistaken. After much informal discussion, during 
 which many Arian blasphemies were uttered by Palladius and 
 Secundianus, Ambrose proposed ihat the j)ublic notaries should 
 take minutes of the proceedings, lest there should be any room 
 for tergiversation. — " We have," said he, " long enough treated 
 of matters, without any record being made of our proceedings. 
 Since such horrible blasphemies are uttered in our hearing by 
 Palladius and Secundianus, that it might appear incredible that 
 they should have dared blaspheme so openly ; lest they after- 
 wards, by any cunning device, attempt to deny their expres- 
 sions, though no doubt could be entertained of what the 
 
 * L. iii. de sac. c. 1. 
 
 t " In omnibus cupio sequi ecclesiam Romanam. — lb. 
 
COUNCIL OF AQI'IIKIA, 251 
 
 venerable bisfiops here asseinblcd wouUi lisiiiy ; — yel since 
 sucli is ibe good pleasure of all ihe bishops, lei ihe proceedings 
 be written down, that each one may not have it in his power 
 to deny his assertions. You must, holy brethren, declare your 
 will." All the bish«)ps cried out: *' It is our will." Ambrose 
 the bishop said : " Our proceedintijs should be authorized by 
 the reading of ihe imperial decree, that they may be alleged 
 in evidence." The deacon JSabinian read it. Alter the read- 
 ing of it, Ambrose liie bishop saiil : '* Behold what the (chris- 
 tian emperor has ileitrmined. He would not d<j an injury to 
 the bishops : he appointed the bishops themselves to examine 
 the case."* 'JMie cause proceeded, and the accused bishops 
 were convicted of heresy, and deposed, and liie result commu- 
 nicated to the emperors in a sy nodical epistle, that the impe- 
 rial aulhoriiy might prevent the heretical bishops retaining 
 possession of their Sees. You represent this as " an abiire- 
 ment, the authority for which was derived from the imperial 
 decree."! The proceedings show that the imperial summons 
 and decree merely directed the attention of the bishops to the 
 case, which, of right, belonged to the ecclesiastical tribunal ; 
 bishops being the proper judges, and recognised as such by 
 the emperor. 4: — IJut the Pope, rather than the council, should 
 have been calleil on to judge these two bishops of Ma^sia, and 
 yet, you observe, *' not one word occurs in the whole, recog- 
 nising or alluding to the Pope of Rome." According to more 
 recent discipline it would be his exclusive prerogative. At 
 that early period, however, the powers of councils were not 
 so limited, th()u;,'h their acts were subject to be rescinded Iiv 
 the Pontiir, as was done by Julius in. favor of Alhanasius, wlio 
 
 • Cone. Aqiiil. col. r'S}. Tom. I Cone. Col. Ilarilouin. 
 
 t " Disccjilaliones nostra; ex re firinanda; sunt scripto iniperiali ut 
 allegcntur." IJi»ho|) Hopkins translates it: " Uiir arbitreinent upon 
 this iM.'ittiT is to bf conHrin<-(i by the imperial warrant, as it may be ap- 
 pointed." This version is evidently wrong. Hardouin reads discrrpa- 
 tioncs. 
 
 \ " Noluit injuriam faccre sacerdolibus ; ipsos inlerpretes constiluit 
 episcopos." — C. e2G. 
 
252 ST AMBROSE. 
 
 had been deposed by the Council of Tyre. Possibly the new 
 attempt of LFrsiciniis to disturb Damasus, the lawful Pope, may 
 have been the reason why no mention is made of him in the 
 record of the trial. It certainly was the occasion of a most 
 splendid tribute to the supremacy of the Roman Church, given 
 by the Fathers in a synodical letter addressed to the emperors, 
 in which they are earnestly implored to guard the peace and 
 rights of the Apostolic See : " Your clemency should be en- 
 treated not to suffer tlie Roman Church, which is the head of 
 THE m'hole world, and the sacred faith of the Apostles to be 
 disturbed ; for the venerable rights of communion flow 
 THENCE TO ALL,"* I leave you then to consider whether it 
 was right to assert that " not one word occurs in the whole, 
 recognising or alluding to the Pope of Rome," because he is 
 not mentioned in the record of the trial, whilst so solemn a testi- 
 mony is borne to his spiritual chieflancy in the synodical letter 
 of the prelates. All your interrogatories are at once answered 
 by this undeniable fact. 
 
 In another synod, held at Capua, at which Ambrose was 
 present, the authority of the Bishop of Rome was distinctly 
 recognised. Flavian, who claimed the patriarchal See of An- 
 tioch, had been called to Rome, to await the judgment of the 
 Pope, but fearing the result, he excused himself on various 
 pretexts. The right of the Roman Bishop to judge him was 
 not controverted, but to obviate his objections, his cause was 
 referred by the Council of Capua to the patriarch of Alexan- 
 dria, on condition that he should report his proceedings and 
 await the approbation of the Roman Pontiff. " Truly," said 
 the Fathers in their letter to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexan- 
 dria, which was composed by St, Ambrose, " we judge that 
 report should be made to our holy brother the Bishop of the 
 Roman Church, since we presume that you will pass such a 
 judgment as cannot dis{)lease even him. For in this way will 
 the measure be efhcacious, and peace and tranquillity will be 
 
 * Cone. Aqui). Tom. I. col. Hard c.837. Pie reads'" comnionitionis :" 
 The received reading is " communionis." 
 
AGREEMENT WITH 1111: IIO.M AN ( IlllUir. 253 
 
 secured, il* your tietc^nniiuilion he sucli as will nol cause dis- 
 sention in our communion, tliat the collection of our decrees 
 being received, we may joyfully share the fruit of this investi- 
 gation, wlien we shall know that what has been done is un- 
 doubtedly approved of by the Roman Church."* Thus, the 
 supreme authority of thai Church is most distinctly avowed. 
 St. Ambrose, elsewhere, commends the inviolable integrity of 
 its faith, and in his funeral oration on liis brother Salirus, he 
 is careful to mark the caution witii wiiich, on reachin<r shore 
 after shipwreck, he inquired whether the bishop of liie place 
 *' agreed in faith with the Catholic bishops, that is<with the 
 Roman Church."! 'IMie agreement with that Churcli, spoken 
 of by Irenaeus, was, in the days of Ambrose, likewise, the crite- 
 rion of orthodox faith. 
 
 • S.Ambros. Ep. 78. 
 
 I " Percontatusq. ex eo est utrumnam cum cpiscopis catholicis, hoc 
 est, cum ccclesia Roinana conveniret." Do obitu fratris, p. 24, Tom. III. 
 cd Basil. 
 
LETTER XX. 
 
 ST JEROME. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 In introducing to us the solitary of Bethlehem, you acknow- 
 ledge that "it is not to be disputed that in drawing to the 
 close of the fourth century, we find increasing proofs of the 
 advancement of the claims of Roman supremacy towards the 
 zenith of their maturity." This, of course, cannot surprise 
 those who have already learned from you that, even in the pri- 
 mitive age, under pagan and persecuting emperors, some of 
 the best of men conceived the design of introducing into the 
 Church this supremacy, in imitation of the imperial power, 
 and fancied that they found in Scripture divine precepts to 
 sustain their supposed innovation. Admitting your hypo- 
 thesis, our astonishment should be, that the advancement was 
 so gradual. The attentive reader has, I trust, already perceiv- 
 ed that the belief of this power is coeval with the Church, and 
 grounded on the divine writings ; — that its exercise in all ages 
 is manifest ; — and that if the evidences accumulate, as we de- 
 scend the stream of time, it is because the occasions of exerting 
 it increased, and because the monuments of these latter ages 
 are more numerous. 
 
 St Jerome, writing to Pope Damasus, professes, in the most 
 solemn manner, his devoted attachment to the Apostolic chair 
 of Peter. Having passed to the East, he found the church of 
 Antioch disturbed by llie adherents of three ckiimants of the 
 patriarchate — Paulinus, Meleiius, and Vitalis. A considerable 
 controversy had arisen about the use of the term — " hypostasis," 
 — which by some was understood to indicate, " substance," 
 
fHAlK or M-.TKR. 255 
 
 or " nature," ami liy others, •* subsistence," or " person ;" so 
 that, even amouj^ ihe orthodox, there was apparent division, — 
 some afllrminj;^ that there were three hifpostases in llie Deity, 
 whilst otiiors maintained that there was but one. At Antioch 
 the profession of tlirec hypostases was demanded as a condi- 
 tion of communion ; and Si Jerome, hesitating to adopt an am- 
 biguous phrase, wrote to Damasus, to solicit tlie direction of 
 his authority. You liave given a long extract from tiiis vp.lua- 
 ble document: "Since the lOast," says Jerome, "dashed to- 
 l^elher by tlie olil frenzy of the people, tears [)iecemeal the 
 seainless and well-hemmed coat of the Lord, and the foxes 
 destroy the vineyard of Christ, so that among broken cisterns 
 which hold ni) water, it is diHicult to understand where the 
 sealed fountain, the enclosed garden, maybe found: llierefore, 
 I have ihouirlit it best for me to consult the chair of Peter, and 
 the faith praised by the Apostle's mouth ; asking at this time 
 food for my soul from the same quarter, where formerly I re- 
 ceived the garments of Christ. For the vast extent of water 
 and land that lies between us, cannot keep me from seeking the 
 pearl of price. Wherever the body is, tliere are tlie eagles 
 gathered together. The patrimony being cast away by a per- 
 verse offspring, the heritage of the Fathers is preserved uncor- 
 ruptcd with you alone. 'I'here the ground with its prolific soil 
 declares the purity of the Lord's seed, by the return of a hun- 
 dred fold : here the grain, drowned in the furrows, degenerates 
 into tares and straw. Now the sun of justice rises in the West: 
 but in the F^ast, that Lucifer, who had fallen, has placed his 
 throne above the stars. You arc the light of the world, you 
 are the salt of the earth, you are vessels of gold and silver — 
 here the vessels of earth and wood await the rod of iron and 
 eternal fire. Notwithstanding, therefore, your greatness de- 
 ters, yet your kindness invites me. With earnestness I ask a 
 victim of salvation from the priest, the defence which the sheep 
 requires from the shepherd. Let it not appear invidious: let 
 the pomp of Roman majesty withdraw :* I speak with the siic- 
 
 '• Kacctjsat invidia: Rojuuni culininis recedat atiibitif).'" This ad- 
 
256 ST JEROME. 
 
 cessor of the fisherman, and a disciple of the cross. I, who 
 follow none first except Ciirist, am united in communion to 
 your holiness, that is, to the chair of Peter : on that rock I 
 know that the Church is built. Whoever eats the lamb out of 
 this house is profane. AVhocver was not in Noe's ark must 
 perish in the deluge. And because for my sins I have come 
 to the wilderness which separates Syria from the confines of 
 Barbary, and cannot always seek the body* of the Lord from 
 your holiness, through so great an intervening distance : there- 
 fore, 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 Melelius ; — I care not for 
 Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you, scatters ; that 
 is, whoever is not of Christ, is of Antichrist. For now, — O 
 shame ! after the Nicene faith, after the Alexandrine decree, — 
 the West also concurring, the new phrase of three hypostases 
 is exacted of me, a Roman, by the bishop of the Arians, and by 
 the Campenses.t What Apostles, I pray, have put forth these 
 terms? Wliat new Paul, the teacher of nations, has taught 
 these things ?"J 
 
 I am surprised that you should venture to assert, that this 
 document has no reference whatever to the real question at is- 
 sue. That question involves several points : whether Peter 
 was constituted by Christ the head of his Church ; whether the 
 Bishop of Rome is his successor ; and whether, as such, he is 
 the teacher of all Christians, tlie pastor of the entire flock of 
 Christ, the ruler of the whole Church. The testimony of Je- 
 rome bears on all these points. With him, the chair of Peter 
 is " the rock on which the Church is built ; — Damasus is " the 
 
 dress of an humble priest to the Chief Pontiff of the Church might seem 
 bold. The saint excuses his boldness by adverting to the occupation of 
 Peter. Erasmus remarks that by invidla he indicates " quod odiosum sit 
 ad hunc modum interpellare Summum Pontificem." 
 
 * Sanctum Domini. Erasmus understands corpus Domini, It might 
 also mean, the oracle of the Lord. 
 
 t Those of Campas, a part of Cilicia. 
 
 X Hieronymus Damaso, f. 60. Tom. III. Edit. Bas. an. 1516. 
 
COMMINION WITH IMITKk's CHAIR. 257 
 
 successor of the fishermmi ;" — he is tho pastor evon of Jcrorae, 
 who was then far distant from Rome, and in the disirirl of the 
 patriarch of Aiiliooh : he is " j)laced on the siinuiul of Roman 
 power;" — he is the authoritative tearlirr, whom this most 
 learned man desires to hear, and to wliose decision he professes 
 himself ready to yiehl most implicit ohetlience. Jerome's 
 opinion was adverse to the use of the phrase of three liyposta- 
 ses ; but it is thus submitted without reserve to the judgment of 
 the First Pastor: — "1 shall not fear to say three iiyposlases." 
 It concludes with the most solemn appeal to his authority : — 
 " I beseech your holiness, by Him who was crucified, the Sa- 
 viour of the world, by the consubstantial 'I'rinity, to give me 
 authority in your letters to omit mention of three hypostases, 
 or to declare them."* 
 
 The second letter of the saint on the same subject, in conse- 
 quence of the delay of Pope Damasus to answer, fully sus- 
 tains the consequences which I have drawn from the former: 
 '♦ The Arian frenzy, supported by the powers of the world, 
 rages on the one side. On the other, the Church being divid- 
 ed into three parties, each of them hastens to snatch me to 
 their side. The ancient authority of the monks that live 
 around here assails me. In the mean lime I cry aloud : ♦ Jf'/io- 
 ever is uniled with (he chair of Peter is mine.'' Meletius, 
 Vitalis, and Paulinus say that they adhere to you. I could 
 believe one asserting it : now two or all of them utter false- 
 hood. Tiierefore, I beseech your holiness, by the cross of the 
 Lord, by the necessary regard for tlu; Iionour of our faith, by 
 the passion of Christ, that as you succeed Apostles in dignity, 
 you emulate their merit, and thus may you sit on a tlirone 
 with the twelve in judgment: thus may another gird yon as 
 Peter in your old age:t thus may you obtain with Paul the citi- 
 zenship of heaven, by signifying to me by your letter with 
 whom I ought to communicate in Syria. Despise not a sold 
 
 • Hior Kp. f. CO. Toiii. III. His. Kd. 
 
 t Ho prayathat Daiiioiius may bo found worthy of inartyrtlom. 
 \v 
 
258 ST JEROME. 
 
 for which Christ died."* — Not only did Jerome cling to the 
 chair of Peter, but the various chiefs of the parties into which 
 the church of Anlioch was split, claimed its communion; so 
 universally was it recognised by all Catholics as the centre 
 with which all should be united. As to Jerome himself, you, 
 surely, cannot persuade yourself that he would have felt au- 
 thorised to use such solemn adjurations in two successive 
 letters^ had he not believed that Damasus, in virtue of his 
 station^ was empowered by God to prescribe the terms by 
 which the orthodox faith should be expressed, and to give or 
 withhold his communion from bishops, according as their faith 
 should appear to him sound, or liable to suspicion. 
 
 You ask the reader to turn to the letter to Evagrius, that he 
 may have a better view of Jerome's sentiments. The assertion 
 of some one that deacons were above priests, was the occasion 
 of this letter, and the object of it consequently was to lower 
 the pride of some deacons, by showing the high character of 
 the priesthood. For this end St Jerome has recourse to a fa- 
 vourite idea, that priests were originally called bishops, and 
 partook of the government of the Church, and were reduced, 
 subsequently, to an inferior rank, more by positive ecclesiasti- 
 cal law and arrangement, than in virtue of the divine institution. 
 This is not the place to develope or to canvass this opinion ; 
 but it was necessary to state it, that the reader may understand 
 the passages which you have objected, and which, I must say, 
 in your own words on anotlier occasion, " have no reference 
 whatever to the question at issue." The saint does not write to 
 defend the rights of any bishop against the Bishop of Rome, or 
 to establish the equality of all bishops, but to maintain the supe- 
 riority of priests above deacons: "I hear that some one has 
 broken out into such frenzy as to prefer deacons to presbyters, 
 that is, to bishops : for whilst the Apostle teaches that presby- 
 ters and bishops are the same, what possesses the minister of 
 tables and widows that he should haughtily raise himself above 
 those by whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are con- 
 
 * Hier. Ep. Tom. III. f. CI. 
 
EQUALirV Ol EPISCOPAL LHAIIACTKU. 259 
 
 secrated ?"• He proceeds to establish the identity of priest- 
 hood and Episcopacy from various texts of Scripture, and refers 
 to the mode ori^Mually followed in ilic election of liie hishop of 
 the church of Alexandria. As tlicse are matters whicii you 
 wouhl feel bound to explain to your Calvinistic brethren, I can 
 spare myself and readers the trouble of all elucidation. After 
 the reference to the church of Alexandria, he adds what may 
 be deemed a savin<T clause: *' What docs a bishop do, except- 
 ing ordination, which a presbyter may not do?" Then, with 
 special reference to the hij^h pretensions of some deacons of the 
 Church of Home, he says: *' The Church of the Koman city 
 is not to be thouirht one thinir, and the Church of the whole 
 world another. Gaul, and Ikiiain, and Africa, and Persia, and 
 the East, and India, and all the barbarous nations adore the one 
 Christ, — observe tlie one rule of Irulh. If authority is sought 
 for, the world is greater than one city. Wherever a bishop is, 
 whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or 
 Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, he is of the same merit, of 
 the same priesthood. The power of wealth, and the lowliness 
 of poverty makes a bishop more elevated, or less exalted :t 
 however, all are successors of the Ai)Oslles. But you say, how 
 is it that at Rome the priest is ordained on the testimony of 
 the deacon ? Why do you urge to me the custom of one city ? 
 Why do you allege, as laws of the Church, the paucity whence 
 haughtiness has taken rise ? Every thing that is rare is sought 
 after. Paucity makes deacons respected ; the multitude of 
 priests brings them into contempt. However, even in the 
 Church of Rome, priests sit wiiilsl the deacons remain stand- 
 ing." The reader can now judge whether the ciiuality of merit 
 and of priesthood, which Jerome claims for every bishop, 
 wherever he reside, be intended to include an equality of juris- 
 diction. He asserted the ecpiality of the Episcopacy, evidently 
 with a view to embrace even the priests, in defence of whose 
 privileges he was writing. Would you assert the perfect 
 
 • Hicronym. Kvagrio. f. 150. Tom. 111. Edit. Basil. 
 
 t The edition of Eraainus at Basic has not the negation. 
 
260 ST JEROME. 
 
 equality of the sacerdotal and Episcopal character and office? 
 Would you, in the face of all the monuments of antiquity, 
 maintain ihat the bishops of Rome and Eiigubium, of Alexan- 
 dria and of Tanis, were distinguished by no difference of juris- 
 diction ? The Episcopal character is, indeed, alike in all ; the 
 bishop of Eugubium is, in this respect, equal to the Bishop of 
 Rome; but the governing power, or jurisdiction, widely differs, 
 for to the one the care of a small portion of the flock of Christ 
 is committed, — to the other the charge of all the sheep and 
 lambs is given. 
 
 But Jerome seems to depreciate the authority of the Roman 
 Church. — Not when she teaches by the mouth of him who 
 occupies the chair of Peter ; not when, in harmony with the 
 churches of the universe, she proclaims the divinely inspired 
 faith, for which Christ prayed that it fail not ; but he sets aside 
 the practice of a few deacons, who took occasion, from the 
 eminence of that Church in which they enjoyed special distinc- 
 tions, to treat with less reverence those who were their supe- 
 riors in the sacred ministry. Such customs as are peculiar to 
 the Church of Rome, need not be adopted by the other churches 
 in her communion : and the abuses of individuals attached to 
 that Church may be condemned, even by those who, like 
 Jerome, cry aloud that they cling to the chair of Peter, — who 
 receive its faith and tradition with reverence, and who cherish 
 its communion, because they " know that it is the rock on 
 which the Church was built." The passages from this epistle, 
 which you consider decisive, are such in regard to the inferi- 
 ority of deacons to priests — but prove nothing beyond this, 
 unless you are willing to allow the perfect equality of priests 
 and bishoj)s. 
 
 I have not partaken in the surprise which you anticipated 
 from the views of this Father on the manner in which the 
 Church was built on Peter. Jovinian had r.ssailed virginity 
 and clerical celibacy, and, like some moderns, had objected 
 the example of Peter, who, having a mother-in-law, as the 
 Scripture assures us, must have had a wife. St Jerome replied 
 that his wife might have died before his call to the Apostleship, 
 
PKTKK THK FOI'NDATKJN. 201 
 
 a conjecture rendered |)robable l>y ilie omission (tf all mention of 
 her in Scripliire, and by llie molber-in-law serviiijr al llie table 
 wlien the fever Iiad left lier. He proceeded to sbow lliat John, 
 on account of bis virginity, enjoyed the special love ol Christ, 
 and was admitted to special faniiliarily by the liedecmer. lie 
 then objects to himself, that Peter was chosen to be the foun- 
 dation of the Church ; and ho meets it by observiiinr ijjat the 
 Other Apostles likewise received eimilar powers, tliough he 
 admits lliat, to prevent scjiism, Peter was chosen to be the head 
 of all. lie further inquires why the virgin, John, did not re- 
 ceive this distinction, and answers that the age of Peter was a 
 reason for preferring him : " IJut, you say," says he, " the 
 Church is founded upon Peter: though the same thing is else- 
 where done upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, aiid the strength of the Church is equally 
 consolidated upon all : yet, neveribeless, one is chosen amongst 
 the twelve, that a head being establisbed, the occasion of schism 
 may be removed. Hut why was not tlie virgin John chosen? 
 Regard was had to age, because Peter was the elder, lest a 
 very young man should be preferred to men of advanced age."* 
 It is clear, that whilst the saint advocates so strongly the ex- 
 cellence of virginity, and its special prerogatives, he is careful 
 to lay down in strong and precise terms the primacy of Peter. 
 All the Apostles are, indeed, in a certain degree the foundations 
 of the Church, since of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the 
 Church in glory, it is said : " the wall of the city had twelve 
 foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of 
 the Lan»b."t Hut Peter is strictly the humdation, since to him 
 only, and not to tlie others, Christ said : " Tliou art Peter, and 
 on this rock 1 will build my Church." Ail of them have re- 
 ceived the keys of the kingdom, inasmuch as all have received 
 the power of binding and loosing; but to Peter alone was said : 
 •♦To thee I will give llur keys of the kingdom." If Jerome could 
 be thought to have allirmed the contrary, we would ask : where 
 
 • S. Ilior. Adv. J.,v. 1. 1, p. IT). Tom. 111. 
 t Apoc. xxi. 14. 
 
262 ST JEROME. 
 
 are the Scriptural passages to wliich he refers? But his mean- 
 ing is phiin. He maintains that similar powers were granted 
 to the others, wherefore, it may be justly said, that upon all 
 of tlieni the strength of the Church rests and is consoli- 
 dated : but Peter is the head, invested with all the authority 
 necessary for maintaining order and unity ; a head, by the ap- 
 pointment of whom all |)lausible pretext for schism is removed. 
 Were not this his peculiar privilege, the saint would have had 
 no occasion to ex|)lain why John was not chosen. 
 
 In his commentary upon the similitude of the wise man who 
 built his house upon a rock, he observes : " On this rock the 
 Lord founded the Church : from this rock Peter the Apostle 
 derived his name. The foundation which the Apostolic archi- 
 tect laid, is our Lord Jesus Christ alone : on this stable and 
 firm foundation, and of itself founded with a strong mass, the 
 Church of Christ is built."* These passages no wise weaken 
 the force of the many others in which he treats expressly of 
 the foundation of the Church by Christ on Peter. In reference 
 to the similitude used by the Saviour, it was most natural to 
 observe, that he was the wise man who built his church upon 
 a rock, and that from this circumstance Peter was styled a 
 rock. It would, indeed, be a strange phrase to say, that he 
 built his Church upon himself, thus confounding the architect 
 with the foundation, as would be said were he the rock of 
 which Jerome speaks. Hear him elsewhere : "As Plato was 
 the prince of philosophers, so was Peter of the Apostles : on 
 him the Church of the TiOrd, an enduring structure, was built."t 
 In his letter to Marcellus he says: "Peter, upon whom the 
 Lord built his Church. "J 
 
 Tlie allusion to the text of St Paul presents a change of 
 metaphor. In the former Christ was the architect, and Peter 
 the foundation : in this Paul is architect, and Christ the foun- 
 dation. Metaphors and similitudes admit of this variety, and 
 it would be unjust to transfer what regards one similitude to 
 
 * Comm. Mat. c. viii. f. 12. f S. Hier. 1. 1 , adv. Pelag. c. 4, 
 
 t Class. 2, Ep.4, n. 2. 
 
I'KTKK THK ROCK. 2G3 
 
 anollicT, somewhat diircronl. .No man can lay any other foiin- 
 daiion llian Cluisl — his duclriiie — liis insiiiulions — i»is merits, 
 since there is salvation in no other name : bnt when (.'hrist 
 liiniseir pleases to sj)eak of iiimseU" as architect, the fonnda- 
 tion which he lays must naturally be distinguished from him- 
 self, iVoni whom, however, it derives all its strcngtii and en- 
 during qualities. 
 
 The commentary of Jerome on the promise of tlie Saviour 
 lo Peter, plainly establishes this relation between them. " What 
 means,*' asks he, " * 1 say to thee V Because thou hast said to 
 me : * Thou art Christ, the Son of tlie living God : I also say 
 to thee ;' not in vain discourse, void of ellect, but I say to thee, 
 because my word eflects what it implies : * that thou art Peter, 
 and on this rock 1 will build my Church.' As he ga've light lo 
 the Aj)ostles, that they might be called the light of the world, 
 and they received oilier appellations from the Lord : so also 
 he bestowed the name of Peter on Simon, who believed in the 
 rock Christ; and according to the metaphor of a rock, it is 
 properly said to him : ' 1 will build my Church upon thee, 
 and the gates of iiell shall not prevail against it.' I think that 
 the gales of hell are the vices and sins of men ; or ccrlaiidy 
 the doctrines of heretics, by which men being allured are led 
 lo hell. Let no one, therefore, imagine that it is said of death, 
 as if the Apostles whose martyrdoms he sees celebrated, were 
 not subject to the condition of death."* Here this learned 
 interpreter applies lo l*eter the term rock, and explains the 
 promise, as if it were said: I will build my Church on thee. 
 Against this Church neither the vices and sins of men, nor the 
 doctrines of heretics, will prevail. Scandals must come, and 
 may obscure the lustre of the Church, but they cannot effect 
 her overthrow : heresies may be broached even by those who 
 were children of the Church, but they can never receive her 
 sanction, because ('hrist teaciies in her '* all days even to the 
 i-onsummation of the- world." 
 
 'I'he observaiion of the saint in regard to bishops and priests 
 
 " S. Ilieron. Com. in .Mnlt.Tom IX. f. 24,23. E<1. Has an. lolO. 
 
264 ST JEROME. 
 
 who abused the power of the keys, by rashly loosing those 
 who should be bound, has no relation to the point at issue. It 
 establishes the necessity of confession, since, as Jerome re- 
 marks, the bishop or priest, "in virtue of his office, when he 
 hears the various sins, knows who is to be bound or who is 
 to be loosed."* Though the saint applies the text in this 
 place to the remission of sins by any bishop or priest, as we 
 are wont to do, when speaking in general terms, yet he under- 
 stands it specially of power granted to Peter; wherefore, 
 shortly after, when commenting on the rebuke of Christ: " Go 
 behind me, Satan," he supposes his reader to inquire, how 
 this is compatible with the sublime address made him, and 
 with the powers conferred on him. "If," he answers, " the 
 inquirer reflect, he will perceive that the benediction, and beati- 
 tude, and power, and the building of the Church upon him, 
 were promised to Peter for a future time, and were not granted 
 at the present time : ' I will build (he says) on thee my Church, 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : and to thee I 
 will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;' — all in the fu- 
 ture tense. Which had he given immediately, the error of a 
 perverse confession {Jiis denial) would never have taken place 
 in him."t 
 
 I do not find in the edition of this Father's works which I 
 use (that of Basle, an. 1516), the passage from the commentary 
 on the epistle to Titus which you quote. The only remark 
 made on that verse {Jmjus rei, ^-c.) is, *' Correct straight for- 
 ward what things arc wanting, and then you will be able to 
 ordain priests, when all persons in the Church will be up- 
 right. "J However, the words which you object present no 
 difficulty. They state that it is the privilege of the Apostolic 
 dignity to lay the foundation of a Church, which no one but an 
 architect' can lay, and that there is no other foundation but 
 Christ Jesus. In this we are perfectly agreed, as I have 
 already explained. Christ is the foundation of our faith and 
 of all our hopes ; and he was first proclaimed to the nations 
 
 * S. Ilieronym. Corn, in Matt. Tom. IX. p. 24, 25. 
 
 I Ibid. \ Tom. IX. f. 189. 
 
CITY OF uuMi;. 265 
 
 by llie Aposiles, anil in succeeding ages by men einulaling llieir 
 zeal, aiul partaking ol ibeir character. " Inferior w urkujen 
 may carry on the building on that foundation."' 
 
 The argument sought to be derived from wliat yon conceive 
 to be the opinion of Jerome in regard to the original eijualiiy 
 of priests and bislioj)s, rests on very questionable grounds. 
 You are aware tliat Protestants, no less than Catliolics, liave 
 laboured to explain his sentiments in accordance with the ge- 
 neral testimony of tradition on this point. Dut were we to 
 allow that such had been his view in regard to the priesily and 
 Episcopal character, it would not militate against the superior 
 prerogative of one priest, or bishop, to \\hom Christ hail made 
 a special promise. It would indeed suppose, that Peter re- 
 ceived no more than the common character of priesthood, but 
 with special power to found the Church, and exercise that 
 governing authority, by which, subsequently, according to this 
 opinion, the ecclesiastical distinction between priests of vari- 
 ous orders was ordained, or sanctioned. Not to wander too 
 far from our subject, and place weapons in the hands of your 
 Calvinistic brethren, tiiis argument may be set apart. 
 
 The apocalyptic expressions of St Jerome in regard to Rome, 
 relate to t!ie luxury and vices of the inhabitants of that great 
 city. It was in a spirit of humiliation that he referred to that 
 period of life in which he lived, "jure (iuiritum," after the 
 manner of its citizens, too much given to the follies of life. He 
 meant not at all to detract from its spiritual prerogatives as the 
 See of Feter, nor to utter any thing disrespectful to hiui who 
 occupies that chair. On the contrary, he observed, that he un- 
 dertook the work in obedience to the holy Pope Damasus : — 
 " Pope Damasus, who first had urged me to this work, now 
 sleeps in Christ. "t When he invited Marcella to flee from 
 tliis city to IJethlehem, it was that, in solitude, she might en- 
 joy thai trancpiillity of spirit which the distractions of such a 
 city so easily interrupted. He repeated and applied to her 
 
 S. IliiTon. Tom. IX. f. l-l'. 
 t S. Ilieron. ad rauliiiianuiii in hb. Didyiiti de Spir. S. 
 
266 ST JEROME. 
 
 the propiielic order to go forth from Babylon, " even though 
 Jieathenism was trodden under foot," — because he saw the vices 
 of pagan Rome still cherished by many of her Christian citi- 
 zens. You discover not one redeeming word of veneration in 
 his description. Please read over and ponder on these words : 
 — " There is there indeed a holy Church, there are the tro- 
 phies of the Apostles and martyrs, there is the true confession 
 of Christ, there is that faith which was praised by the Apos- 
 tle, and there the Christian religion is daily making new ad- 
 vances over prostrate heathenism."* 
 
 The principle which Jerome lays down, that in regard to 
 daily communion, the fast of the Sabbath, and such other things 
 as are not opposed to faith,t the immemorial usages of each 
 portion of the Church may be followed, is correct, entirely 
 worthy of this enlightened Father, and quite consistent with 
 the spirit and authority of the Apostolic See. He was not the 
 advocate of what you so confidently infer from his words — 
 equal rights, and total absence of deference for Rome. That 
 deference is shown especially by cherishing her faith, by ob- 
 serving the universal discipline of the Church which she is 
 studious to maintain, and by maintaining no local usage to the 
 prejudice or endangering of faith. 
 
 After the review of these passages, you return to the epistle 
 of Jerome to Pope Damasus. You tell us that, in consequence 
 of the distracted state of the East, where Arianism had prevail- 
 ed, Jerome " turns to Rome, in which he had become a pres- 
 byter some years before, and whose Bishop he was desirous to 
 propitiate, in order to secure a kind and favourable reception." 
 Was Jerome then the sycophant who thus flattered Pontifical 
 pride ? Did he not commence his letter by bidding " the pride 
 of Roman supremacy to be laid aside," and reminding the Pon- 
 tiff that he is the successor of the fisherman ? Did he employ 
 the awful adjuration of the crucified Redeemer, and consub- 
 stantial Trinity, for no other purpose than to gratify the vanity 
 
 * " Est ab Apostolo pracdicata fides, et gentilitate calcata, in sublime 
 se quotidie erigens vocabulum Christianuin." — Ep. ad Marcellam, Op. 
 om. Tom. I. p. 82. Edit. Par. 
 
 t " PrcDsertim quae fidci non officiant." — Ep. ad Lucinium, ib. p. 126. 
 
ROMAN FAITH. 267 
 
 ol* an aired Bishop ? I :iin sorry lliat you liave equally mis- 
 taken his character and nieaninir. You adduce Erasmus, to 
 prove that by the chair of Peler, on which as on a rock the 
 Church was built, Jerome did not mean Rome: but can the 
 hesitating remark** of a man of more than suspected faitli, jus- 
 tify you in otlering violence to tlie plain and positive words of 
 this Father? Besides, lOrasmus on the following words re- 
 marks : '• Here Jerome by all means seems to think that all 
 churches should he subject to the Roman See, or certainly not 
 estranged from it, as it peculiarly glories in the Apostle, who 
 held the Primacy amonj^ the Apostles ; and is orthodox in such 
 a way as to be the first in dignity of the orthodox churches. "t 
 You explain the words of Jerome as nreaning: " I am not 
 in communion with these heretical Arians — our faith is not the 
 same. But I am in communion with you, for you hold the 
 faith of Peter, together with his chair. On that faith — that 
 rock — I know that the Church is built, out of which Church, 
 whoever eatelh the lamb is profane." — Compare your words 
 with those of Jerome, and mark their diflerence. He speaks 
 of assaults on the one side by the Arian frenzy, on the other by 
 conflicting parties in the Church — the adherents of three pre- 
 tendants to the patriarcliale. As to the Arians, he needed no 
 advice — he had no doubts; but he doubted which was the real 
 patriarch; and he further doubted, whether he could profess 
 three hypostases, which was required as a condition of commu- 
 nion with the church of Antioch. He refuses, then, to com- 
 municate with any of the claimants, until the PonlilF shall in- 
 form him with whom he ouglit to hokl communion ; he de- 
 clines professing three hypostases, until he shall be directed 
 by the same authority. He grounds his application on his 
 knowledge, that the chair of I'eter is the rock on which the 
 Church is built. How, then, r:\n it be pretended, that it is the 
 mere accident of a common belief that leads him to apply to the 
 occupant of that chuir, more to flatter him than to receive the 
 necessary nuihoriiy and direction! "His very object, you 
 
 '•■ Ulnrbitror." — F.rnsmun. 
 
 Kra.sin. Srliolia in Ilicr. fol. (UI Tom. HI 
 
268 ST JEROME, 
 
 say, was to ingratiate himself with the Pope, and obtain an hon- 
 ourable recall from his self imposed exile." How unjust is 
 this imputation ! how inconsistent with the evidence which his 
 history and his writings afford ! 
 
 But Jerome, you say, protests " that he follows no primate 
 but Christ."* Neither do we. It is his divine authority we 
 reverence and adore when we yield obedience to him whom He 
 has entrusted with the care of his flock. You beg us to con- 
 sider, that our construction of this epistle requires us to set 
 Jerome against himself. To me this does not appear. He is 
 throughout perfectly consistent. In determining the legitimate 
 pastors of the Church, he judges by their communion with the 
 See of Peter ; in tire choice of expressions by which the doc- 
 trine of faith is to be maintained inviolate, he appeals to its au- 
 thority. To it he constantly refers where faith is in question. 
 Thus, twenty years afterwards, writing to the virgin Demetri- 
 as, he observed ; " When you were a child, and the bishop 
 Anastasius of holy and blessed memory governed the Roman 
 Church, a fierce tempest of heretics from the eastern parts at- 
 tempted to pollute and destroy the simplicity of that faith 
 which was praised by the voice of the Apostle. But this man, 
 very rich in his poverty, and full of Apostolic solicitude, im- 
 mediately struck the noxious head, and broke the hissing 
 mouths of the hydra. Since, I fear, and even have learned by 
 report, that these poisoned plants are still remaining and ger- 
 minating in some, I think you should be charitably warned, to 
 hold the faith of the holy Innocent, who is the successor and 
 child of the Apostolic chair, and of the holy man just mention- 
 ed ; and not to receive any strange doctrine, however prudent 
 and wise you may appear to yourself."! Writing to Theophi- 
 lus, patriarch of Alexandria, he says : " Be it known to you, 
 that nothing is more sacred for us, than to maintain the rights 
 of Christ, nor to move the limits which the Fathers have plac- 
 
 * "Nullum primum nisi Christum sequens." — Hier. Damaso. f. GO. 
 The version " no primate" is equivocal. It would be more literally ren- 
 dered : " I follow no one first, but Christ." 
 
 I S. Hier. Ep. 130, n. IC, clas. 4. Edit. Vallars. 
 
ADOPTION OF HIS SKNTIMKNTS. 2G9 
 
 ed, and always to bear in iniiui, that the Komaii I'ailli was 
 praised by tlie inoulh of llie Apostle, of wliicli fuiili the Cliurcli 
 of Alexandria glories to partake."* All this is perfectly con- 
 sistent with liis disregarding the assumption of some deacons 
 of the Church at Home, and objecting to them the contrary 
 practice of the Church ihrouirhout the world. His recognition 
 of the supreme authority of iis Hiijhoj) is nowise at variance 
 with iiis assertion, that the Episcopal cliaractcr is the same in 
 the bishop of the humblest JSee. He has not, however, exactly 
 said, as you have imagined, " that every bishop should con- 
 sider himself as Aaron, and the j)rcsbyters as Aaron's sons, and 
 the deacons as Levites." He does not disiinguisjj these grades 
 with such precision. His words are: " Wiiat Aaron and his 
 sons and the Levites were in the temple, the same let the 
 bishops and priests and deacons claim for themselves in the 
 Churcii."t Through the whole letter he speaks of bishops 
 and priests as the same ; hence it n)ight be fair to infer, if sucli 
 comparisons warrant any strict inference, that the chief Bishop 
 in the new dispensation corresjionds with the High Priest un- 
 der the ancient covenant. 
 
 The questions which you have added towards the close of 
 the chapter are fully answered by the exposition of the texts 
 already given. You are pleased to conclude by stating your 
 conviction, " that if the ('hurch of Rome would consent to a 
 thorough adoption of the sentiments of Jerome, there would be 
 very little material for serious controversy remaining." You 
 must then be prej^ared for the adoption of clerical celibacy, 
 the veneration of relics, and many other i)oints hitherto treated 
 with little favour, which, you admit, were defended by him, 
 and yon must particularly cry oul in his language to the actual 
 Bishop of Rome : " Whoever is united with the chair of Peter 
 is mine; I am joined in communion to your holiness, that is 
 to the chair of Peter, On that rock I know that the Church 
 wa- built." 
 
 • S Hitr. Kp. G:?, clas. :i, an. 3!>7. 
 t Ad Evngr. Tr»ii) II i. ',»•,*! Ivln I'lr 
 x ' 
 
LETTER XXI. 
 
 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 I FULLY agree with you that " a brighter name than that of 
 St Augustin can hardly be found in the annals of the Church 
 since the Apostolic day." In some of his works he affirmed 
 that Peter was the foundation of the Church ; but you main- 
 tain that he afterwards abandoned this interpretation. For 
 proof of this assertion you refer to the twenty-first chapter of 
 the first book of his " Retractations ;" which, as you know, 
 designate his review of his former works, accompanied with 
 the retouching of the matters already handled, but not always 
 with the abandonment of former sentiments. I shall give the 
 entire paragraph : — " During the same period of my priest- 
 hood I wrote also a book against the letter of Donatus, who 
 was the second bishop at Carthage after Majorinus, of the 
 party of Donatus, in which letter he endeavours to prove that 
 the baptism of Christ should be believed to be only in his 
 communion : which position we oppose. In which book I 
 said, in one place, concerning the Apostle Peter, that the Church 
 was founded on him as on a rock : which sense is celebrated 
 by many mouths in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, 
 where he says of the cock : ' At his crowing the very rock of 
 the Church washes away his fault.' But I know that after- 
 wards I very frequently explained what was said by the Lord : 
 ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church,' 
 in such a way, that it might be understood to mean, on him 
 whom Peter confessed, saying: ' Thou art Christ the Son of 
 the living God :' and thus Peter, being named from this rock, 
 
IIESITANCV. 271 
 
 sliould represent the Churcli, which is hiiilt upon this rock, and 
 received the keys of the kint;doni of lieaven. For it was not 
 said to him : * Thou art a rock : ' but tliou art Peter ;' ♦ but the 
 rock was Christ,' on confessing whom, as the wliole (^'liurcli 
 confesses liim, Simon was called Peter. Let the reader choose 
 which of tiiese two explanations is the more probable. "t 'Pliis, 
 sir, is far from an absolute 'abandonment' of the former inter- 
 pretation. Augustin, indeed, seems to incline to the second 
 mode of undcrsiandincf the text, but he makes reference to the 
 former, and subniiis both to the judgment of the reader, that 
 he may adopt the one that seems more correct — a circumsiance 
 which you have been careful not to notice. His own mind 
 wavered, because he was struck with that difierence of gender 
 which he found in the Greek, and being unacquainted with the 
 language spoken by our Saviour, he was unable satisfactorily 
 to solve for himself a difficulty which a slight knowledge of 
 that language would have entirely dissipated. You would 
 willingly abridge the liberty which the holy doctor, in the un- 
 certainty of his own mind, left to his readers, and you would 
 determine our judgment contrary to the most obvious rules of 
 sound interpretation. We respect the modesty of Augustin in 
 manifesting the hesitancy of his mind. Of the two explana- 
 tions which he offers, we adopt that which is most obvious, 
 most conformable to the context, and supported by the suffrages 
 of the ffrcal host of ancient and modern interpreters. Besides 
 the Protestant interpreters already produced, | liishop Pearson 
 expressly says, that the Church was " built upon Peter accord- 
 ing to our Saviour's promise;") and Bishop Beveridge, not 
 venturing to deny this, vainly attempts, contrary to the mani- 
 fest tenor of the Lord's discourse, addressed specially to Peter, 
 to extend it to the other Apostles : *' I also say unto thee, thou 
 art Peter (a rock as the word signifies), and upon this rock 1 
 
 ■ I'ctra — I'ctrus. 
 
 t " Ilarum autorn duarum Bcntentiarum qumsit probabiliorcligat lec- 
 tor." S. Aug. 1.1, Retract, c. xx'i. 
 \ See Letter II. pp. iiJ. 2i'>, 27, 2-. 
 § PeaTBon on the Creed, art. ix. p. r)UO. 
 
272 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 will build my Church; that is, thou shalt be one of those upon 
 whom I will build my Church, like an house upon a rock that 
 shall never be moved."* In the days of Augustine, Ambrose, 
 whose canticle he quotes, declares Peter to be " the very rock 
 of the Church," and this interpretation was recognised as cor- 
 rect by the many, who, throughout the Church, sang the hymn 
 composed by that sainted prelate. Was it perfectly fair in 
 you to have concealed this fact from your readers, by leaving 
 a hiatus in your quotation ? 
 
 Though Augustin wavered as to the application of the term 
 "rock" in this passage, he had no doubt whatever of the pri- 
 macy of Peter. In his polemical works against the Donatists, 
 he declines abiding by the authority of Cyprian, and justifies 
 himself by observing, that even Peter — whom he takes to be 
 Cephas, mentioned by St Paul to the Galatians — did, in one 
 instance, deviate from the correct path ; and so Cyprian might 
 be admitted to have erred, without any disrespect to his 
 memory. " I think," says he, " that without any disrespect 
 to him, the bishop Cyprian is compared with the Apostle 
 Peter, as far as regards the crown of martyrdom : but I ought 
 rather to fear lest I should be disrespectful to Peter: for who 
 does not know that the principality of the apostleship is 
 
 TO BE I'-REFERRED TO ANY BISHOPRIC ?"t 
 
 When Augustin says of the Lord : " that he gave those keys 
 therefore to his Church, that those things wiiich she should 
 loose on earth should be loosed in heaven, and that those which 
 she should bind on earth should be bound in heaven, "J — he 
 speaks of the power as existing in the Church, without specify- 
 ing in wiiom it is lodged. He adds, by way of explanation, 
 " that whosoever would not believe that his sins are forgiven in 
 
 * Beveridge's Serm. Christ's Church Established on a Rock, vol. i. 
 p. 155. 
 
 t S. Aug. 1. ii. contra Donat. c. i. § 2. " Quis enim nescit ^llum 
 Apostolatus principatuni cuilibet episcopatui prseferendum ?" A differ- 
 ent reading is given in a Belgic manuscript apud Lov. *' Ilium Apostola- 
 tus principatu cujuslibet episcopatui praeferendum." 
 
 ; L. i. de doct. Christ. C. xv. p. 10. Edit. Ven. 
 
ALLEGORICAL INTKUPRE TATION. 273 
 
 the Church, ihey slioukl not be rortriven liiiii ; but wliosoevcr 
 believed it, and, being corrected, turned away Ironi sin, being in 
 the bosom of the same Cliurch, should be healed by the same 
 faith and reformation." — This does not at all signify tliat the 
 keys are given to each individual ; but it aflirms that no one 
 can benetit by this power, unless lie truly believe its existence 
 in the Church, and also abandon the vices to which he has 
 been subject. 'i'his faith and reformation j)repare him for 
 receiving the benefit of this divine power in the tribunal of 
 penance. 
 
 The passage which you object from the commentary on the 
 twenty-first chapter of JSt John, contains the explanation of the 
 rock, which Augustin gave, under tlie erroneous impression, 
 tliat the change of gender was intended to denote the distinction 
 of the persons, lie proposes to himself the question, why 
 Peter is ordered to follow Christ, and John is directed to re- 
 main until his coming: also, why Peter, who loved Christ 
 more than the other Apostles, was not rewarded with the love 
 of his Divine blaster in a greater degree than the others, John 
 being styled " the disciple whom Jesus loved." lie answers, 
 that Peter was a figure of the Church in her present state of 
 misery and infirmity, which is directed to follow Christ, by 
 ardent love and patient sulfering, to the kingdom of his beati- 
 tude ; but that John was the figure of the saints in glory, who 
 are loved by Christ, and abide tranquilly in his enjoyment: 
 " which two lives Peter and John tyj)ified, each of them one." 
 Whilst indulging in this allegorical interpretation, he observes 
 that, amidst the frailties and miseries of life, — *' we are pro- 
 vided with the succours of alms, to ensure the success of our 
 prayer: forgive us our 'trespasses as we forgive those who 
 trespass against us.'" "The Cliurch, haj)py in hope, does 
 this in this wretched life: of which Church Peter the Apostle, 
 oti account of the Priinacij of his ^Opost/c.s/np, sustained the 
 perscfn, in a figurative universality. F'or, as to what strictly 
 regards himself, he was by nature an individual man, by grace 
 an individual Christian ; but, by more abundant grace, he was 
 an Apostle, and the first: but when it was said to him: ' To 
 
274 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- 
 soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven ; 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also 
 in heaven,' — he represented the whole Church, which in this 
 world is agitated by various temptations, as by showers, floods, 
 and tempests, and which does not fall, because it is founded on 
 the rock whence Peter derived his name.* What follows is 
 but the development of this idea, as already set forth in the 
 passage from the book of retractations. Every one must see, 
 that the holy doctor gives an allegorical, and not a literal inter- 
 pretation, when he says that Peter, by a figurative universality, 
 represented the Church militant — the whole collection of be- 
 lievers in the present state of imperfection and misery — espe- 
 cially meaning thereby to prove that the words '^follow me," 
 are to be considered as addressed to this same universal multi- 
 tude of believers. Yet he is careful to state why, above all the 
 other Apostles, he was the representative of this Church mili- 
 tant : " On account of the Primacy of his Apostleship" — "be- 
 cause he was the first Apostle. "t As by his application to all 
 the faithful of the words "follow me," Augustin could not 
 mean to deny, that they were primarily and literally addressed 
 to Peter ; so by his application to them of the words : " To 
 thee I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," — he did 
 not signify, that these keys were not primarily, and in the ob- 
 vious meaning of power and authority, given to Peter. The 
 reason of his generalizing them is to sustain his position, that 
 the Church, in its present state, in which it needs the remission 
 of sin, is signified by this Apostle: "Therefore," says he, "the 
 Church, which is founded on Christ, received, through Peter, 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the power of bind- 
 ing and loosing sins. For what the Church is, strictly speak- 
 ing,:}: in Christ, Peter is the same mystically in the rock : ac- 
 
 * S. Aug. Tract. 124, in c. 21. Joan. Ev. Tom. III. Col. 822. Edit, 
 Ven. 
 
 t " Cujus Ecclesioe Petrus Apostolus, propter Apostolatus sui prima- 
 tum, gerebat figurata generalitate personam." — lb. Col. 822. 
 
 t " Quod est enim per proprietatem in Christo Ecclesia, hoc est per 
 
FIRST OF TIIK AP08TLKS. *-i75 
 
 cordiii«^ to w"«Jii(li t-i»fnitH':Ui'>n ('lirisi is llie rock, Peter the 
 Cluirch. This Church, lliLTtifDrc, which Peler represented, as 
 long as she is in the niiilst of evils, is freed from evils, hy lov- 
 ing anil foHouing Christ. And she follows him, especially by 
 means of those who contend unto death for the truth. But to 
 the multitude is said, 'follow me,' for which multitude (^hrist 
 suffered."*' In j)ursuino this alle<][orical explanation, Augustine 
 evidently presupposes that the keys were given to Peter, and 
 that through himt the Church received them, inasmuch as not 
 for himself only — " an individual man, an individual Christian" 
 — but for all the Church, he, who was "an Apostle, and first 
 of the Apostles," received this power.J *' For all the saints," 
 says he, " inseparably belonging to the body of ('lirist, Peter, 
 THE FIRST OF THE AposTLES, rcccived the keys of the kingdom, 
 for its government in this most tempestuous life, to bind and 
 loose sins :§ and with reference to the same saints, John the 
 Evangelist reclined on the bosom of Christ, to express the 
 most tranquil repose of this most secret life" with (lod. Some- 
 what further on you assert that Augustine "extended the same 
 representative capacity to John," and you quote freely from 
 ihis commeiiiary on the iweniy-tirst chapter ol" the evangelist, 
 lo prove tiiis position: but you should have observed, that John 
 
 significationcm Petrus in potra; qua significationc inlclli<iitur Christus 
 petra, Petrus Ecck-sia." — lb. 
 
 * "Sod universitali dicitur : soquere me." 
 
 t " Ecclesia ergo qua; fundatur in Chrislo, claves ab eo rcgni ca'Io- 
 rum accepit in Petro, id est potcstatem ligandi solvendique peccata." 
 —Aug. Tract. 124, in Joan. Col. b22. 
 
 \ Quo(] enini ad ipsuin proprie pcrtinot, natura iinus homo crat, gra- 
 tia unus Clirislianus, abundanliore gratia unus idnnquc primus .Iposto- 
 Ins: sod quando ti dictum est. Tibi dabo claves regni ca'loruin, el 
 (juodcurnque li^averis in terra, <rit ligaluin vi in cadis, et qui)drumque 
 solveris super terrain, erit sfilntuin ct in ctrlis, universarn .sicrnifieab.it 
 cclesiain." — lb. 
 
 § " Omnibus igitur sancli.s ad Cliristi C(jrj)us inseparabiliter perlint n- 
 tibu.s, propter liujus vitie procello.si.HHimic gubernacuium, ad liganda et 
 Bolvenda peccata claves regni codorum primus Apostolorum Petrus ac- 
 cepit." — lb. Col. h24. The C/hurcli is here represented as a ship whose 
 helm has been entrusted by Christ to Peter. 
 
2Tt» ST AVGUSTIX. 
 
 is not spoken of as the representative of the Cliurcli militant, 
 which representative capacity is peculiarly assigned by the 
 holy doctor to Peter, " on account of the primacy of his Apos- 
 tleship.'' John is said to represent or signify the Church 
 triumphant, inasmuch as, reposing on the bosom of Jesus, he 
 presents an image of the happiness of the saints reposing in the 
 enjoyment of God. The representative character of Peter is 
 clearly marked as official and authoritative, directed to the 
 government of the Church militant in this stormy life : he is 
 the pilot placed by Christ at the helm ; — he is the ruler, having 
 received from Christ the keys of his kingdom. But the repose 
 of John is merely emblematic of heavenly beatitude. "^Yhocan 
 confound what is so clearly distinguished in the Scripture, as 
 well as by Augustin ? 
 
 The passage which you object from the commentary on the 
 lifth chapter of the first epistle of John, is the explanation of 
 the text : " every one who believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
 born of God." The saint observes that demons confessed this 
 truth no less than Peter, but Peter through affection. To the 
 question of our Saviour — '• 'Who do men say that I am V Peter 
 answered, and said: 'Thou art Christ the Son of the living 
 God.' And he heard from the Lord : ' B^sed art thou Simon 
 Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not rerealed it to thee, but 
 my Father who is in heaven.' — See what praises follow this 
 faith : ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my 
 Church.' — V.'hat is it: 'On this rock I will build my Church T 
 On this faith — on what was said: 'Thou art Christ the Son of 
 the living God.' On this rock, he says, I will found my 
 Church. This is great praise."* In this place it is manifest 
 that Augustin approaches nearer the general interpretation of 
 the Fathers, and the natural meaning of the text. It is no lon- 
 ger on Christ that the Cliurch is understood by him to be built 
 by Christ — an incongruity of phrase which must strike every 
 one — but it is on the confession of the divinity of Christ, as 
 
 Aug. in Ep. Joan. c. 5, Tract. 10. Tom. III. Col. 804. Edit. Venet. 
 
PRINCEDOM OF THE AP0STLES1IIP. 277 
 
 made by Peier, or in other words, on Peter confessin? his 
 divinity. 
 
 In the passage which you have quoted from the seventy- 
 sixth sermon on the fourteenth cliaptcr of St Mattliew, Angus- 
 tin indulges a little in what the taste of his age permitted, a 
 play on the words *'/^e/rw«" and **/)e/ra;" and concludes the 
 paragraph by giving, as the meaning of our Redeemer: "On 
 myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church. I 
 will build thee on me, not me on thee."' It is injustice to 
 Augustin to adduce this specimen of his biblical criticism, 
 arising from a want of knowledge of the original binguage in 
 wliich our Lord spoke: but it is still niore unjust to use it 
 as a proof that he disbelieved the primacy of Peter, which, in 
 the very passage itself, he supposes, and in the context 
 most strongly affirms. Thus he says here, that *' he was 
 called Peter, to signify the Church, for, because Christ is 
 the rock, the Christian people is Peter, for the rock is the 
 principal name, therefore Peter from petra the rock, as Christ 
 is not called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ."t 
 In regarding Peter as the representative of the entire Church, 
 he evidently considers him as its head and Primate, as he him- 
 self thus explains: "The same Peter by the rock surnamed 
 blessed, bearing the figure of the Church, holding the prince- 
 dom OF THE AposTLEsnip — after he heard of tlie future passion 
 of the Lord, which he foretold to his disciples would soon take 
 place, displeased him.":; He calls him repeatedly "first and 
 chief in the order of the Apostles."} 
 
 When the holy doctor, in the commentary on the twenty- 
 first chapter of John, says, that " not only Peter, but the entire 
 Church, binds and looses sins," it is because the power of 
 
 • Serm. 76, alias 13 de verbis Domini, p. 415. Tom. V. Edit. Ven. 
 
 f lb Col. 415. 
 
 \ " Ecclesice figuram portans, Aposlolatus principatum tenens." — P. 
 416. Tom V. Ed. Ven. 
 
 § " Ipse enim Petrua in ordtnc Apostolorum primus" — " in illo ergo 
 uno Apostolo, id est, Petro, in ordme Apostolorum primo et prsecipuo." 
 —lb. Col. 415, 4 IC. 
 Y 
 
278 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 Peter was not personal, for llie exaltation of himself, but for 
 the benefit of the Church at large, wherefore it is exercised by 
 his successors ; and because it is common, as far as the remis- 
 sion of sins is concerned, to the Apostles, and to all legitimate 
 pastors of the Church, to whom that power was granted ex- 
 pressly by Christ. Hence Auguslin asks : " Are not these keys 
 in the Church where sins are forgiven daily? But since Peter, 
 in signification, represented the Church, what was given to him 
 individually, was given to the Cluirch."* In this sense he 
 says elsewhere : " On account of the person of the whole 
 Church, which he alone represented, he was made worthy to 
 hear : ' 1 will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' 
 Not an individual man, but the unity of the Church received 
 these keys. Hence, therefore, the excellence of peter is 
 PROCLAIMED, bccause he represented the universality and unity 
 of the Church, when it was said to liim : ' I give to thee,' what 
 was given to all. For that you may know that the Church has 
 received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hear what the Lord 
 says elsewhere to all his Apostles : ' Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost.' And immediately afterwards : ' Whose sins you shall 
 fortrive they are forgiven them ; whose sins you shall retain 
 they are retained.' This appertains to the keys, of which it 
 is said : ' Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed 
 also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall 
 be bound also in heaven.' "t 
 
 The application which Augustin makes to all prelates of 
 the command to feed the sheep, is an extension of its meaning, 
 made, in the general style of the Fathers, for purposes of 
 edification, and is not at all adverse to the literal sense, which, 
 on t!ie contrary, it presupposes. It is because "in Peter alone 
 the unity of all pastors was represented. "J "Justly did the 
 Lord, after his resurrection, entrust to Peter the feeding of his 
 
 * S. Aug. Serin. 149, de verbis Act. 10, p. 70C. Tom. V. 
 t S. Aug. Serm. 29G, in Natali Apost. 1. 
 
 X S. Aug. Serm. 147, de verbis Evang. " In uno Petro figurabatur 
 unitas omnium pastorum." P. 702. Tom. V. Ed. Ven. 
 
CATHOLICITY OF TJIE CHI'RCH. 279 
 
 slieep ; for he was not the only one among the disciples who 
 was maile worthy to feed the sheep of the Lord : but when 
 Christ speaks to one, unity is conirnended: and to Peter pri- 
 marily, because he is the first amonh; thk Apostles."* 
 
 When Augustin observes that "what was commended to 
 Peter — w)iat was enjoined on Peter — not Peter only, but like- 
 wise all the Apostles heard, held, kept, and especially that 
 companion of his mart\ rdoni — even as to the day — the Aiios- 
 tle Paul,"t — lie slates what all admit, that the other Apos- 
 tles emulated the zeal of l*eler in feeding the ilock of Christ; 
 but he does not assert that the general charge of it was common 
 to all. It was not a commission, the exercise of which was to 
 be confined to Peter exclusively, though it was his office to 
 see that his colleagues fed that portion of the flock of Christ 
 assigned to each.:{: He and they were to concur in this divine 
 task, and the power and the duties were to be perpetual in the 
 Church, her prelates at all times being charged to give to others 
 the food of heavenly doctrine, which, as a divine deposit, is 
 transmitted to them: wherefore Augustin beautifully says: 
 " We feed: we are fed in common with you." But "blessed 
 Peter, the first of the Ai'ostles,"§ is the Chief Pastor, who 
 directly from Christ received his authority and charge. 
 
 The passages of Augustin which relate to the catholicity of 
 the ('hurcli, might, as you justly observe, be quoted in such a 
 number as to fill a volume : but you must have read them rather 
 cursorily, if you have not perceived "the slightest allusion to" 
 the supremacy, or, if you will, " the domination of the iloman 
 See." Some of the references to that See may, probably, have 
 escaped your notice, from the African custom of speaking of 
 the Koinan Church, and the Western churches, in its commu- 
 nion, as the churches beyond the seas. With regard to Car- 
 
 " *' Quando Christus ad unum loquitur, unitns coininondntur ; ot Pe- 
 tro priinilutt, quia in Apostolis I'etrus est primus." — Sena. 2UlJ, p. Il'.>5. 
 Tom. V. 
 
 t Scrra. in Natali Ap. Petri ct Pauli, Tom. V. p. S'M). 
 
 t " Food the flock of God which is among you" — 1 Pet. v. 2. 
 
 § " lieatus Petrus Apostolorum primus." — St-rm. li'.MJ. sub initium. 
 
280 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 thage, Augustin remarks, that " the city was convenient to the 
 regions beyond the seas, and of illustrious renown : wherefore 
 its bishop had no small authority, and might disregard the 
 combined multitude of his enemies, when he saw himself united, 
 by letters of communion, to the Roman Church, in which 
 
 THE PRINCEDOM OF THE APOSTOLIC CHAIR ALWAYS FLOURISHED, 
 
 and to Other countries from wliich the Gospel came to Africa, 
 where he was ready also to plead his cause, if his adversaries 
 should endeavour to estrange these churches from him."* In the 
 passage which you quote from the Council of Zerta, which you 
 call Tertensian, the saint states that the Donatists *' acknowledged 
 they had nothing to allege against the Catholic Church, which is 
 spread throughout the world. t" By this they meant the Church 
 in communion with the Roman See, as may be learned from the 
 sequel of the letter, in which the prelates, in whose name it was 
 written by Augustin, observe that the Donatists, when pressed 
 in regard to some charges, pleaded that one cause or person 
 should not be suffered to create prejudice against another cause 
 or person ; and thus " they confirmed by their own words what 
 we before said concerning the Church, that the cause and per- 
 son of Cecilian, whatever it might be, could not prejudice not 
 only the Catholic Church beyond tiie seas, against which they 
 acknowledged that they had nothing to allege, but even the 
 African Catholic Church which is united with it in commu- 
 nion. "J In his book against Petilian, he explains more pre- 
 cisely what Church beyond the seas is that with which the 
 African was united: "If," says he, "all throughout the whole 
 world were such as thou most wantonly assertest, what has 
 
 * S. Aug. ad Glorium et Eleusium Ep. 43. Olim 1C2, p. 92. Tom. II. 
 Ed. Ven. 
 
 t " Confess! sunt enim contra ecclesiam Catholicam, quK toto ter- 
 rarum orbe difFunditur, nihil se habere quod dicerent." — Cone. Zertens. 
 Ep ad Donat. inter opera Aug. Tom. II. p. 457. Bishop Hopkins gives 
 a strange translation : <' They have made their confession against the 
 Catholic Church, which is diffused throughout the whole world, and have 
 no wore that they can say." 
 
 t S. Aug. Ep. 142. Tom. II. p. 4G2. 
 
COMMUNION- WITH THi: ROMAN CHrUCII. 281 
 
 been done lo thee by the C'luiir of the Koiuan (.'luirch, in whicli 
 Peter sat, and in wbicb Anastasius sits at this day, or of the 
 church of Jerusalem, in wliich James sat, and in which John 
 now sits : with which we are joined in (Jathoiic iiuity, and from 
 which you separated yourselves through impious frenzy ?"• 
 
 In the letter to Saturnine and Euphrates, in which Augus- 
 tin congratulates them on their return to the Church, he ob- 
 serves, that " this house of God is not confined to one corner 
 of the earth, but spread throughout the world." Having prov- 
 ed it by many passages of Scripture, he adds : '* The enemies 
 of this great house yielded to tliese and sucii like testimonies, 
 of which so many are found throughout the whole Scripture, 
 so far as to acknowledge that they had no cause of complaint 
 against the church beyond the seas, which, nevertheless, they 
 confessed to be Catholic. We communicate with this church, 
 that we may be made worthy to be united to the members of 
 Christ."t 
 
 In reference to the investigation which took place at Rome 
 under Melchiades, in regard to Cecilian, St Augustin writing 
 to those of Cirta proposes this dilemma: — "Let them reflect 
 on this very short, and if I mistake not, decisive point — that 
 either the case has been investigated in the ecclesiastical trial 
 beyond the seas, or it lias not. If it has not been investigated, 
 the Christian society throughout all the nations beyond the 
 seas is innocent, of wh.ich society we enjoy the communion ; 
 and therefore thry (the Donatists) are separated certainly by 
 a sacrilegious rupture from those innocent men. If the cause 
 has been tliere investigated, who does not understand — who 
 does not perceive — ^wlio does not see — that they with whom 
 communion was from that lime interrupted, were overcome in 
 the investigation ?'\; 
 
 From the passage ycni have given from the letter of Augus- 
 tin to Hesychius, '^ on the end of the world, ''^ as " a specimen 
 
 • L. ii. contra. Lilt. Pctiliani. c. 1. p. Q.')!. Ed. Ven. 
 
 t Kp. 142. Tom. II. p. 4t;j 
 
 X S. Aug. Cirtcnsibus, Ep lU. p. \i'0. Tom. II. Edit Ven. 
 
282 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 of his views in regard to Roman supremacy," most readers 
 would imagine that he maintained, some nations had received 
 the faith without submitting to the authority of the Bishop of 
 Reme. Yet he speaks of the fulfilment of propliecy in the con- 
 version of nations, and in this sense, he observes, that "the 
 Lord with an oath promised to the seed of Abraham, not the 
 Romans alone, but all nations, in consequence of which pro- 
 mise it has already happened that some nations, which are not 
 included in the Roman empire, received the Gospel, and were 
 united to the Church which fructifies and increases in the 
 whole world."* — He states, that " there are in Africa number- 
 less barbarous nations, in which the Gospel has not yet been 
 preached — and who are not all under the Roman power," but 
 who, nevertheless, are embraced within the divine promise. 
 Could I believe that you introduced the passage which you 
 have quoted with a view to give your readers to understand 
 that Augustin vindicated Christian nations from the authority 
 of the Bishop of Rome, I could not give you credit for the can- 
 dour which you claim, and which never should be wanting in 
 honourable controversy. 
 
 The advice given by St Augustin to Casulanus, which you 
 object as adverse to the primacy, is in conformity with the au- 
 thority and practice of his master St Ambrose, and in perfect 
 harmony with our principles, as has been already shown. The 
 fast of Saturday, observed at Rome, was obligatory on the faith- 
 ful of that Church, either by positive enactment, or ancient 
 usage, having the force of law ; but its obligation did not neces- 
 sarily extend to all the churches of the universe, because no 
 general law had been then made to that effect. Where the 
 usage did not exist, the faithful were at liberty to conform to 
 the discipline of their respective churches for the reason which 
 Augustin thus assigns : " for in those matters wherein the Di- 
 vine Scripture determines nothing, the custom of the people of 
 God, or the institutions of our forefathers, are to be regarded as 
 
 * Ep. 199, ad Hesychium de fine scec. p. 758. '' Qugb non tenentur 
 ditione Romana." 
 
DOCTRINAL Tinm NAI.. 283 
 
 law."* In tliis epistle, llie holy doctor quotes ilie words ol' 
 lliose who urged the practice on the ground that " I*eter, head 
 of the Apostles, gate-keeper of heaven, and foundation of the 
 Churcli, taught its observance to the Romans, whose faith is pro- 
 claimed throughout the entire world." He does not dis;pute these 
 titles ; but as the fast was not generally established, he recom- 
 mends the iuHtation of the harmony which existed between 
 Peter and his colleagues. " As, therefore," says he, " Peter 
 aud liis irllow disciples lived harmoniously, so let those who 
 fast on Saturday, whom Peter |)lanl('d, and those who dine on 
 Saturday, whom his fellow disciples planted, live in harmony. "t 
 The concluding recommendation, to follow in such matters the 
 custom of particular churches, and the authority of the bishop, 
 is the same as would be given at this day by every divine in 
 the Catholic communion. You need only refer to any of our 
 moral theologians. | 
 
 Your last argument from Augustin, is taken from his list of 
 heresies. You cannot persuade yourself that a doctrinal tri- 
 bunal, such as we believe, was generally acknowledged in the 
 early ages, wherein so many heresies prevailed : although you 
 acknowledge that several of them existed even in the days of 
 the Apostles; and surely you must admit that there was then, 
 at least, a teaching authority, capable of defining revealed truth, 
 and proscribing error. 'J'he history of the Church testifies 
 how efhcient the authority of the Bishops of Home was in this 
 regard ; and the learned Protestinl, C'asaubon, admits that " no 
 one w ho is the least versed in ecclesiastical Ijistory, can doubt 
 that (iod made use of the Holy See, during many ages, to pre- 
 serve the doctrines of faith. "§ 'J'he pride, corruption, and 
 ignorance of men, explain how heresies multiplied, notwith- 
 standing the recognition of a divinely established tribunal. 
 You allege, that among the eighty-eight heresies, not one sen- 
 
 • 8. Au{r. Casulano, Ep. 3(;. Tom. II. p. 0)8. i Ibid. 
 
 t See Th*'ol. Mor. 1*. Thornn' n C'liarincs. tract, de legibus. Art. V. 
 Par. :i, p. K). 
 
 § Casaubon Exorcit. xv. ad Anna!, iiuron. 
 
284 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 lence can be found upbraiding the heretics with their departure 
 from the Church of Rome. The catalogue was not composed 
 for them, and departure from the Church was common to them 
 all, whilst St Augustin undertook to specify the peculiar er- 
 rors of each sect. Nevertheless, he marked down the eflort of 
 the Donatists to maintain the semblance of the authority of 
 Peter in their sect, by sending a bishop to reside at Rome, or 
 sending some bishops of the sect to consecrate one there. If 
 he did not upbraid them with departing, he at least affection- 
 ately invited the heretics of his day to return : " Come, breth- 
 ren, if you wish to be ingrafted 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."* 
 The profound veneration of Augustin, and of all the Catho- 
 lic bishops of Africa, for the Roman See, was manifested in the 
 most solemn manner, in the measures adopted against the he- 
 resy of Pelagius and Caelestius. A numerous council, held at 
 Carthage in the year 410, addressed Pope Innocent as their 
 " most blessed and honoured lord, and holy brother," and 
 prayed, " that the authority of the Apostolic See might confirm 
 their decrees, in order to provide for the salvation of many, and 
 correct the perversity of some." They concluded by express- 
 ing their undoubted confidence that his judgment would be such 
 as would fill them all with joy.f In a letter from a similar 
 venerable assembly, held shortly after at Milevis (Mela), the 
 bishops begin by observing, that '« Since the Lord, by a spe- 
 cial gift of his grace, has placed you in the Apostolic See, we 
 beseech you to vouchsafe to use your pastoral diligence in behalf 
 of the great dangers of the weak members of Christ." Among 
 the texts by which they establish the necessity of grace, they 
 allege the assurance of our Lord to Peter : " I have prayed for 
 thee, that thy faith may not fail ;" and they conclude thus : — 
 
 * Ps. contra partem Donati. 
 
 t Ep. 175, olim. 90. Tom. II. p. G17. 
 
AFRICAN COUNflLS. 285 
 
 '• We think that, through the mercy of the Lord our God, wlio 
 vourhsafes both to direct your counsels and to hear your pray- 
 ers, those who entertain such perverse and pernicious opinions, 
 will readily assent to the authority of your Holiness, derived 
 from the authority of the Divine Scriptures, so that we may 
 have occasion rather of gralulalioii at their correction, than of 
 sorrow at their ruin."* The Poutiff recoornised in the refer- 
 ence made to his authority, noihing more than faithful ad- 
 herence to the exauipk's of anticjuity, and due respect for 
 the rights of the chair of Peter. His authoritative decree, di- 
 rected to the prelates of Carthage, begins thus : — " In investi- 
 gating those things, which it is meet should be treated of with 
 all care by priests, and especially by a true, and just, and Ca- 
 tholic council, following the examples of ancient tradition, and 
 mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have properly main- 
 tained the vigour of our religion, not less now in consulting us, 
 than before, when you pronounced judgment; since you deter- 
 mined that your juilgmcnt should be referred to us, as you know 
 what is due to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this 
 station desire to follow the Apostle himself, from whom the 
 episcopacy and the whole authority of this order proceeded: 
 following whom, we know how to condemn what is evil, and 
 to approve what is praiseworthy. Observing the institutions of 
 the Fathers with priestly fidelity, you do not allow them to be 
 trodden under foot ; for they decreed, not by human impulse, 
 but by divine direction, that whatsoever might be done in pro- 
 vinces, liowcver separate and remote, should not be deemed 
 terminated until it had come to the kiiowledgc of this See ; that 
 the judgment, which might be found just, might be confirmed 
 with its whoh; authority, and the other churches (as waters 
 issuing from the fountain, and through the dilTerent parts of the 
 whole world (lowing, pur«; streams from an un|)()lluted source), 
 miglil thence take what they mi^ht j)r('s«M-ibe."t His letter to the 
 prelates of Mela is also coucIhhI in the language of one having 
 
 * Kl.. 17»;, olim. 92, p. G20. t Kp. 1-1. 
 
280 ST AUGUSTIN. 
 
 authority.* Neither document was viewed by Augustin or his 
 colleagues as marked with the character of arrogant assump- 
 tion ; but they considered "the pestilence condemned by the 
 most manifest judgment of the Apostolic See:"t and they 
 maintained that further examination was unnecessary: "Why," 
 cried Augustin to the Pelagians, " do you still demand an inves- 
 tigation, which has already taken place at the Apostolic See ?"j 
 A few months after the confirmation of the African councils had 
 reached Africa, addressing his flock, he observed: "Already 
 have the decrees of two councils on this matter been sent to the 
 Apostolic See : the rescripts from thence have reached us : the 
 cause is decided : would to heaven the error were for ever aban- 
 doned. "§ Allow me, then, Right Reverend Sir, to conclude 
 this letter in the very words of this illustrious doctor : " Shall 
 we hesitate to take refuge in tlie bosom of that Church, which, 
 from the Apostolic See, through the succession of bishops, 
 even to the acknowledgment of mankind generally, has obtain- 
 ed supreme authority, heretics raging around in vain, condemn- 
 ed as they have been, partly by the judgment of the people 
 themselves, partly by the authority of councils, partly also by 
 the splendour of miracles? To reject its authority, is truly 
 either the height of impiety or desperate presumption. "|| 
 
 * Ep. 182, olim. 91. 93. Tom. II. p. 635, inter Aug. 
 
 t Ep. 191, olim. 104, p. 709. Tom. II. 
 
 t Operis imperf. contra Julianum, 1. ii. c. 103, p. 993. Tom. X. 
 
 § Serm. 131, de verbis Apost. c 10, Col. 645. Tom. V. 
 
 II De utilitate credendi, c. 7, Col. 69. Tona. VXH, 
 
LETTER XXII. 
 
 ST CIIRYSOSTOM. 
 
 Right Revkrend Sir: 
 
 The last witness of the faith of the fourth century whom 
 you introduce to our notice is the eloquent bishop of Constan- 
 tinople. In his work *' On the Priesthood," — by which he 
 understood the Episcopal ollice — he speaks very clearly, and 
 quite to our satisfaction. He observes that Christ, " speaking 
 with the Prince of the Apostles, says: * Peter, lovest thou 
 me?' and Peter answering allirniatively, he adds: 'If thou 
 lovest me, feed my sheep.' 'J'he Master interrogates the dis- 
 ciple, whether he is loved by him: not that he may be inform- 
 ed — for how should he seek information, to whom the hearts 
 of all men were open ? — but to teach us how much he regards 
 the government of his flock. Mow great reward will he not 
 bestow hereafter on the pastors and rulers of this flock ? Where- 
 fore, when the discijjle had answered : ' Thou knowest, Lord, 
 that I love thee ;' and had appealed to himself, who was loved, 
 as the witness of this afleclion, the Saviour Jesus did not cease, 
 but added also the judgment of love.* For he did not then wish 
 a declaration of the great love which Peter bore him, for that 
 was already manifest to us by many proofs : but he had it in 
 view to teach both Peter and the rest of us his own «^reat bene- 
 volence and love for his Church: that by this means we also 
 might cheerfully assunje the care and charge of the same 
 
 • S, Joan. Chrys. 1. ii. dv Saconlotio. In tlir Latin translation it is 
 rcndf^rcd, " Anioris (jiioqui' jucliciiiin adjnnxit." It kccmis t<i inran the 
 reward adjud^rcd to tlic love of I'etcr. Bishop Hopkins iiiistukcs it for 
 indicium. 
 
288 ST CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 Church. For why did he shed his blood ? Certainly that he 
 might purchase to himself the sheep, tlie care of wliich he en- 
 trusted to Peter, and to the successors of Peter. Justly then 
 Christ thus spoke : ' Who then is the faithful and prudent ser- 
 vant whom the Lord placed over his family V " You perceive 
 that Peter is here styled the Prince of the Apostles, and receives 
 immediately from Christ the charge of his (lock: but you ima- 
 gine that the force of the expressions is weakened by the rea- 
 soning of Chrysostom, who infers, from tlie charge of Christ 
 to Peter, that our love should be manifested in feeding his flock. 
 This inference does not at all imply the extension of the words 
 of Christ to others besides Peter and his successors in his See ;* 
 but inasmuch as the love of Peter was rewarded by his being 
 entrusted with the charge of the flock of Christ, so those who 
 are pastors and rulers of his flock may expect that a great re- 
 ward is reserved for them hereafter. It is of this reward, ra- 
 ther than of the proof of love, that he speaks. Peter alone, 
 according to Chrysostom, was Prince of the Apostles, '* en- 
 dowed by Christ with special authority," and " far surpassing 
 the other Apostles. For he says : ' Peter, dost thou love me 
 more than all these V "t Yet you assert that there is nothing 
 in this which necessarily implies authority over the other 
 Apostles ! 
 
 The beautiful passage of the third book, wherein Chrysos- 
 tom speaks of the power of binding and loosing granted to the 
 priesthood, as a divine power not communicated to angels and 
 archangels, cannot be oflfered as an explanation of any of the 
 texts on which we lay peculiar stress as proving the Primacy 
 of Peter. No mention whatever is made in it of the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, but only of binding and loosing, and 
 of forgiving and retaining sins, which powers were promised 
 and communicated to the Apostles in common, on occasions al- 
 together distinct from those in which Christ said to Peter: 
 ♦* To thee I will give tlie keys of the kingdom of heaven : feed 
 
 * To/f /uer' iKitvov. This properly means " successors," occupants of 
 his See. t Ibidem. 
 
CIllUCH miLT ON PKIFR. 289 
 
 my lambs; feed my sheep." — '♦Why," asks (^hrysoslom, 
 commeiiliiig on this latter passage, ** does he address Peter con- 
 cerning llie sheep, passing by t!)e others ? He was the chief 
 of the Apostles, and mouth of the disciples, and summit of that 
 body: wherefore Paul also went up to see liim in preference 
 to the others."* 
 
 Hid you cited a little more of the passage from Chrysos- 
 tom's eiglily-lhird homily on St Matthew, 1 should not feel it 
 necessary to do more than copy the quotation. In that dis- 
 course he observes, that Christ '* permill<'d the very summit 
 {head) of the Apostles lo deny him."t — It is in rehiiioii to the 
 prayer of Christ, that the failh of Peter miglit not fail, that 
 Chrysostom observes: "As he is going to suffer, he speaks 
 more humbly, that he may show his human nature: for He, 
 who, on his confession, so founded ami fortified the Church, 
 that no danger, nor death itself coidd overcome it; who grant- 
 ed him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and committed to 
 him so great power, and who never needed to pray for them 
 all, — how much less should he need it in this circumstance ? For 
 with supreme authority he said: *I will build on t/iee my 
 Church, and will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of hea- 
 ven."! — W iil> tliis exposition of the text before you, you could 
 easily have perceived what he meant when he s;»i<I, that on the 
 confession of Peter the Church was founded and fortihed, — 
 namely, on Peter himself confessing Jesus Christ. 
 
 Such, also, is the obvious meaning of the passage wliich you 
 object from the (ifty-fifth homily. In rch'rcnce lo the question 
 of the Saviour, ns to whom the Aposiirs believed him to be, 
 Chrysost(»m says: — " What tlxMi does Pefr, the mouth of all 
 the Apostles, the summit of the whole college? When all had 
 
 been questioned, he alone answers W hat then does Christ 
 
 say? *'riiou art Simon, the son of Jona, thou shah be called 
 Cephas: for siiu-c thou hast proclaimed my Father, I also 
 
 X^f- ^ Jonn (^lirya in c. xxi. Juan lioin b7. Tom. III. 
 
 t S. Jii.ifK ('liry» liom. hxxiii. in .Malt. J Ibidem. 
 
 z 
 
290 ST CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 mention him u-ho begot thee.' .... But since he [Peter) 
 added: 'thou art the Son of God;' [Clirisl) to show that 
 lie was ' the Son of God,' as he [Peter) was son of Jona, 
 of the same substance with liis father, therefore, added : 
 ' and I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
 I will build my Church,' tiiat is, upon the faith of the con- 
 fession.* Here he manifestly foretold that the multitude of 
 believers would be great, and he elevates the thoughts of Peter, 
 and makes him the pastor of the Church. — 'And the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it.' If they shall not prevail 
 against the Church,— much less shall they prevail against me. 
 . . . . ' And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of hea- 
 ven.' What means — ' I will give to thee?' As the Father 
 has given to thee the knowledge of me, so I will give to thee. 
 And he did not say : 1 will ask the Father to give thee : but, 
 though the power was great, and the greatness of the gift in- 
 effable, nevertheless, he says : ' I will give thee.' What I 
 pray, dost thou give ? ' The keys,' he says, ' of the kingdom 
 of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall 
 be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon 
 earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' How then is it not be- 
 longing to him who says — ' I will give to thee,' — to grant also 
 to sit on the right hand and on the left? You perceive how 
 he leads Peter to a more exalted idea of himself, and reveals, 
 and shows himself to be tlie Son of God by these two pro- 
 mises. For what God alone can grant, namely, the remission 
 of sins, and that the Church, so many and so great waves 
 violently rushing on it, should remain immovable ; whose 
 head and shepherd, a loichj fisherman, should surpass ada- 
 mant in strength, the whole world struggling against him — all 
 these things, 1 say, which God oidy can effect, he promises 
 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 naiion : CHRIST PLACED 
 
 * T« Trtnt T)if o/uohoyloL^. Bishop Hopkins criticises the version 
 fidem et confcssioncm. At the sacrifice of perspicuity, I have given a 
 literal version. 
 
I'KTKU TLACKI) OVF.ll Till: WORM). *J()1 
 
 THIS MA.N OVER 1111: lON'rilU:: WORLD. » Wliere- 
 fore, I would willingly ask those; who say lh:it the di<rniiy of 
 the Sou is less than that of the Father, whicli <(ifis appear to 
 them greater, those which the Father, or those wliicli tlie Son 
 granted to Peter? The Father iiiade to him the revelatjon of 
 his Son ; hut the Sou j^^rauted to liiin partly to he ahle to diffuse 
 every where throuirhout the world the revelation holh of the 
 Father and of liu; Son ; partly that though he was a mortal 
 man, he should, ncveriheless, have celestial power, and have 
 the keys of the kingdom of iieaven ; so Peter showed that the 
 (Jhiirch, spread through the entire world, is stronger than the 
 firmament: ' for heaven and earth shall pass away,' he sailh, 
 ' but my words shall not pass away.' How is He inferior, 
 who granted these things — who accomplished these things for 
 Peter? I do not speak thus, as thinking that the works of the 
 Father and of the Son are distinct: ' for all things were made 
 by him, and without him was made nothing:' but I speak 
 with a view to silence those who utter such things. But, do 
 you understand with me from all these things, how great is his 
 power. *I say to thee, he says, thou art Peter, and I upon 
 THEE will build my Church ; I will give to thee the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven.' "t You were wisely brief in your 
 quotations from this eloquent Father. It is easy to cavil 
 on a word, and to mislead a reader by referrin<i to an ambigu- 
 ous phrase; but to persuade an unbiassed mind that Clirysos- 
 tom, — who styled Peter, — '* the summit of the whole Apostolic 
 band," — who magnified the power given him by Christ, as 
 great, the gift as ineffable, — who adduced it as an evidence of 
 Christ's divinity, that *' a lowlij Jiahrrmiin should be made the 
 shepherd of the flock," — " the head of llie mystic, body," — and 
 should surpass in strength adamant itself, so that the whole 
 worhl should struggle in vain against him, placed, as he was by 
 Christ, over the entire world, — (Midowed with celestial power, 
 — to persuade us, that (Mirysostom proclaiming all these privi- 
 
 i S. Chry«. horn. 55. 
 
292 ST CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 leges of Peter, did not admit the primacy, was not an easy task, 
 and which you, therefore, prudently declined. 
 
 The use of the term " principality" in regard to the Apos- 
 tleship of Paul, and even with reference to the Episcopal dig- 
 nity, in the third book of the work of St Chrysostom on the 
 Priestliood, seems to you sufficient to explain away all these 
 splendid testimonies. But where is it said that Paul had the 
 principality of the Apostleship itself, — that he was the summit 
 of the Apostles, — that he was set over the whole world ? No 
 one, you say, as if on the authority of Chrysostom, " was a 
 greater favourite with the Lord than Paul ;" that is, according 
 to the force of the original terms, none was more acceptable ; 
 his virtues were eminent, his labours immense, his sufferings 
 extreme, his privileges great — but he had not heard from the 
 lips of Jesus the divine words : *' Thou art a rock, and on this 
 rock I will build my Church, — to thee I will give the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 As you have given but few quotations from this great lumi- 
 nary of the East, I may be allowed to submit some more spe- 
 cimens besides those already adduced. In his panegyric on 
 the martyr Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch, where Peter 
 had for a time resided, he dwells on the great honour thus be- 
 stowed by God on that city : " for he set over it Peter the 
 doctor of the wliole world, to whom he gave the keys of hea- 
 ven, to whose will and power he entrusted all things."* Pane- 
 gyrizing both the Apostles Peter and Paul, he thus carefully 
 distinguishes the high prerogatives of Peter : — " Peter the 
 leader of the Apostles, Peter the commencement of the ortho- 
 dox faith, — the great and illustrious priest of the Church, — 
 the necessary counsellor of Christians, the depositary of super- 
 nal powers, — the Apostle honoured by the Lord. What 
 shall we say of Peter? the delightful spectacle of the Church, 
 — the splendour of the entire world, the most chaste dove, the 
 teacher of the Apostles, the ardent Apostle, fervent in spirit, 
 angel and man, full of grace, the firm rock of faith, the mature 
 
 * In S. M. Ignatium, p. 687, Tom. V. 
 
PKTKR TIIK ROCK <»F FAITH. 298 
 
 wisdom of ihe CImrcli, who, on nccoiint of liis purily, lieard, 
 from llie mouth of the Lord, hiniscU .styled 1 Icssrd, and son of 
 the dove: who received Irom the Lord liimself the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven. — Ihjoice, OPtter^rockoffaitJi!.^'* This 
 is, indeed, the language of panegyric ; but it would have been 
 utterly unwarrnntalde, if Peter were not in fact the necessary 
 counsellor of Chrisiiians, the teacher of the Apostles, the rock 
 of faiil). It is not only when expressly engaged in panegyric 
 that Chrysostom thus speaks of Peter. They are his favourite 
 expressions, and every where occur in his writings : " Peter," 
 say he, '* is the basis of the Church, — the fisherman who cast 
 his net into the sea, and caught in it the whole world. t — He left 
 his ship, and undertook the government of the Church; he 
 was called the key-hearer of the kingdom of heaven.; — lie was 
 the Coi'ijphrtKS who occupied the iirst place, and to whom the 
 keys of the kingdom of heavc5i were entrusted. §" — He was " the 
 pillar of the Church, the i^asis of faith, the head of the Aj)ostolic 
 choir."'^ — "'J'o him the Lord gave the presidency of the Church 
 throughout the whole earth. "^ To these splendid testimonies 
 I shall only add the still more solemn evidence of Aicts. As 
 Athanasius, the great champion of the Nicene faith, was driven 
 from his See, Chrysostom also was unjustly condemned and 
 violently driven from the See of Constantinople, by Tlieophilus, 
 j)atriar(di of Alexandria. h\ his distress he appealed to Inno- 
 cent, Bishop of Rome, and invoked the exercise of his supreme 
 aulliorily. ** I beseech you," says he, *' to direct, that what 
 has been done wickedly against me, in my absence, and whilst 
 I did not shrink from a trir\l, shall be void, and they who have 
 thus acted be subjected to ecclesiastical punishment."** The 
 
 • In. SS. Pctruin ct Pauluin. Tom. V. p. (JlKt. 
 
 t Oc Verbis Isaia; liom. 1, p. G()l>. Tom. I. 
 
 X In duodocirn A post. Tom. V. p. (»IU. 
 
 § In Ep. ad Corinlli i. c. ix. horn. 21. 
 
 II Horn. 2. de ptcn. in Psahn I... 
 
 !i Ad pop. Antioch. horn. J^d. de ptcnitenlia. 
 
 •' Chryn. Tom. V. p. 390. 
 
294 ST CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 Pontiff heard his prayer. "Innocent," says Palladius, "de- 
 creed that the sentence of Theophilus should be null and 
 void."* Why, may I ask you, did you not advert to this fact, 
 and explain by what authority Innocent reversed the decree of 
 the Alexandrine patriarch, and restored to his See the bishop 
 of the imperial city ? Could a more signal evidence be given 
 of his spiritual supremacy ? 
 
 * Palladius in vita Chrys. 
 
LETTER XXIIl. 
 
 ISIDORE, rUOSPER AND VINCENT. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 In your ihirlieth cliapler you present us wiih the leslimony 
 of tliree Falliers, Isidore of Pelusium, in E^ypl, a disciple of 
 St Clirysosloni, Prosper of Aquilaine in Gaul, and Vincent, a 
 monk of Lerins, an island on the coast of Gaul, who all lived 
 before the middle of the fifth century. Isidore observes, that 
 Christ interrogated the Apostles, not through ignorance of the 
 opinions of men in his regard, " but with a view to deliver to 
 all a certain confession, which Peter, inspired by him, laid 
 down as a basis and foundation, on which the Lord built his 
 Church."* Tiiis interpretation is by no means, as you con- 
 ceive, " in direct hostility to our present argument," for when 
 Peter is said to be the foundation on which the Church is built, 
 he is not regarded merely as en individual man, but as an Apos- 
 tle confessing the faith : hence, the confession of the divinity 
 of Christ made by Peter, is easily identified with Peter mak- 
 ing that confession. On him the Lord built his Church, not 
 as on an individual man; but as a man divinely enlightened, 
 and chosen to be the chief instrument in the divine work. The 
 other passage presents no semblance of dilliculty, for our Lord, 
 as a good physician, according to the observation of Isidore, 
 expelled the triple denial of which Peter iiad been guilty, by 
 
 * S. Isidor. Pi'lus. do intrrp. div. Script. Kpist. 1. 1, Ep. 23o. " Vl 
 hac rationo certain omnibus confessioiicm Iradcrct, quain ab on inspiratus 
 I'etnis, tnniquaiii ba.siin ac fuiidauKiitum jfcil. super quod Doininus Ec- 
 clesiaiii Huain cxtruxit." 
 
296 ST PROSPER OF AQUITAINE. 
 
 requiring of him a triple declaration of love, whilst he thus pre- 
 pared him for the power which he was about to confer of feed- 
 ing his lambs and sheep. Nothing, in the least degree adverse 
 to the prerogatives of Peter, can be gathered from the works 
 of Isidore, which, on the contrary, bear splendid testimony to 
 the enduring character of the Church founded on the rock. 
 *' By the gates of hell," says he, " the divine word designates 
 the assemblies of impious men, and the blasphemies of here- 
 sies: all of which the Church of God resists, and breaks down, 
 and overthrows, whilst she cannot be overcome by them."* 
 
 The first of the two passages you take from St Prosper, is 
 found in his exposition of the one hundred and first Psalm: — 
 " The sons of the servants of God," saith he, " are the sons 
 of the just, — the sons of the patriarchs, prophets. Apostles and 
 martyrs ; the sons, in fine, of the whole Church, which is the 
 body of Christ, the mother of all tlie Fathers, and of all the 
 sons."t The citation of a passage like this is certainly not 
 calculated to throw any light on the question under considera- 
 tion, as it neither asserts nor denies the Primacy, and has not 
 even an indirect bearing on it. The commencement of the 
 other passage speaks of the Church as one man, Christ being 
 the head: " The whole Church, with her head, which is Christ, 
 is one man, whose proper ofiice is through all time to bless 
 God."! In this, as well as in the former passage, the saint is 
 explaining some verses of the Psalms in a mystical way. Christ 
 is the supreme head of the Church, and Peter, or his successor, 
 though styled the head of the visible Church, in relation to the 
 other members, is only the chief member under Christ. No 
 mention of this visible head is here made, because the exposi- 
 tion of the Psalm oflfered no occasion for it ; but in many places 
 of his works Prosper speaks of tlie authority of the Roman 
 See as being the throne of Peter. In liis letter to Rufinus, he 
 says, that "the judgments of the eastern bishops, and the 
 
 * Isidor. Pelus. 238. Sereno. 
 
 t Prosper Aquit. in Ps. ci. Ed. Par. 1711. 
 
 t Prosper in Ps. cii. 
 
ArnioiUTY OF Tin: apostolic see. 297 
 
 aulhority of the Apostolic Sec, and the viL'ihviice of the Airican 
 counrils delected the arliliccs of ilie l*el:ii^iniis." ' — Speaking 
 elsewhere of those who asserted that AuLMisliiie had ik)! cor- 
 rectly defended the Catholic (h)ctrine, he dwells " on the great- 
 ness of the injury which, in the person of this one doctor, they 
 inflict on all, and especially on the Pontiffs of the Aj)ostolic 
 See."t He repels the assertion as ahsnrd : " Accordinj^ to 
 your censure, the hlessed Pope; Innocent, most worthy of the 
 See of Peter, erred. 'I'he two hundreil anil hnirtcen bishops 
 erred, who in the letter which they prelixeil to their decrees, 
 thus addressed blessetl /osinnis the prelate of the Apostolic 
 See: 'We have determined that the sentence passed against 
 Pelagins and Celestine hy the venerable Bishop, Innocent, from 
 the See of the most blessed Apostle Peter, shall continue in 
 force until they most unreservedly confess that we are aided 
 in each act by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, not only to know, but to perform justice, so that without 
 it we can have, thiid;, say, or do nothing of true and holy 
 piety.' The holy See of Peter erred, which by the mouth of 
 blessed Zosimus thus speaks to all the world: ' We, neverthe- 
 less, through the inspiration of Cod — for all good is to be re- 
 ferred to its author and origin — have reported all to our brethren 
 and fellow bishops.' "^ He shows that these errors, having been 
 once proscribed by Apostolic authority, should not be again 
 discussed : *♦ We are not again to enter into a new conllict with 
 them {the Pelagians), nor are special contests to be begun as 
 against unknown enemies : their engines were broken in pieces, 
 they were prostrated in the companions and princes of their 
 pride, when Innocent, of blessed memory, struck the heads oi 
 the impious error with the Apostolic sword .... when Pope 
 Zosimus, of blessed memory, added the streng'h of his sentence 
 to the decrees of the African council. "§ '• See," he says in 
 
 • Prosper ad Iluf. p. KVI, App. ad Aug. Ed. Vrn. Tom. X. 
 
 f \s. contra Collatorcin, p. 171. 
 
 t rrosper, I. contra, Cullat. p. 170. 
 
 § lb. p. VXi, 
 
298 VINCENT OF LERINS. 
 
 another place, " die rebels everywiiere laid prostrate by the thun- 
 derbolt of the Apostolic decision."* He calls Rome "the 
 throne of Peter,"t " the throne of Apostolic power,"± the " head 
 of the world, § governing witli religious empire nations which 
 its arms had not subdued." Willi these words of Prosper be- 
 fore you, how could you thus write: "On the subject of Pe- 
 ter's autliority over the other Apostles, or the derived supre- 
 macy of the Church of Rome, I find nothing in the works of 
 Prosper?" Need i express my astonisliment at this declaration? 
 In referring to the " Commonitorium" of Vincent of Le- 
 rins, you have studiously avoided citing those passages which 
 bear directly on the subject, and confined yourself to a general 
 principle, which is perfectly correct, but in the application of 
 which you are peculiarly unfortunate. You should have turned 
 to the eighth chapter, wherein you might have seen him illus- 
 trating his principle " by an instance taken from the Apostolic 
 See, that all might see in meridian light — with what energy, with 
 what zeal, with what determination the blessed successors of the 
 blessed Apostles always maintained the integrity of the religion 
 once received. Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, the Bishop 
 of the Apostolic See, in conjunction, indeed, with his colleagues, 
 yet in a more conspicuous manner than they, resisted innova- 
 tion, judging it fit, as I think, that he should excel all the 
 
 REST IN the DEVOTEDNESS OF HIS FAITH, AS MUCH AS HE SUR- 
 PASSED THEM IN THE AUTHORITY OF HIS STATION. "|| In the pe- 
 nultimate chapter, speaking of the letters of Julius, the Bishop 
 of Rome, which were read in the General Council of Ephesus, 
 he observes : " That not only the head of the world, but 
 
 * stratosqiie rebelles 
 
 Oris Apostolici fulmine ubiquo vide. — Prosp. in Ohtrect. Aucr. 
 t Ergo Petri solium Romam, et Carthaginis altae 
 
 Concilium repetant. — Carm. dc ingratis. 
 X Juris Apostolici solio. — lb. 
 § Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralis honoris, 
 
 Facta caput mundi, quidquid non possidet armis, 
 
 Religione tenet. — lb. 
 II S. Vine. Comm. c. viii. p. ^G. Ed. Aug. Vindelic. 
 
lU'LK OF IN ri:i{i'Ki;TATi<)\. 299 
 
 also its sides iiii;;ht give tfsiimony for llial judLMiient, llie most 
 blessed Cyprian, bishop ofCarliiage, and niarlyr, was bronght 
 forward from the soiiili, Si Ambrose, l)isli()p of Milan, from 
 the north. "' In ihe lasl chapter he adduces ♦♦ two auiliorita- 
 live declarations of the Apostolic See, one, namely, of the holy 
 Pope Sixtiis, which venerable man (he says) now adorns the 
 Roman Church, the other of his predecessor of blessed me- 
 mory, Pope Celesiine. — Whoever opposes these Apostolic 
 and Catholic decrees, must first insult the memory of St Celes- 
 tine, who decreed that novelty should cease to assail antiquity, 
 and must mock the decrees of St Sixtus, who judged that no- 
 velty should have no indulgence, because nothing should be 
 added to antiquity. "t 
 
 The maxims which you have cited from this admirable work 
 are ours, and we alone can stand the test of their application. 
 •' If I," says he, *' or any other, desire to detect the frauds of 
 heretics, who are rising up around us, and to avoid their 
 snares, and to continue sound and whole in sound faith, he 
 ought to fortify his faith, by the help of God, in a twofold 
 manner ; first, by the aulliorily of the divine law, and next by 
 the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here, perhaps, some 
 one may say: Since the canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and 
 abundantly suni(!es to itself for all j)urposes, what need is there 
 that the authority of the ecclesiaslical inlerpretaiion should be 
 added .' Because, iMdced, all men do not understand in one and 
 the same sense the S('rij)lure, in consecjuence of its sublimity ; 
 but each one interprets its words diH'erenily, so that as many 
 opinions as there are men seem to be d(;riv('d from it. Thus 
 Novaiian expounded the Scriptures in one way, Sabellius in 
 another, Donaius in another; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, 
 each in his own way; Photiinis, Apollinaris, J^riscillian, Jo- 
 vinian, Pelagius, Celestius, each dillerently; and last of all, 
 Neslorius. And, therefore, it is very necessary, on account of 
 the many and varn»us turnings of error, that llie line of pro- 
 
 " Comtn. r. penult, p. Ilo. 
 t lb. c. nil. p. KM). 
 
300 VINCENT OF LERIN3. 
 
 phetic and Apostolic inlerpretation should be directed accord- 
 ing to the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic understand- 
 ing."* 
 
 Give me leave to point out to you the true application of this 
 excellent rule. To avoid the prevailing errors, we cling to that 
 interpretation of the Scriptures wliich has received the solemn 
 sanction of the Church. The words of Christ to Peter appear 
 to us so plain, that we are forced to conclude that no mind not 
 already biassed can mistake their meaning. One unenlightened 
 by faith may disbelieve the power of Peter, because he doubts 
 of the power of Christ to accomplish what he says: but who- 
 ever believes the divine power of our Saviour, cannot consist- 
 ently call the prerogatives of Peter into question. They flow 
 irresistibly from the words of Christ. Thus we fortify our faith 
 in the first place by the Divine law, as Vincent of Lerins 
 states. Next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. If the 
 ingenious but tortuous interpretations of those who deny the 
 Primacyt could shake these common sense conclusions, the 
 
 * Comm. c. ii. p. 16, 
 
 t The following are some specimens from the most distinguished di- 
 vines of the English establishment. Bishwp Pearson says: " It will be 
 necessary to take notice, that our Saviour, speaking of it {the Church), 
 mentioneth it as that which then was not, but afterwards was to be ; as 
 when he spake unto the great Apostle : < Thou art Peter, and upon 
 this rock I will build my Church;' but when he ascended into heaven, 
 and the Holy Giiost came down, when Peter had converted three thou- 
 sand souls, which were added to the hundred and twenty disciples, then 
 was there a Church, (and that built upon Peter, according to our 
 Saviour's promise) for after that we read: 'The Lord added to the 
 Church daily such as should be saved.' " — Bishop Pearson on the Creed, 
 Article IX. p 506. Here the Catholic interpretation of the rock is dis- 
 tinctly admitted, but an attempt is made to explain the sublime promise 
 of the mere reception of the first converts. It is easy by such a mode 
 of interpretation to evade the plainest testimonies. " Our Lord," says 
 Potter, " received from God the keys of heaven ; and by virtue of this 
 grant, had power to remit sins on earth : the same keys, with the power 
 which accompanied them, were first promised to Veter, as the foreman of 
 the Jipostolic colic (Tc " — Potter, Archb. Canterhurij,on Church Government, 
 p. 60. — This qualifying phrase has no foundation in the sacred text. 
 
PAPAL UFXISIONS. 301 
 
 aulhorily of thai interpreialion wliii-h ihe Cliurcli always, 
 EVERYWHERE, aiicl BY THE MOiTHs OF ALL, lias ilelivert'il, woiild 
 remove every possibility of doubt. Aflcr the review which I 
 have made of your quotations, I can confidently appeal to the 
 testimonies of all the Fatiiers whom you have brought forward, 
 as well as to others, whom you have not noticed, some of 
 whose testimonies will be found in the succeeding letter. 
 
 You ask, why did not Vincent of Lfriiis slate, " that the only 
 thing required to avoid heresy was to abide by the decisions of 
 the Vicar of Christ?" His object was to show tiiat Catholic 
 faith is the simple erjunciation of what has been believed from 
 the beginning, and is still believed throughout the world, since 
 the highest authority of the Church is only its guardian and 
 expounder. He speaks distinctly of the zeal with which the 
 ancient faith had always been maintained by the successors of 
 Peter in the Apostolic chair: but he enters into no nice distinc- 
 tions of what gives a doctrinal delinition the character of a 
 solemn expression of the faith of the Universal Church. How- 
 ever, all the monuments of Christian antiquity prove that those 
 whose orthodoxy was called in question, felt bound to render 
 an account of tiieir faith to the Roman Bishop — that he was 
 consulted from every pari of liie workl on (questions or contro- 
 versies concerning faith — that his solemn juilgments were di- 
 rected to the Universal Church, and that even (Ecumenical 
 Councils listened to them wiili reverence. 
 
 2 a 
 
LETTER XXIV. 
 
 GENERAL TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 Having followed you through the list of your authorities, 
 and produced ample proofs of the full admission of the Primacy 
 of Peter and his successors by the illustrious men whose testi- 
 mony you have endeavoured to bring forward against the truth 
 which they professed in word and work, I may now add a few 
 out of many other witnesses of the ancient faith to whom you 
 have not invited attention. 
 
 St James of Nisibis, one of the Nicene Fathers, says : " Si- 
 mon, who was called the rock, on account of his faith, was 
 justly styled rock."* 
 
 St Epiphanius, bishop of Salaraina in Cyprus, in the fourth 
 century, calls Peter " the first of the Apostles, the solid rock 
 on whicli the Church of God was built. "t 
 
 St Gregory of Nyssa says: " The memory of Peter, who is 
 the head of the Apostles, and together with him the other mem- 
 bers of the Church, are glorified; but the Church of God is 
 rendered solid in him : for he, according to the prerogative 
 granted him by God, is the firm and most solid rock on which 
 the Saviour built his Churcli.":}: 
 
 St Asterius, bishop of Amasea in Pontus, in the fourth cen- 
 tury, thus commented on tlie pastoral commission given to 
 
 * S. Jac. Nis. Apud. Galland. Tom. V. p. 3, n. 13. 
 t "ES'ti rov Trpcerov uTn^CihceV t»v Trirpstv t«v 9'ip'e^v, ip' riv « ExxAxcr/* 
 Tj< 6e» aKoSo/Ahrui.'" — S. Epiph. in Ancorato. 
 
 X S. Greg. Nyss. laudatio altera S. Steph. protom. 
 
ST OPT ATI'S, ST CVIill. OF ALT-N ANDKIA. 303 
 
 Peter: " When, tliorefore, our Saviour was about to sanctify 
 mankind by subjecliuu himself, of liis own choice, lo tlealli, he 
 dclivcH's to this man the Universal Churcli every wlicrc (liHused, 
 as a precious deposit, after liavinjr asked liim thrice : ' dost 
 thou h)vc mc V and as with great ahicrity lie rej)lied to the 
 questions by an equal number of protestations, he received the 
 world in charge, as one s!iej)herd, one llock, having heard, 
 ' feed my sheep :' and tlie liOrt! i^ave to those who should come 
 to the faith, tiie most laiihful disciple, almost in his own stead 
 as a falher, and lawgiver, and instructor."* 
 
 Si Oplitus, of Mela in Africa, addressing the Donatists, 
 wrote: ** To err knowingly is a sin: tiic ignorant are some- 
 times pardoned. You cannot deny liiut you kr.ow the Episco- 
 pal chair in the city of Uoinc was first bestowed on Peter: that 
 Peter, the head of all the Apostles, sat therein ; in which one 
 chair unity should be preserved by all — so that now, whoever 
 would place another chair against this one, woulil be guilty of 
 schism. "t 
 
 To these writers of the i'ourlh century 1 subjoin some of the 
 succeeding age. St Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, com- 
 menting on the twelfth cliapter of John, says : ** He (Christ) 
 was pleased to call him l*cter, frtim the rock, by an apt simili- 
 tude, as the one on whom he was about to lound the Church.":}: 
 
 St I'cter Chrysologus, the celebrated bishop of Ravenna, 
 wrote lo Eutyches : ♦♦ We exhort you, honourable brother, lo 
 attend with docility in all things lo what shall be prescribed to 
 
 " O /utr cut fmrup hjuott Hvix* •/uixxii' ayi^^nv tu xu&aupirm dmiaTei 
 
 TOi/T* Ta» itifi 7rtptrifitr:n, rpiror aWTH wbifjurct to, fixiic /ui. flf Jt 
 TAit i^wTJiViai fA*^.<t 7rf:.^Cu(k( Irafiduiuc Tate i/xsAcj/ac ^fiibi-ro, «Aot/Si» 
 T6» niffjiif i/c iT//uiA«4ar »c /uixf xyiKtit «<c voifxttf, axiv<Tu.(. fiivnt to. 
 utl'n. /utt. Ksi r^tjit oitbi isri/Tsu Tif ?r/rora'Tcr yua6*Tjli' f/*xir o nvfiit 
 Tcic irpc9-»>.6rtic ■r*rip*, it«i tzpjti*, itcci irmitvni. — S. Asterius, Oral. 
 in Petrurn ct Fauluin, T. I. Auclnrii Grirr. Pat. 
 
 \ S. Oplalus Mil. I. ii. n.2. 
 
 t ptpi»t6/uiu( it mn Tile irtTpac /MiT»»4/ua^i irirpo* tr'awrei ytp 
 tfxi>.>.t Txr JUT)'. 6iwi>iKr »««> Jiff/ai'. — S. Cvril. AK'X. 1 ii. in c. xij. Joan. 
 
304 GENERAL TESTIMONIES. 
 
 you by the most blessed Pope of the Roman city, since BLESS- 
 ED PETER, WHO IN HIS OWN SEE LIVES AND 
 PRESIDES, grants the knowledge of the true faith to those 
 that seek it."* 
 
 The solemn testimony of the bishops assembled from all 
 Christendom may be added. The great Council of Ephesus, 
 held in the year 431, affords us a most s])lendid evidence of 
 the authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome, and admitted 
 by the Universal Church, as the legitimate prerogative of his 
 See. Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, had sought to adul- 
 terate the faith, and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appeared 
 as its strenuous defender. Celestine, Bishop of Rome, having 
 been informed of the error, addressed Nestorius a letter of pa- 
 ternal remonstrance, and authoritative injunction, concluding 
 with this sentence : " Know, then, manifestly, that this is our 
 decree, that unless you preach concerning Christ our God what 
 the Church of Rome, and of Alexandria, and the whole Catho- 
 lic Church holds, as also the holy Church of the great city of 
 Constantinople has held steadfastly until your time ; and unless 
 you, by an explicit confession in writing, condemn this per- 
 fidious novelty, which attempts to separate what the venerable 
 Scripture unites, you are cast forth from the communion of the 
 entire Catholic Church." The Pope addressed Cyril, author- 
 izing him to preside in his place in the synod, but charging 
 him most strictly to execute the sentence of excommunication 
 if, within the time specified, Nestorius should not retract. The 
 Fathers proceeded to its execution, declaring themselves *' con- 
 strained to do so by the canons and by the epistle of our most 
 holy Father, and fellow minister Celestine, Bishop of the 
 Church of Rome."t The Pontifical legates having arrived 
 after these proceedings, Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, at the 
 opening of the third session, inquired of the legates whether 
 they had read over the act of deposition. Philip, the priest, 
 one of the legates, replied that they had, and that they felt sa- 
 
 * S. Petras Chrys. Ep. ad Eutycheten, 
 t P. 14G2, Cone. Col. Hard. Tom. I. 
 
COUNCIL OF KPlllLSrs. 305 
 
 lisfie«l that all hail been ilonc m strict accordance with the 
 canons ; vet he requested that the acts should be read anew in 
 the council, in order that in compliance with the orders received 
 Iroin Celcslinc, they niii'lit conlirni what had been decreed!"* 
 The rctjiiest was ^n*aiitcd wilhoul dilliculi} : and the decrees 
 having been read, th(; lej^atc thus began the eonlJrinatory sen- 
 tence : " It is not doubted by any one, but rather it has been 
 well known in all ages {of the Church)^ that the lioly and most 
 blessed l*eler, the princet and head of the Apostles, the pillar 
 of lailh, and the loundalion of the Catholic Church, received 
 from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Uedeenier of man- 
 kind, the keys of t!ie kingdom : and to him was given power 
 to bind and loose sins, who, down to the present time and for- 
 ever, in his successors lives and ji'Dgls. His successor, 
 then, in regular order, the occupant of his place, our holy and 
 most blessed Pope, the IJishop Celestine, has sent us to this 
 holy synod to supply his i)resence." He proceeds to state the 
 obstinacy of Neslorius, who sulVered the lime prescribed by 
 the Apostolic See to elapse without retracting his error: and 
 then declares that the sentence passeil against iiim by the con- 
 sent of tlie hishojjs of the East and of the West is firm, and 
 that he is cut ofl' from the communion of the Catliolic Church. 
 The other two legates spoke to the same clVecl, after whom 
 Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, proposed that the proceed- 
 ings of both sessions siiould be presented to the legates for 
 subscription. Arcadius, one of them, observed that the proceed- 
 ings of the holy synod were such that they could not but con- 
 firm them. 'J'he synod ol)served, that as the legates had spoken 
 in a manner becoming them, it now remained for them to fulfil 
 their promise, and subscribe the acts, which they accordingly 
 did. 'J'hus in all things was seen, as I'liilip the legate observed, 
 the union of the holy members with their holy head, '* for your 
 
 t '*i*iX'^- — Actionc 3. 0)nc. Kpli. p. I !7r. mid 1177. Tmih. I. Hard. 
 Col. 
 
30G GENERAL TESTIMONIES. 
 
 blessedness," he said, addressing the Fathers, '* is not ignorant 
 that the blessed .Apostle Peter is the head of all faith, or even 
 of the Apostles:''^ 
 
 I know not what more solemn and splendid testimony could 
 be given of the general belief of the divine institution of the 
 Primacy. The bishops who composed this venerable assembly, 
 were, with the exception of the Roman legates, oriental and 
 African : yet they heard, without a murmur of contradiction, the 
 strong assertions of the legates ; — they submitted their acts to 
 them for confirmation — and they declared themselves constrain- 
 ed to execute the sentence of Celestine against Nestorius. 
 
 The great Council of Chalcedon, reporting their proceedings 
 to Leo the Great, refer to his letter, which they had received 
 with acclamations, and declare that " he is established the in- 
 terpreter for all of the voice of Peter the Apostle." They say 
 that he presided over them, as the head over the members, in 
 the persons of those who occupied his place : and they speak 
 with indignation and horror of the impiety of Dioscorus, the 
 fallen patriarch of Alexandria, who, to his heresy, had added 
 frantic violence against the successor of Peter. — " He has," 
 say they, " extended his frenzy even against him to whom the 
 care of the vineyard was intrusted by the Saviour, namely, 
 against your Apostolic holiness."! In these expressions and 
 acts of this venerable assembly, as well as of that of Ephesus, 
 you have the clear recognition of the divine institution of the 
 Primacy, 
 
 * « Ki<pdLxii oxus r»( Tria-Tiui « *, Tav AvoToKm. — Act. 2. Col. 1472. 
 Tom. II. Edit. H. 
 t T. II. p. 655. Col. Hard. 
 
LETTER XXV 
 
 INTERPOLATION OF I'lIE FATIIEHJS. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 Yoi'R chapter on the interpolation of the Fathers indicates 
 some misgiving as to the result of their examination. You 
 have indeed reason to despair of ever overthrowing the Primacy 
 or any other Catholic tenet by their aid. From your enume- 
 ration some might be led to think that every passage in their 
 works relating to this point had been brought forward, or at 
 least, that all the witnesses, up to the middle of the fifth century, 
 had been examined : but it must now be seen that most import- 
 ant passages, which dissipate any obscurity that might exist 
 in others, have been left unnoticed, and several Fathers have 
 not at all been presented for examination. I could have added 
 many more, but I have reason to indulge the fear which you 
 express, that this tedious investigation may prove wearisome 
 to our readers. 
 
 You state your " conviction that the expurgations which our 
 scholars have made of these ancient writings have left them 
 still far from immaculate." Do you mean to insinuate that no 
 reliance can be placed on the integrity of any of those works .' 
 The translator of Athanasius states, that many false and spuri- 
 ous books }jad been attrii)uted to him : but have not the learned 
 laboured successfully to separate these from his genuine works ? 
 Are there not many works of this and other Fathers bearing 
 evident marks of authenticity, which Protestant and Catholic 
 critics unite in acknowledging ? The assertion of the Jansenist 
 Quesnel may pa?s for what it is worth ; but what friend of lite- 
 
308 INTERPOLATION OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 rature, or truth, will consent, that, on such a vague suspicion, the 
 splendid monumenls ol' the genius, learning, and zeal of the 
 early ages, should be all marked as uncertain ? Let this literary- 
 skepticism be indulged, if you will, wherever there is a shadow 
 of reason to support it : but let not these precious records be 
 capriciously subjected to suspicion, merely because the parti- 
 san of error feels himself overwhelmed by their harmonious 
 evidence. Whoever calls in question the authenticity of a 
 work, should show the intrinsic characters which it presents 
 of forgery, or at least the absence of external authority to 
 warrant its being ascribed to its allep^ed author. 'J'he man who 
 asserts that a work has been interpolated, should adduce reason 
 to convince us that the passages which he questions are not 
 consistent with the known sentiments of the author, elsewhere 
 clearly expressed, or with facts which the author must have 
 known, and would not have contradicted. Notwithstanding your 
 oft-repeated professions of kindness and of courtesy, you con- 
 clude this chapter by asserting that our predecessors have confess- 
 edly interpolated the works of the Fathers to suit the doctrine 
 of their day. Should I retort the charge, 1 might appear unkind, 
 but certainly I would be supported by evidence greater than 
 that which you can allege. Many of the works rejected by the 
 learned as supposititious, inasmuch as they were once errone- 
 ously ascribed to authors who had not composed them, were 
 not literary forgeries, but works written by men sound in faith, 
 and which by mere mistake were attributed to others. Some- 
 times the identity of name caused the work to be ascribed to an 
 author who had flourished in a different country and age: 
 sometimes the want of any name led to the conjecture that the 
 work belonged to some celebrated author who was known to 
 have treated the subject. When vellum and parchment were 
 scarce, the copying of a small work at the end of a large volume 
 gave occasion to consider both as the production of the same 
 author. Since the printing of books, most of tfiese errors have 
 been detected, by a critical examination of tlie works them- 
 selves, by the collection of manuscripts, and by reference to 
 other works in which citations were made, or catalogues given. 
 
8T MAXIMl'S OF TURIN. 309 
 
 Though there is still room lor the exercise of just criticism to 
 ascertain the correct reading of some passage, or the authenti- 
 city of some document, reasonahle evidence of the want of au- 
 thenticity must be demanded, unless we choose to plunge into 
 the gulf of universal scepticism. Were we to act on your appa- 
 rent principle, we might hesitate to admit the Bible itself, since 
 it is undeniable that spurious books once were esteemed as di- 
 vine, and interpolations or alterations of the Sacred Text — some 
 of which may yet remain — were made by accident or fraud. 
 
 Was there no attempt by Catholic writers wilfully to pass 
 under some illustrious name their own productions t There 
 was, but from motives very dilferent from those which you 
 have attributed to them. Vigilius, bishop of Thapsis, in the 
 fifth century, published some works under the name of Atha- 
 nasius, because he wished to avoid the Arian persecution, 
 which by writing in his own name he might have drawn upon 
 him. Others, like Isidore Mercator, may have done in like 
 manner for less worthy motives : but no Catholic thereby in- 
 tended, or could have hoped to introduce a new dogma, or to 
 give rise to a new practice. The forgeries proceeded from 
 Judaising Christians in the first ages, and subsequently for the 
 most part from the abettors of various heresies. An enlight- 
 ened criticism will not regard all works as doubtful, because 
 sometimes a romance is published, or a literary hoax proves 
 successful. I will submit an instance of a suppositious work, 
 which modern Catholic criticism has assigned to its real author, 
 and from which it will be seen how little the suppositious char- 
 acter of a work detracts from its real worth, and how willing 
 our writers are to assign every document to its proper author. 
 Among the sermons formerly ascribed to St Ambrose, was one 
 on the festival of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, which is now 
 known to be the production of St Mnximus, bishop of Turin, 
 who nourished about the middle n{' the fifth century. The 
 catalogue of his discourses was given by d'ennadius of Mar- 
 seilles, at the close of that century, and it served to dis- 
 cover them amidst the writings o\ St Ambrose and St Au- 
 
310 INTERPOLATION OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 gusiin, with which they had been confounded. The error does 
 not at all affect their authority, for though Ambrose flourished 
 half a century before Maximus, and shed a brighter light on 
 his own and succeeding ages, yet the name of Maximus is 
 likewise held in veneration for the sanctity of his life, the in- 
 tegrity of his faith, and his sacred and sublime eloquence. The 
 critical discovery adds another witness to the privileges of the 
 prince of the Apostles, and presents another link of the chain 
 of traditionary testimony. " Since," says he, " all the bless- 
 ed Apostles obtain equal grace of holiness before God, I know 
 not how Peter and Paul seem to excel the others by a certain 
 peculiar degree of the virtue of faith in the Saviour : which, in- 
 deed, we can prove by the judgment of our Lord himself. For 
 to Peter, as a good steward, he gave the key of the heavenly 
 kingdom ; on Paul, as a fit doctor, he imposed the duty of ec. 
 clesiastical instruction : so that whom the one instructs unto 
 salvation, the other receives them to rest ; and Peter opens the 
 kingdom of heaven to the souls of those whose hearts Paul 
 opened by his teaching Both of them, therefore, receiv- 
 ed keys from the Lord, the one the key of knowledge, the 
 OTHER THE KEY OF POWER : onc dispenses the riches of immor- 
 tality, the other bestows the treasures of knowledge : for there 
 are treasures of knowledge, as it is written: — 'In whom are 
 all the treasures of knowledge hidden.' Tlierefore, blessed 
 Peter and Paul shine forth among all the iVpostles, and excel 
 by a certain peculiar prerogative. But it is uncertain which is 
 to be preferred to the other: for I think that they are equal in 
 merits, since they are equal in suffering, and that they lived 
 with similar devotedness of faith, as they attained together to 
 the glory of martyrdom. For let us not imagine, that it hap- 
 pened without motive, that, on the same day, and in the same 
 place, they suffered by the decree of the same tyrant. They 
 suffered on the same day, that they might attain to the glory 
 of Ciirist at the same time, — in the same place, that Rome 
 should possess both, — under the same persecutor, that equal 
 cruelty should be exercised towards both. The day, then, was 
 
KO.MK, IlKAD OF NATIONS. 3J1 
 
 decreed in conseciuenre of ihcir incril — ilie j)la( o for their glory, 
 — the persecutor for llieir virtue. Ami in w luii place did ihey 
 suffer martyrdom ? In the city of Rome, which obtains the 
 sovereignty, and is the liead of nations, namely, that where the 
 head of superstition was, the head of sanctity might repose : 
 and wliere the princes of the Ccnliles dwelt, the princes of 
 the churches might reside."* 
 
 • Scrni. Ixv. p. lUi'.t. Vol. III. Edit. Baa. inter opera Ainbrosii, S. 
 Maxiinus Taurin. 
 
LETTER XXVI. 
 
 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 Without wishing to impugn the sincerity with which you 
 express the confidence you have in the result of your examina- 
 tion, I must guard the reader against being influenced by your 
 conviction, or misled by your professions. — " I conceive it 
 proved," you say, " by superabundant testimony, that the pri- 
 mitive Church of Rome professed to hold no authoritative su- 
 premacy over the other churches, and that she interpreted the 
 language of Christ to Peter in precise accordance with the gen- 
 eral voice of the Fathers, as conveying no official grant of su- 
 preme power or domination." You may conceive all this ; and 
 it is perfectly true that Rome, neither in ancient or modern 
 times, has claimed any domination in the odious sense of ca- 
 pricious and arbitrary authority. She professed herself at all 
 times powerless against the truth, but powerful for the truth, 
 — to level every height that exalteth itself against the know- 
 ledge of God, and to bring into captivity every understanding 
 to the obedience of Christ. She acknowledged that the power 
 which the Lord had given her, was for edification, not for de- 
 struction: yet she alleged and exercised that power, and she 
 was sustained in her claims by the general voice of Christen- 
 dom.* As you have given few quotations from the writings 
 
 * " Long before the earliest epoch that can be fixed for modern his- 
 tory, and, indeed, to speak fairly, 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." This is the admission of 
 Hallam, a learned living author, nowise disposed to favour Catholic 
 
WRlTlNCiS AND ACTS OF TllK PONTlFtS. 313 
 
 of ihc aiicieiil limnaii Fonlilfs, whicli allbrd ihe most solemn 
 evidence of \v!)al ilio priniiiive (.-liiirch of Home jirofe.sscd to 
 hold, I submit to the reader some passages. 
 
 The authority wliich Victor exercised over the eastern 
 churches has already been seen. St Cornelius, in his letter to St 
 Cyprian, gives him the pleas^ing intellitrence, that t^everal \%ho 
 had been involved in the scljism of Novatus liad returned to the 
 unity of tlie Church, and with deep conjpunction made the 
 public avowal of tlieir faith and submission, lie gives the pre- 
 cise words in which it was made : " We know that Cornelius 
 was ciiosen by Almigiily God, and by Christ our Lord, Bisliop 
 
 of the most holy Catholic Church. We confess our error 
 
 For we are not ignorant that there is one (iod, and one Christ, 
 the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, and that 
 there should be one Bishop in the Catholic Churcli."* It is 
 clear, that at this early period, the Bishop of Rome was styled 
 "Bishop of the Catholic Church," and the one Bishop placed 
 in it by Christ our Lord for its government. He liad, indeed, 
 numerous colleagues, but he was the one Bishop whose vigi- 
 lance and authority extended over all. 
 
 Julius, whose proceedings in the case of Allianasius have 
 been already noticed, had no less exalted an idea of the charac- 
 ter which, as successor ol" Peter, he sustained in the Church 
 of Jesus Christ. t 
 
 Pope Siricius, about the year 385, writing to Ilimcrius of 
 Tarragona, and prescribing certain rules to be observed, says: 
 ** Henceforth, let all priests observe the foregoing rule, who do 
 not wish to be separated from the solidity of the Apostolic 
 rock, on which Christ built the universal Church." . . . . 
 '* We decree, by a general enactment, w hat must be followed 
 hereafter, and what nuist be shunned by all the churches." — 
 He orders his decree to he communicated to the bishops of 
 
 t<'nets. Soc iiifi View of the State of Kuropo during the Middle Agci;. 
 Ch. vii.p. 2(51). Ed. Now York. 
 
 • Cornehus ad Cypriaiuim. Coll. ('onr. Labb^-. Tom. I. p. ^'M . Ed. 
 Flor. 
 
 t Ep. ad Orient. HUpra. Ivlt. xiv. p. Ic4,et8rq. 
 2 B 
 
314 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 Carthage, Boetia, Lusitania and Gallicia, that it may be invio- 
 lably observed, and all pretext of excuse be taken away, which 
 he determines never to receive."* 
 
 St Innocent, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century, 
 thus writes to Deeentius, bishop of Eugubium : — " Who does 
 not know, or perceive, that what was delivered to the Roman 
 Church by the prince of the Apostles, Peter, and is still re- 
 tained, must be observed by all ?"t In his letter to the Coun- 
 cils of Africa, he speaks still more solemnly of the privile- 
 ges of the Primacy, especially in causes of faith. 
 
 St Zosimus, addressing the Fathers of the Council of 
 Cartilage, observes : " The tradition of the Fathers has giv- 
 en so great authority to the Apostolic See, that no one would 
 
 dare call its judgment into question So great power 
 
 canonical antiquity, by universal consent, ascribed to this Apos- 
 tle, from the very promise of Christ our Lord, that he should 
 loose what was bound, and bind what was loose. "J 
 
 I shall close this evidence with one out of many passages of 
 Leo the Great. " Christ," says he, " having assumed him 
 (Peter) to a participation in his indivisible unity, was pleased 
 that he should be styled what he himself was, saying: ' Thou 
 art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church :' that the 
 building of the eternal temple by the wonderful gift of the 
 grace of God should rest on tlie solidity of tiie rock, strength- 
 ening his Church by this firmness, so that neither human 
 temerity could afl^ect it, nor the gates of hell prevail against it. 
 But, whosoever attempts to infringe on his power, indulges ex- 
 cessive and impious presumption, in seeking to violate the 
 most sacred firmness of this rock, God, as we have said, being 
 the builder."§ 
 
 You, yourself, suppose that the Bishops of Rome conceived 
 
 * Syricius Himerio, Cone. Col. Hard. Tom. I. Col. 848. 
 t S. Innocent Decentio. Jb. Col. il95. See, also, his Letter to the 
 African Prelates. Apud. Aug. Ep. 181. Col. 035. Tom. II. 
 
 X S. Zosimus, Ep. 1'2. apud Couslant, Aurelio ac caeteris, &c. 
 § S. Leo. Tom. 11. Col. 1315. Edit. Bullerin. 
 
HYPOTHESIS OF BlSHOl' HOl'KINS. 315 
 
 ihe idea of eslablishiiij^ llieir supremacy at a very early day ;* 
 how, then, you can consisleniiy say, liiat iho priruilive ('hiirch 
 of Home, of which ihey were the organs, professed to hold no 
 aulhoritalive supremacy over the other cliurches, is to me in- 
 explicable. You attribute their plan to human policy, though 
 you aihnit their sincerity in thinking that the peace and pros- 
 perity of the Churcii would thereby be greatly promoted : but 
 on what grounds do you ascribe to human policy, what they 
 uniformly attribute to divine institution? and by what right do 
 you atlribule worldly wisdom to those whom their iioly lives 
 and gb)rious deaths prove to have been the chosen ones to 
 whom the Father revealed tlie secrets of his kingdom ? 
 
 You ask yourself a puzzling question: " how the doctrine 
 of il;c Papal supremacy could have been admitted by the 
 Churcli, if it were not founded upon tlie authority of the Re- 
 deemer?" Your answer is, that " tlie rank and influence of 
 the Roman See, having given it a great and increasing prepon- 
 derance in the councils of the Church, the canons of these 
 councils by degrees confirmed its dignity. Thus, the right of 
 receiving appeals was conferred upon it lirst by the Council of 
 JSardica, some years subsequent to tlie Council of Nice. The 
 acknowledgment, that it was the first of all the churches, was 
 made still later by the Council of Constantinople." — Why did 
 not you explain how it attained that rank and influence, when 
 the very circumstance of the city being the seat of empire, ex- 
 posed its Bishop to all the fury of persecution, when, consequent- 
 ly, he could borrow no lustre, and derive no influence from 
 the tiirone.t It was "the imiesidino Church," even when Igna- 
 
 * An instance of tlio oxorciso of supremo power occurred before the 
 days of Victor, in the absolution of Cordon from the excommunication 
 intlicted by the Asiatic bisiiopg — " Another, whom the Church of this 
 age excommunicated for heresy, was Cerdon, who, coming to Rome 
 when }Iyginus was Bishop there, recanted his errors, and was restored 
 to communion. — Poller on Church (inrcrnmfnt, p. 3IJ3. 
 
 i Vail ntinian 111, in the year IV), in his constitution, called *' Novel,' 
 makes mention of the dijrnity f)f the llomancity, but dwells especially on 
 the authority of blessed I'cter, ns recognised by the canons of the 
 
316 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 lius went to martyrdom, — it was, when Irenaeus wrote, " the 
 Church of more excellent, more powerful principality," — it 
 was for Cyprian, who lived nearly a century before the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, " the princely chair."* You have staled, what you 
 seem now to forget, that the sixth canon of that council was 
 directed to guard against the encroachments of the Roman Bi- 
 shop. t Were this the fact, it would be strange that, a few 
 vears afterwards, the Council of Sardica should have enlarged 
 the privileges of the Roman See, by making it a high court 
 of appeals from the sentence of councils, by wliich bishops 
 were deposed. It is for you to reconcile these statements. At 
 the same time you may explain how it hapjiened, that long 
 before the Councils of Sardica, or Nice, Basilides, a deposed 
 bishop, of whom St Cyprian speaks, going to Rome, imposed 
 on Pope Stephen, not acquainted with the facts, and obtained 
 a decree that he should be restored to his bishopric. It may 
 be also worth explanation, how, in the interval between the 
 Councils of Nice and Sardica, tlie patriarch of Alexandria, for 
 whose protection the Nicene canon is said by you to have been 
 specially made, was accused to the PontifT, anticipated the 
 summons to appear before his tribunal, submitted to trial, or, 
 rather, appealed to his justice, and had the sentence of depo- 
 sition reversed by his high authority. At the same time, two 
 other bishops, Paul pnd Marcelius, of Ancyra, appealed to the 
 
 Church : " Cum igitur sedis ApostolicEe primatum B. Petri meritum, 
 qui est princeps sacerdotalis coronjE, et Romanaj dignitas civitatis,sacraB 
 etiam synodi firmavit auctoritas." " The merit of blessed Peter, w^ho is 
 the prince of the priestly order, and the dignity of the Roman city, the 
 authority, also, of the holy synod, strengthened the Primacy of the Apos- 
 tolic See." — See Hallam, Middle Ages, c. 7, p. 270. 
 
 * " At a much earlier period {thmi that of Val entinian) , Irenaeus ra- 
 ther vaguely, and Cyprian more positively, admit, or rather assert, the 
 Primacy of the Church of Rome, which the latter seems even to have 
 considered as a kind of centre of Catholic unity." — Hallam, ibidem. 
 
 t Cabassutius understands it, on the contrary, as grounding the Al- 
 exandrine privileges on the implicit concession of the Roman Bishop, 
 v.'ho knew and approved of them : " quia illud ei jus tribuere solet Ro- 
 luanus episcoj)Us." — JVotitia. EccL p. 112. 
 
COr.NClL OF SAHUK A. .'H 7 
 
 PonlilT from the senlcncc of inferior trihimals, and Sozomen, 
 the Greek historian, gives us in these words the result. ♦♦ The 
 Hoiuan Bishop havin<r taken cojjnizance of the cases of each of 
 lliem, and tinding them all to harmonize in the Nicene faith, 
 admitted them to his communion. And since, on account of 
 
 THE DIOMTY OF HIS 8kK, TIIK (ARE OF AliL nKLONOKI) TO HIM, 
 
 he restored eacli one to his clnirch."* 
 
 These facts are inex{)lical)lo in llie hypotliesis that the right 
 of appeal was conferred hy the Fathers ofSardica on the IIolv 
 See. A close inspection of the two canons that regard this 
 matter, will convince you that the Fathers conceded no such 
 right, though they fully recognised its existence. The first 
 enactment which they made on this suhject, was intended to 
 correct an abuse, not to confer a privilege. Before this, a con- 
 demned bishop had the facility of obtaining a new trial from 
 the bishops of the neighbouring province, without alleging sa- 
 tisfactory reasons. To prevent this, it was enacted that no 
 new trial should be granted, unless by the special autliority of 
 the holy See, who shoidd appoint the judges. This enactment 
 abridged the power of the Metropolitans, who could no longer 
 grant a new trial, whicli, before, was left to their discretion. 
 With regard to appeals to the Pope, " from the judgment of 
 those bishops who belonged to the neighbouring parts," the 
 council, at the suggestion of (laudenlius, decreed, that if a 
 bishop "should proclaim lliat his cause shoidd be lieard in the 
 city of Rome, another bishop should not, after his appeal, by 
 any means, be ord.iined in the place of him who appears to be 
 deposed, unless the cause be deterniiiied !)y the judgment of 
 the Roman Bishop." This enactment su|>poses the rii^ht of 
 appeal, and does not create it; but it restrains the provincial 
 
 * O tat it TMc xoLiTeir miJt/uttietc atvTO* irforntiovfftic //« Tilr ttpiay tcC 
 0-/}rc(/, iimrai Tjir tiisi tKM.\tta iai xit'tietz*. — Sozomen, 1. iii. Hist. EccI 
 c. 7. " The opinion of the Roman Spc'b supremacy, seems to have pre- 
 vailed very nuich in the fourth century. FIcury brinjjH remnrknblc 
 proof of this from the writinj^H of Sorraten, Sozonn-n, AmmianuB. Mar- 
 ccllinufl, and Oplalufl." — Ilallam. MidtUe .lifts, ch vii. p. M7{). 
 2 B* 
 
318 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 bishops from proceeding to the ordination of a new bishop, 
 even after a second trial, should the condemned bishop inter- 
 pose an appeal for a tiiial hearing in the Roman conrt. It de- 
 termines this appeal to have the elTect of suspending all pro- 
 vincial acts.* The case of Athanasiiis, into whose See, whilst 
 his cause was pending at Rome, Gregorius had been intruded, 
 gave occasion to these canons. Had the right of appeal been 
 conferred by that council, it would still be worthy of remark 
 that it was with a view to lionour the chair of Peter. The in- 
 Huence of the Roman Bishop, had it at all originated in the 
 greatness of tiie imperial city, must have been on the wane ever 
 since Constantine raised the new seat of empire at Byzantium. 
 The prejudices of Constantius sliould have made him view, 
 with peculiar jealousy, every new privilege of a See whose 
 Bishop was the avowed and implacable enemy ofArianism, 
 and had so lately sustained Athanasius against the Arian faction, 
 which that emperor so much favoured. The Fathers of Sar- 
 dica had been called together by the letters of this Arian empe- 
 ror, at the instance of Constans, whose influence Julius em- 
 ployed for that purpose. Every thing, then, concurred to 
 persuade them to diminish, rather than augment, the pre- 
 rogatives of that See ; and nothing could have induced them to 
 recognise its superiority, or admit its riglils, but the deep-rooted 
 conviction that they were the rich inheritance bequeathed by 
 the prince of the Apostles to his successors. 
 
 With regard to the statements of Fleury, you may enjoy the 
 benefit of them as far as they may be sustained by historical 
 facts; wherever these are wanting, we are free to dissent from 
 his peculiar views, or reject his statements. But when you 
 claim "his acknowledgment as conclusive, that a vast and de- 
 plorable change has passed over our primitive doctrine," you 
 mistake doctrine for discipline, and you confound the extent of 
 prerogative with essential rights. Fleury was of opinion that 
 the false decretals served for the amplification of papal prero- 
 
 ** See " Del Concilio di Sardica Dissertazione Polemico-Canonica, 
 Roma, 1783." 
 
FLEURV's SKNTl.MKNTS. 319 
 
 galive, wliicli, with other French divines, he was anxious to 
 confine within tlie narrowest limits: but he and they loudly 
 prochiimed tiie Catholic doctrine of the divine institution of llie 
 Primacy. It is foreign to my purpose to examine tlie correct- 
 ness of these views, as I am only anxious to vindicate doctrine, 
 without embarrassing the invesligalion by disputes about the 
 extent of privilege ; but 1 may be allowed to observe, with a 
 modern Protestant writer, that, some years before the compila- 
 tion of Isidore, *' there was a genuine collection of canons, pub- 
 lished by Adrian I., in 785, which contain nearly the same 
 principles, and many of which are copied by Isidore, as well 
 as Charlemagne, in his capitularies."* 
 
 • Hallam, Middle Ages, p. 273. 
 
LETTER XXVII. 
 
 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 Having vindicated the spiritual supremacy of the Holy See, 
 by the divine authority of Scripture, and the testimonies of the 
 venerable ancients, I should consider my task completed; but 
 I regret to find that you have presented another topic for dis- 
 cussion, which is more likely to awaken prejudice, than to 
 dispose for the investigation of truth. The temporal power of 
 the Pope is, you would appear to believe, and are willing to 
 persuade others, an article of Catholic faith, or, at least, was 
 proposed as such for several ages by the Popes who sitccess- 
 ively occupied St Peter's chair. You even intimate that each 
 Catholic is sworn to sustain the exercise of that power, should 
 it be attempted, and you allege to this effect a portion of "the 
 profession of faith," published by Pius IV. : " I acknowledge 
 the holy Catholic and Apostolical Roman Church to be the 
 mother and mistress of all cliurches, and I promise and swear 
 true obedience to the Roman bisliop, the successor of St Peter, 
 the prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ." Though 
 you are mistaken in supposing that this oath is taken by every 
 Catholic, since it is almost exclusively confined to persons 
 occupying some office or dignity in the Church, or to converts, 
 on their admission to her communion, yet I freely admit that 
 the obligation which it implies, is common to every member of 
 the Catholic ('hurch. It is manifestly no more than submission 
 to the spiritual authority of tlie Pontiff, for obedience is pro- 
 mised him only as successor of the fisherman, and vicegerent 
 
ALLEGIANCE TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 321 
 
 of Ilim whose kiiio^dom is not of iliis world. 'J'lie prolales and 
 priests who huve iiiatle lh:il premise al the foot of the ahar, have 
 not liesilaled, no more than tlie laity, to stand forward before 
 the public tribunals, and, on their oaihs, renounce allegiance to 
 every foreign princ^e or poiefitate. You insist that *' it is plainly 
 impossible to know what true obedience means, unless we 
 understand the extent to which the Pope has a just right to 
 demand it." Notwithstanding the disputes of tiie schools, as 
 to the extent of pontifical prerogative, we understand j)erfectly 
 well what true obedience nicaiis, tiaincly, submission to the 
 legitimate exercise of pontifical authority, as generally recog- 
 nised and admitted by the (.'atholic Church. It consequently 
 implies submission to those decrees which are directed to main- 
 tain the general order of the Church, so wisely regulated by 
 the canons, which have emanated from (leneral Councils, or 
 from the Holy See itself. We know tiiai no obedience is due 
 to any authority, in any thing immoral or wrong. In command- 
 ing us to honour our parents, God has not appended any limi- 
 tation to the commandment; and yet, no one feels that it war- 
 rants obedience in any thing adverse to the Divine law. 
 
 With the disputes which once agitated the schools and the 
 world, with regard to the rights of Poi)es over sovereigns, we 
 have nothing to do : we live in a dinVrcnt stale of society from 
 that which gave rise to them, 'i'he Ponlifl'is no longer the 
 recognised head of the commonwealth of Christendom, as he 
 naturally, and almost insensibly became, when the nations of 
 Europe, being all Catholic, looked uj) to him as the common 
 Father of all, the highest interpreter of the relative duties and 
 rights of all, and tlieir most sacred and powerful protector. 
 " 'J'he l*ope," says Sir Hdward Sandys, a Protestant, " was the 
 common F'ather, adviser, and conductor of Christians, to recon- 
 cile llieir enmities, and decide their dilfcrences."* Kings ap- 
 pealed to him tojud;^'e of the justice of their complaints against 
 each other, before they summoned their subjects to the field of 
 
 * Survey of Europe, p. 202. 
 
322 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 battle to avenge their wrongs.* Nations raised their voice to 
 him, imploring him to admonish the sovereign who abused his 
 power, lest suffering sliould goad them into revolt, and the 
 horrors of anarchy succeed ihe more tolerable evils of oppress- 
 ion. Before Gregory VII. hurled the pontifical anathema against 
 Henry, the Saxon subjects of this monarch had accused him, 
 to Alexander, the predecessor of this PontiiT, as having com- 
 mitted flagrant injustice, in deprivingOthoof Bavaria of his duke- 
 dom. t Impatient of his tyrannic sway, they afterwards broke 
 out into open revolt, and the auihoriiy and mediation of Gre- 
 gory were employed to iiuhice submission, with a pledge that 
 he would use his influence on tlie side of justice. It was only 
 when the excesses of Henry defied all remedy, and were ag- 
 gravated by a direct attack on the Pontiff himself, in an attempt 
 to depose him, that Gregory ventured to declare that the ties 
 whicii hitherto had bound his subjects to such a monarch, were 
 snapped asunder. J The ground of this extraordinary act, al- 
 leged by a writer almost cotemporary, was the violation of a 
 compact between freemen and their elective head. " Freemen," 
 said this writer, "put over them Henry as king, on condition 
 that he should study to judge his constituents with justice, and 
 govern them with royal solicitude : which compact he has con- 
 stantly broken and slighted. Therefore, even without the judg- 
 ment of the Apostolic See, the princes could justly refuse to ac- 
 knowledge him any longer as king, since he disregarded the 
 fulfilment of the compact, to which he had assented at his elec- 
 tion, and which, being violated, he could no longer be king."§ 
 
 * See Novalis, Schriften, Berlin, 1826, 1 Th., p. 191 ; also Lettres sur 
 THistoire, Tom. II , Lett. 41, et Tom. HI, Lett. G2; also in Mat. Paris, 
 A. D. Hi)."), the appeal of Richard I. to Celestine TIL, against the duke 
 of Austria, for having detained him prisoner atTrivallis. The Pope ex- 
 communicated the Duke for refusing to do justice. — Quoted by Milner, 
 Letter 40, on Supremacy. 
 
 t See Baronii Annales, Tom. XL, an. 1072, p. 405, 
 
 t Ibidem, an. 1073, p. 479. 
 
 § " Liberi homines Ilenricum eo pacto sibi prneposucrunt in regem, 
 ut electores suos juste judicare, et regali providentia gubernare satage- 
 
ABSOLl'TION FROM ALLEGIANCE. 323 
 
 There is, then, a cIosit afliiiily ihari at first apjicars, belwecn 
 the poliiical principles of lliat a«,'e and those of the present day. 
 Tlie crown was held on the sireii{(i!j of a virtual, if not express 
 compact, which necessarily snj)posed correlalivc ohIitjMtioiis on 
 the sovereign and tiie people." The Pontill did not prtti nd that 
 he could, at will, annul these obliuaiions, hut, on tiie conliary, 
 he used all his inlluence to obtain 'heir fullilnient; and when, 
 after every ellort hai failed, he it^sued the sentence of deposi- 
 tion, he meant to dispense with no moral duty, but authorita- 
 tively to declare that, in consequence of the abuse of power, it 
 had reverted to those by whom it bad been committetl to the 
 sovereign, in trust for the public giKul. 
 
 The justness of this view of the principles on which (iretrory 
 and some ol his successors acted, will appear from comparison 
 between a modern absolution from the oath of allegiance with one 
 of the thirteenth century. After the etiumeration of the griev- 
 ances which the American colonies had suffered from Ci'eorge 
 III., the Declaration of Independence concludes : •' We, there- 
 fore, the representatives of the United States of America, in 
 general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge 
 of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, 
 and by authority, of the good people of these colonies, sob mnly 
 publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of 
 right ought to be, free and independent states; that they auk AB- 
 SOLVED FKOM all allegiance TO THi. I'.iuTisu CROWN; and 
 that all poliiical connexion between them and the stale of Great 
 Britain is, and ou-jbt to be, totally dissolved." — In like man- 
 ner, the enumeration of oaths made to the Pontiff by Henry on 
 his coronation, and on other occasions, and afterwards violal- 
 
 ret, quod pactum ille po8toaprtDvaricari,rl contcmncrc non cessavit, cVc. 
 Ergo, et absque sedia ApostoUcoj judicio, principos cum pro rege mcrilo 
 refutare posscnt, cum pactum adimplcre coMlempserit, quod iis pro eltc- 
 tione sua promisi^ral ; cjuo non adimph-to, ner. rex esse poterat." — Vila 
 Grcgorii VII., in Muralori Script. lU-r., Ital., T. III., p. 'M2. 
 
 • Thus, in cdU, Guido was elected king of Italy, to protect and ;rovern 
 with royal care. " Ad protegendum el rcgalilcr gubern;u>duui." — An- 
 nali dltaUa, Maratori, Tom. XII. p. 12-'). 
 
324 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 ed, as also of violence, rapine, and other crimes, precedes the 
 sentence pronounced by Innocent IV. in the first Council of 
 Lateran : — " Tlie aforesaid prince," says Innocent, " having 
 rendered himself so unworthy of tlie empire and kingdom, 
 and of all honour and dignity, and being cast off by God on ac- 
 count of his iniquities, that he should not reign, or command ; 
 and being bound fast by his own sins, and cast away, we show 
 and denounce him as deprived by the Lord of all honour and 
 dignity, and nevertheless, by our sentence we deprive him, and 
 absolve for ever from their oath, all who are bound to him by 
 the oath of allegiance."* In both cases, tliere is a solemn de- 
 claration, that the people are absolved from the oath of alle- 
 giance: grievances, excesses, and tyranny are alleged as the 
 ground of either declaration. The American declaration is 
 made by men who lay no claim to any divine autliority in ex- 
 pounding moral obligation, but rest on facts of public notoriety, 
 and principles of natural right : the Pontifical declaration ema- 
 nates from one recognised as the authoritative guardian of faith 
 and morals, and is grounded on facts equally notorious ; — on 
 pledges solemnly given and violated, and on principles result- 
 ing from the very frame of society as it then existed. It was 
 intended and calculated to give the sanction of religion to the 
 assertion of natural right, and to quiet the conscience of the 
 timorous, by showing that the public trust, having been flagrantly 
 abused, the pledge of fealty given to the liolder of it ceased to 
 be obligatory, and the right of choosing a more faitliful guar- 
 dian of order, reverted to those whose privilege it was to 
 choose him. The Pontiff accordingly added: "Let those, 
 then, to whom the election of an emperor in the said empire 
 belongs, freely choose his successor."! I am not surprised, 
 that those who have proclaimed llie divine origin and absolute 
 character of regal authority, should veliemently inveigh against 
 these acts of the Pontiffs ; but I am astonished that the princi- 
 
 * Cone. Lug. T. VII. Cone. Hard. p. 385. 
 
 t " 111! autem ad quos in eodem imperio Imperatoris spectat electio, 
 eligant hbere successorcm." — Innoe. IV. in sent. dep. Frederici Cone. 
 hu^. I. T. VII. Cone. Hard. p. 380. 
 
KOVAI.TV A TRIST. 325 
 
 pics OH wliicli llie Koiuaii l*oiuiirs ucled, should iiol be r(v<pcct- 
 ed by ihose who regard royally as a trust for the peo|>l« . and 
 the highest officer in every form of goveriiinenl as a public 
 servant, wlio may be dragged from his elevation if he abuse his 
 power, — princij)les enterlaiiud and acied on in the ages erro- 
 neously supposed to have been unillumined by a spark of lib- 
 erty. Long before the lirst instance of Pontifical inlcrfcrenco, 
 forfeiture was deemed a consequence of the violaiioii of the 
 condition on whicli kings and emperors held their scep- 
 tres. 'J'liis was the sentiment, and the feeling of those 
 ages, and the Poiititfs, whom circumstances placed at the 
 head of society thus constructed, gave expression to that 
 sentiment, and the sanction of religion to that feeling. " The 
 public opinion of Europe in t!ie eleventli century," says a mo- 
 dern writer, '* was represented by a truly great man, Hilde- 
 brand, or, as he was called after his accession to the chair of 
 St Peter, Gregory VII. In his own age, every one of these 
 measures counteracted some evil principle, and iielped to work 
 out an antagonizing principle of civilization."'' Another living 
 writer, evidently adverse to the Popes, is forced to express his 
 admiration of their influence in the middle ages. "'J'liat was, 
 indeed, a splendid dominion which had been erected over the 
 mind of man by the (iregories antl Innocents! Its temporal 
 were always subordinate to its spiritual ends. It was a fyran- 
 ill/, which repaid, by ample and substantial benefits, its demands 
 upon the independence of mankind. It required tribute and 
 homage, but it bestowed order, civilization, and, as far as was 
 possible, in such fierce and warlike times, peace. It was a 
 moral sway, not, like the temporal sovereignties of the time, 
 one of brute force. It had comparatively nothing narrow or 
 personal; it united christkndom into a vast federal re- 
 piBLic ; it was constantly endeavouring to advance the borders 
 of the Christian world — to reclaim the heathen barbarism of 
 the north of Europe — or to repel the dangerous aggressions of 
 M«)hammedanism. The Papacy, during the dark ages, not- 
 
 • Foreign Qunrlcrly Review, fur January, ir^'M. 
 2 C 
 
32G TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 withstanding its presumptuous and insulting domination over 
 the autliorily of kings and the rights of nations, was a great in- 
 strument in the hand of Divine Providence, a counteracting 
 principle to the wild and disorganizing barbarism which pre- 
 vailed throughout Europe, a rallying point for the moral and 
 intellectual energies of mankind, when tliey should commence 
 the work of reconstructing society upon its modern system. 
 In such lawless times, it was an elevating sight to behold an 
 emperor of Germany, in the plenitude of his power, arrested in 
 his attemps to crush tlie young freedom of Italian republics : a 
 warlike, or a pusillanimous tyrant, a Philip Augustus of France, 
 or a John of England, standing rebuked for their crimes and 
 oppressions, at the voice of a feeble old man in a remote city, 
 witli scarcely a squadron of soldiers at his command, and with 
 hardly an uncontested mile of territory."* Such is the tribute 
 which the evidence of facts has extorted from men, by no means 
 devoid of prejudice. It is time to do justice to the great and 
 good men, who laboured strenuously and successfully for the 
 good of society, as well as for the advancement of religion. 
 
 The maxim, that not to oppose error is to approve of it, 
 cannot be applied to the acts of the Pontiffs, to give tiiem a 
 weight paramount to a doctrinal definition, for no abstract 
 maxim opposed to faith was broached, but a power was exer- 
 cised, which might be regarded as an accidental appendage of 
 their office, arising from their relations to the actual social sys- 
 tem ; or they might be considered as merely authoritatively 
 declaring the cessation of obligations, on account of the viola- 
 tion of conditions on which they were originally made to de- 
 pend. The prevalence of the opinion for some ages proves 
 that it must have been sustained by something more than the 
 mere example of Gregory VII. It must have had its root in 
 the very nature of the relative obligations of the governors 
 and the governed, according to the frame of society which 
 then existed.! It must have been in accordance with the gene- 
 
 * London Quarterly, for February, 183G. 
 
 \ ^' If," says Southey, " the papal power had not been adapted to the 
 condition of Europe, it could not have existed." — See Fletcher, p. 157, 
 Comparative View. 
 
CANON OK LATUAN. 327 
 
 ml feeliniTs of right aiul justice, g^rowiiig out of these sofial re- 
 lations, and it cannot have heen that capricious and wai.toii in- 
 terference with puhlic rii^ht, which some liave imntrined. But, 
 common as tlie sentiment may have heen, and deep as may 
 have been the conviction of the Ponlilfs that it was the prero- 
 gative of their station, cither as heads of the social system, or 
 as ex|)ouiulers of moral ohliL^alion, it never attained to the au- 
 thorilv of a (lo«;ma, not even when Innocent III., to justify his 
 interference in tlie quarrel helween Philip Aujiustus and Rich- 
 ard of Kn«jland, maintained, that '' though he could not judge 
 of the riirhl to a tief, yet it was his province to judge where sin 
 is committed, and to prevent puhlic scandals ;• — or, when the 
 advisers of Boniface VIII. applied the same principle to regal 
 acts in general, and contended that rafione peccati, as far as the 
 sinfulness of acts of regal authority might come in question, 
 the king was subject to the PontilT.t 
 
 The third canon of Latran, which you object in connexion 
 with this subject, is founded on the feudal system. The vassal 
 voweil homage to his lord, tlie baron to his sovereign, and 
 sovercifi^ns themselves, in many cases, to the Pope,t the recog- 
 nised head of the whole system. When bandittis filled the 
 Christian lands with desolation, pillaging or destroying the 
 churches and monasteries, assailing the defenceless virgins of 
 God, massacring the clergy, measures were adopted, in the 
 absence of a well-constructed system of civil polity, to check 
 
 " This is an instance of the successful interposition of the Pope to 
 prevent war between Chriatian princes. Pliilip easily acquiesc»'d : Rich- 
 ard yielded to the threat of ecclesiastical severity. — I'lta Innoccnlii III. 
 T. Ill parti, p. 503. 
 
 t " The sovereign Pontiffs," says Count Lc Maistre, " never endea- 
 voured to increase their temporal dominions to the prejudice of the law- 
 ful princes, or to molest Uiem in the exercise of «over<'ignty, much less 
 to usurp it. They never claimed but the rijfht to judge princes subject 
 to their spiritual authority, when these princes were guilty of certain 
 crimes." — l)u I'fipr, Tom. II. ch. viii. 
 
 * The Kmperor Lothaire III. consented to pay homage to Inrmcent 
 11. for the lands of Countess Matilda, and made the oath of fealty. — 
 Muratori, Annili, an. 1133 
 
328 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 these excesses. The councils of the Church were the occa- 
 sion of the union of the emperor with kings and barons, as in 
 general congress :* and whilst the decision of revealed doc- 
 trines was left to the bishops, measures of a mixed character 
 were adopted by the common council, or with the assent and 
 concurrence of the civil authorities. t It was decreed, then, 
 that in case any baron, or inferior lord, should foster the here- 
 tics whose excesses were enumerated,:}: he should forfeit his 
 territory, the property of which had been given him by his 
 liege lord on conditions incompatible with such favour. The 
 declaration of forfeiture was reserved to the head of society, to 
 the peace and welfare of which, the delinquent baron was re- 
 garded as a traitor. — All this, you perceive, has relation to 
 times that are no more, and that never can return. It has no 
 semblance of a definition of faith, but it is a mere legislative 
 act, made in the assembly of the states general of Europe. 
 
 The zeal of the Council of Trent against duelling, led the 
 Fathers to enact, that any prince holding a city as a fief frona 
 the Church, should forfeit it, were he to permit that detestable 
 practice in his territory. You allege this as a proof of the 
 temi)oral claim being sustained by the Fathers, because you 
 cannot conceive that they could otherwise add a new condition 
 to the tenure, and one so important, that a breach of it should 
 
 * " What a parliament is in England, a general synod was for Chris- 
 tendom ; and so necessary was the assistance and authority of the tem- 
 poral powers conceived to be (since the capitularies of Charlemagne) to 
 the making of such a synod, that without such legal strength it did not 
 proceed." — J. B. Clinch, in an anonymous Vindication of Dr Troy, p. 
 166. 
 
 t The incapacities and pains attached to the Manichean heresy, in 
 the Lateran Council, are exactly the same as in the Justinian Code ; and 
 they had the temporal authority, at least 650 years before they were stat- 
 ed in this council." — Clinch, ib. p. 210. 
 
 I " Who exercise such horrid cruelty upon Christians, as neither to 
 regard churches, nor monasteries, nor to give quarter to widows, or to 
 orphans, or old men, or boys, or any age or sex ; but who, like heathens, 
 destroy and desolate all before them." — III Lat. Can. ult. 
 
SPIRlTrAL SIiPREMACY. 329 
 
 work a forleilure : but you iniisi know, tluit llio lemirc of all 
 fiefs was coiuliiioiial, there being in every such leiiure an im- 
 plied condition, that the interests of the lord p:iramount should 
 be sacredly firuanled.* 'I'he limitation placed by the council 
 showed the caution of the Fathers not to interfere with territo- 
 ries wherein no such feudal dcpcndance existed. But why do you 
 refer to an order of society which has passed away ? Chris- 
 tendom is no longer a republic united under one head: the 
 spiritual authority of the Pontifl' is discarded by the sovereigns, 
 whose predecessors once knelt to do him homage; the na- 
 tions wiio formerly looked to his interposition as the best 
 shield against oppression, now rely on other means of protec- 
 tion : the thunders of the Vatican, which at times shook 
 thrones, and struck down tyrants, are no longer heard, except 
 when faith is assailed, or the order of the Church is violated: 
 and the Pontiffs are content, as in the earliest and brightest 
 days of Christianity, to send the ministers of peace abroad to 
 the world's extremity, preaching the everlasting Gospel. On 
 what principle, then, can it be pretended, that a pledge of obe- 
 dience to the Roman Ijishop, as successor of Peter, and Vicar 
 of Christ, implies any obligation inconsistent with the most 
 perfect and undivided allegiance to the civil government under 
 which we live ? Such a construction of our oath is not only 
 against the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but 
 their well known and universal acceplaiion : and you are loo 
 well acquainted with ethics and jurisprudence to snjipose that 
 any other construction is to be put uj)on an oaili, llian that in 
 
 * " The essential princijilc of a fief, was a mutual contract of sup- 
 port and fidelity. Whatever obhgations it laid upon the vassal of ser- 
 vice to his lord, correspondincr duties of protortion wore imposed by it 
 on the lord towards Ins vassnl." — lln\\i\iu,Miil(lJr .iires, cli. ii. p. 7"), note. 
 
 Blackslonc teaches, that every fii>f is subject to escheat, if the vassal 
 commit an enormous crime : because " the tenant, by perpetrating the 
 atrocious crime, showed that he was no lon;;er to be trusted ns a vassal, 
 having forgotten liis duty as a hubject, and, th'^refore, forfeited his feud, 
 which he held under lh«' imj)Iied condition, that lie should not be a trai- 
 tor or a felon." — liluclintnnc's Commcnlaiirs^ 1. ii. n, 1\\. 
 
 9. !'• 
 
330 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 which it is generally understood, and avowedly taken. It is, 
 then, unfair and unkind to indulge the conjecture, that, by any 
 possibility of construction, that oath could give rise to any 
 obligation having relation to an order of society which for ages 
 has had no existence. The reference which you make to the 
 Council of Florence, in which we are taught, that to the Roman 
 Pontiff " in the person of blessed Peter, full power was given, 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ, of feeding, ruling, and governing 
 the Universal Church," — refutes your objection : for the pleni- 
 tude of power is there clearly determined by the very terms to 
 regard the feeding with sound doctrine, ruling with salutary 
 laws, and governing with just administration the Church of 
 God. — We care not what sentiment may have prevailed when 
 that creed was set forth : it is sufficient, that it was not embo- 
 died in the formulary itself, that it cannot in any way deter- 
 mine its meaning. The fluctuating and jarring opinions which 
 may from time to time prevail to a greater or less extent 
 among schoolmen, are entirely distinct from the defined dog- 
 mas of Catholic faith. When the sainted Pius V. and the 
 stern Sixtus Quintus hurled the Pontifical anathema against 
 Elizabeth, whom an act of the English parliament had previ- 
 ously declared illegitimate, they did not define any point of 
 doctrine : yet, though they relied on the fact of illegitimacy as 
 a radical defect in her title to the crown, they did not obtain 
 the acquiescence of the English Catholics on this delicate point 
 of civil authority. Not even the iron rule of Elizabeth herself, 
 which would have driven any other class of men to a general 
 revolt, was for them a sufficient motive to hesitate in their al- 
 legiance. Since her day, no instance can be pointed out of 
 any attempt of a similar character. 
 
 You suppose that the Pontiffs still cherish the pretension, 
 and you strengthen your suspicion by the measures which were 
 adopted to induce the clergy of France to recede from the po- 
 sition which they had taken in compliance with the wishes, 
 and, as you say, through obsequiousness for the judgment of 
 their royal master. Had they merely denied the deposing 
 power, your inference might appear just; but you are aware^ 
 
OlMMONS. 331 
 
 ihat their lanioiis derlaraiion of 1082 contained three otlier 
 articles of a very distinct character. It was sulVirient, that any 
 one of the articles was open to discussion, to warrant the Pon- 
 tiff to treat with reserve a body that seemed to anticipate the 
 decision of tlic Church by so solemn a declaration, in a matter 
 regarding his authority. The bishops of France actrd, liien, 
 as became prelates careful to preserve invictjate the unity of 
 the Church, wlien they wrote to Innocent XII., tlial they had 
 never intended to make a decree of faith by their declaration, 
 and assured him of their profound su!)niission to the rights of 
 the Holy See. 
 
 'riie four opinions given by that profound jurist, .Mr Butler, 
 with regard to the extent of Pontifical prerogative, only show 
 the liberty which we enjoy in all thin<rs where the defined doc- 
 trines of faith are left untouched. You '* cannot comprehend 
 the unchangeableness of a creed, the meaning of which its 
 own best friends find it so hard to discover." There is no 
 difficulty whatever, among Catholics, on the points which 
 Mr Butler has accurately stated : " It is an article of Caliiolic 
 faith, that the Pope has, by divine right, 1. A supremacy of 
 rank ; 2. A supremacy of jurisdiction in the spiritual concerns 
 of the Koman Catholic Church ; and 3. The principal authority 
 in defining articles of faith." If you cannot comprehend the 
 unchangeableness of a doctrine comprising these points clearly 
 and distinctly, you have less perspicuity than your skilful at- 
 tack on the Primacy would lead me to suppose. The disputes 
 excited on certain exercises of prerogative, do not render ques- 
 tionable prenigalives loudly proclaimed by all. How many 
 political controversies agitato the republic with regard to the 
 precise extent of the power of llio Prt^^idciit, and yet the j)resi- 
 dency itself is acknowlcilgcfd by all, and iis chief prerogatives 
 are recognised with equal unanimity. 
 
 You express your opinion, that Mr Biuler, who was so pro- 
 foundly versed in legal science, must have smiled within him- 
 self, at the weakness of his argument, when he urged the oath 
 established by the British parliament for the Roman Catholics, 
 and the answers of live universities, and tlieo|)inion of tlie (Jal- 
 
332 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 lican and English divines, with others, as settling- such a ques- 
 tion." Though not a lawyer, I venture, on common sense 
 principles, to say, that Mr Butler could, with propriety, urge 
 these proofs as abundiuilly sufficient. A code of oppressive 
 laws weighed down a devoted and faithful people, whose al- 
 legiance to the government, proved by their general conduct, 
 was vexatiously questioned, on the ground that they cherished 
 an opinion of Pontitical prerogative adverse to the supreme 
 authority of the state. They disavowed it on their oaths. 
 This, surely, in itself, was settling the question, for they were 
 known to be so tenacious of the doctrines of religion, and so 
 full of reverence for the sanctity of an oath, that they chose to 
 suffer the loss of all their civil rights, rather than renounce the 
 faith of their forefathers. Notliing more was necessary. Yet 
 the minister of state consults foieign universities in France, 
 Spain, and Flanders ; countries distinguished for their devoted 
 attachment to Catholicism and the Holy See — unless you 
 please to except France, on account of some disputes about 
 the extent of Pontifical prerogative and national privileges. 
 All concur in disavowing the opinion, and yet you smile at the 
 jurist who considers the question settled. — I submit the view 
 taken of it by a clergyman of the Establishment, which fully 
 coincides with that of Mr Butler : — " If it be asserted," writes 
 the Rev. A. O'Callaghan, *' that such are the claims of the Holy- 
 See, or the pretensions of the Roman Catholic Church, or the 
 opinions of the Catholic laity of the present day — the imputa- 
 tion is equally false, unprincipled and insidious. It is re- 
 futed by the daily practice of every district in the Catholic 
 world ; by the acts of independent states, whether republican 
 or monarchical ; by the solemn declarations of universities, 
 canonists, and professors of divinity ; and by the oaths, either 
 sworn or tendered, of the whole Catholic body. I do not 
 envy the casuist, or divine, who circulates Bibles without note 
 or comment, and resists such evidence as this. I do not envy, 
 but I am astonished at him."* 
 
 * Observations on the State of Political and Religious Feeling in 
 Ireland. By the Rev. A. O'Callaglian. London, 1827. 
 
NO DKFIMTION. 
 
 333 
 
 I waive, however, all advantage to be derived from the Oalli- 
 can declaration, or from the answers of the Universities ot Sor- 
 bonne, Louvaine, Doiiay, Alcalaand Salamanca, all disclaiming 
 the temporal power, or from the oaths of the English and Irish 
 Roman Catholics, abjuring it; and I stand on the broad ground 
 of Catholic faith, and deny lliat we must he charged with prin- 
 ciples that are not found in the aulhoriz^d symbols of faith, or 
 doctrinal definitions. You assert, that " from the days of Gre- 
 gory VII. up to the time of ISixlus V., the claim of temporal, 
 as well as spiritual supremacy, was constantly proposed l)y the 
 Popes as an article of faith, acquiesced in, both tacitly and pro- 
 fessedly, by the great body of the Church." I regret that you 
 should have hazariled an assertion which you cannot sustain by 
 Tair and honourable argument. Why not refer to some defini- 
 tion or decree in which this article of faith was propounded ? 
 Such does not exist.* The Pontifi's who entered into collision 
 with sovereigns, issued no solemn definition of their right, or 
 of its origin ; but acted on principles which were acknowledged, 
 and which were intimately connected with the established order 
 of society. The solemn deposition of the Emperor Frederick, 
 made by Innocent IV. in the presence of the bishops assembled 
 in councilt at Lyons, could not, from that circumstance, derive 
 the character of a definition, even should you insist that their 
 presence was equivalent to api)robatiou ; because even a solemn 
 act of the whole council is nut a doctrinal decree, and does not 
 necessarily establish a right or principle, though it may form a 
 presumption in its favour. When the Gorman empire is in 
 question, ii must be remembered that it rose into existence in 
 
 * " The (loposinir power of Popes nrv<'r was nn article of faitli, or a 
 doctrine of the Church ; nor was it ever proposed as such, by any coun- 
 cil, or by the very I'opes ihenisrives who exercised it. At present it is 
 not njainlained even as an opinion by Ilonian ('alhf)lic Iheolosrians." — 
 Archbishop Troy, of Dublin, in his Supplcmtnt to thr Pastoral Instruction 
 of 17".>3, p. \2y\. 
 
 t " Praiaente Concilio." In tlie sentence of deposition this style is 
 observed. In the decrees, jrenerally, we read : " Sacroapprobante Con- 
 cilio." 
 
J 
 
 334 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 the person of CharlerDagne, under the influence, and with the 
 sanction, of tlie Pontiff. I care not to examine critically the 
 degree of that influence, and the weight of that sanction : it is 
 suflicient that the great Charles bowed to receive the crown 
 from the Pontiff's hands, and that the name of emperor falling 
 from the lips of the third Leo, was repeated with enthusiasm 
 by the millions spread throughout the resuscitated empire.* 
 From that moment the Pontiff was looked up to as the guar- 
 dian of the imperial crown : it was his prerogative to give it to 
 the successful aspirant, who even journeyed to Rome to receive 
 it. No one received the title, or exercised the authority of em- 
 peror, until crowned by the Pontiff :t and the gates of the Va- 
 tican were thrown open for the coronation only after he had 
 pledged himself that he would sacredly maintain the privileges 
 of the Church, as well as the riglitsof all classes of his subjects.^ 
 Is it then wonderful that the Pontiff was regarded as authorized 
 to examine whether the pledges had been redeemed, and in case 
 of tlieir violation, to declare liie forfeiture of power held by such 
 a tenure ? Luden, a Protestant, has observed what is true in a 
 sense still more comprehensive than he intended : " The impe- 
 rial crown obtained its real importance through the Popes." 
 " The Popes," he says subsequently, " acquired the full con- 
 sciousness of the power, which, in those ages of vicissitude 
 and tempest, the wants of men had accumulated upon their 
 See."§ Of the exercise of that power Ancillon, no friend to the 
 Popes, says: "In the middle ages, when there was no social 
 order, it was the influence and power of the Popes that per- 
 haps alone saved Europe from the stale of barbarism. They 
 formed a supreme tribunal, erected in the midst of universal 
 anarchy ; and their decrees were, in general, as respectable as 
 they were respected. It was their power that prevented and 
 stayed the despotism of the emperors ; that replaced the want 
 
 * Muratori, Annali, Tom. X. an. 800. 
 
 t Ibid. Tom. X. an. 876, p. 441. An. 879, p. 15. An. 880, p. 31. 
 An. 901, p. 229. An. 1027, p. 23. 
 
 t Ibid. An. 91G, p. 299. An. 1014, p. 395. An. 1109, p. 107. 
 § Geschicte des Teutschen Volkes, von Ueinrich Luden. 
 
FALSK coNSTiirc ri(»\. 335 
 
 of eqiiilibrinin, ami iliniinislitd ilu; iiiconveiiienct's of ilic Oudal 
 system. • 
 
 You put it lo our own good sense and candour to say, wliat 
 the Pope hinjseir wouUl he likely lo pronounce, if the question 
 of his temporal j)o\ver were submitted lo him, and you j^ive 
 several reasons why he should put such a construciion on the 
 delinilion of Florence, as lo assert his claim lo temporal autho- 
 rity. Cnminon sense forhids it: the jiropriety of words would 
 be manifesily violated, anil the faUe and forced construction 
 would he glaring. It is not in this way that the Apostolic See 
 expounds the detinitions of councils, or sustains its privileges. 
 There is not the ni«)st indirect reference lo such a power in the 
 Florentine decree; and the Fathers cannot he thought lo have 
 in any way sanctioned an opinion of which they look not the 
 slightest notice. 
 
 I am sorry that such a vain hypolliesis has led you to pen 
 the concluding sentence : " And, therefore, I am compelled lo 
 conclude, that the oath to render true obedience to your su- 
 preme Poniiir, takes high precedence of every human obliga- 
 tion, as your system now stands ; and that there is as yet no 
 sufficient warrant for any other dcfinilion of Papal power, than 
 that which has been inscribed upon the history of nations, in 
 characters of blood.''' What, sir, were your repeated profess- 
 ions of kindness to conduct us to this conclusion I Was it your 
 intention, when you had laboured in vain to disturb our faith 
 in the divine insiituli«)n of the Primacy, to throw susj)icion on 
 our allegiance and devoted attachment lo tiie government under 
 which we live ? Did you design to force on us a false interpre- 
 tation of our creed, and thence to infer that you louml no war- 
 rant for any olher definition of the spiritual power which we 
 
 " Ancillon, quoted by Fletcher, (,'omi»aralivo View, p l")?, American 
 edition. *' Feu«lah«rn was the worst foe to Horial ord«T, becauhc it was 
 equally opposed to the sovereignty of the monarch, and the liberty of the 
 people. Could it have held its position, Kurope must have sunk into 
 barbarism; but it had to oppobc a powerful principle — the inthience of 
 the Church. In the eleventh cenluiy, the i'apacy fougiil the battle of 
 freedom and civilization." — Foreign (Quartet hj , fur January, \y^'MV 
 
336 TEMPORAL POWER. 
 
 reverence than one inscribed in characters of blood ? You 
 must read history anew if you have so far mistaken its bear- 
 ings. You will find the Papal power exerted in the person of 
 Clement to restore unity where it had been disturbed by the 
 violence of faction, and from that period down to this, employ- 
 ed for the same purpose, so worthy of the representative on 
 earth of the meek Saviour of men. You will find its history, 
 for the first three ages, marked only with the blood of the mar- 
 tyred Pontiffs. You will see the ancient faith at all limes 
 strenuously defended by the Bishops of Rome, and every error, 
 whether it proceed from a bishop of Constantinople, or a pa- 
 triarch at Antioch, or Alexandria, authoritatively condemned. 
 You will see the missionaries of Rome going to the world's 
 extremities to announce the glad tidings of salvation, with the 
 sacrifice of all life's pleasures, and at the peril of torments and 
 death. If we appreciate the blessings of the Christian reli- 
 gion, we must acknowledge that to Rome, under heaven, all of 
 us are originally indebted for them. And even that power 
 which associated itself with the Primacy in the middle ages 
 was eminently beneficent.* History shows that it was inter- 
 posed, generally, to correct vice, to shield the weak, to pre- 
 vent civil war and anarchy. The legates of the Pontiff were 
 angels of peace, entreating the rival monarchs to be recon- 
 ciled : — pleading with the haughty sovereign in favour of an 
 oppressed people. The blood that occasionally flowed in the 
 contests that followed the exercise of Pontifical authority, 
 would have been shed, in many instances, had no such inter- 
 position taken place : and if sometimes it has flowed at the 
 bidding of the Pontiff, it was mostly when the helpless- 
 ness of female virtue was to be defended against the aggression 
 
 * Southey says " the Papacy was morally and intellectually the 
 conservative power of Christendom. Politically, too, it was the saviour 
 of Europe." Another modern writer says: "The Papal power was 
 for ages the great bulwark of order amid the turbulence of the semi- 
 civilized people of Europe." — American Encyclopedia, Article, Gregorrj 
 Vll. 
 
t 
 
 nr.NF.FiciAL REsri.Ts. 337 
 
 of marauders, or llie cause of jtislice and humanity was to be 
 sustained. If, in the complicated relations of the Popes, and 
 the general disorganization of society, excesses sometimes hap- 
 pened, over which humanity weeps, it should still be remem- 
 bered that the power of the ('hurch, in the main, *' was a 
 blessing which God bestowed upon the middle ages — where 
 every thing would have been darkness, and bloodshed, and 
 disorder — that alone guarded and perpetuated order, and jus- 
 lice, and light."* 
 
 • Foreign Quarterly, for April. 183G. — History of the Franks. 
 
 2d 
 
LETTER XXVIII. 
 
 MODE OF ELECTION. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir : 
 
 In your chapter on the mode of electing the Pope, and llie 
 ceremonies of his installation, you say : " That the bishop of 
 Rome, as well as all other bishops, was elected, in primitive 
 times, by the clergy of his own city and diocess, with the con- 
 curring suffrages of the people, is a fact so manifest, through- 
 out the writings of the Fathers, that it cannot be, and never 
 has been, questioned by any." Although the share which each 
 class had, at different times, in these elections, may, I believe, 
 be a fair matter of inquiry, I am unwilling to embarrass our 
 discussion by entering into it at present. A similar feeling 
 prompts me to pass over your assertion, " that after the estab- 
 lishment of Christianity in the Roman empire, the sovereigns 
 exercised the right of confirming the election of the Pope, and 
 that, after much contest upon the subject, it was left to the 
 cardinals, in the eleventh century, to elect the Popes without 
 any interference on the part of emperor, senate, or people, and 
 such has been the course pursued from that period to t!ie pre- 
 sent day." Whatever inaccuracy may be in this general state- 
 ment, does not demand any special correction at this time. 
 
 The measures now adopted to secure the tranquillity and 
 freedom of the electors, and to preserve them from all bias, are 
 mentioned by you, and your surprise at the adoption of such a 
 system, *' for the purpose of securing a result which is to be 
 attributed to the divine direction," is, to me, a subject of aston- 
 ishment. Surely, our reliance on God would assume the clia- 
 
MODIFICATIONS. 33U 
 
 racier of presumption, were we to neglect the precautions which 
 prudence prescribes for ohiaininjr a happy result. Your own 
 bisliop IJuU has well said : *♦ The divine assistance and hu- 
 man industry always went together hand in hand, and an ana- 
 thema is due to that doctrine that separates and divides them."* 
 Since, tiien, public elections were sonictinjcs attended with 
 disorder and tumult, through the intrigr.es and violence of the 
 factious and anibiiious, you should admire the retirement of the 
 conclave, where all is conducted in the utmost tranquillity. 
 The cardinals are the chief of the clergy of the I^>man (.'hurch, 
 having the titles and priiicipnl charge of the ancient churches 
 of the city, with a few of the neighbourinL' bisliops, who were 
 wont to intervene in tlie election of the Bishop of Kome. They, 
 consequently, exhibit the ancient form of election, though, 
 with some modification, found necessary by the change of cir- 
 cumstances. Besides the precautions taken to prevent external 
 influence, they daily invoke the Holy Ghost during the con- 
 clave, at a solemn mass, celebrated for that purpose, and they 
 swear aloud, that their vote, which they place in the sa- 
 cred chalice, on the holy altar, is accordintr to their conscien- 
 tious judgment : "1 call to witness Chris^t the TiOrd, who is to 
 judge me, that I choose llie person who, before (lod, I judge 
 ought to be elected. "t However 1 may admire the simplicity 
 of the primitive ages, I cannot but think that the mode of elec- 
 tion now in use is better guarded against undue influence and 
 other disorders. You style this mode tlic most extraordinary 
 known in the history of man, but it is attended with nothing to 
 give it this extraordinary character, save its sacred solemnity 
 and inviolate liberty. The term election hy acrntimj, which 
 you use, might be mistaken by your readers for some mysterious 
 mode, that gave this extraordinary character ; and though it 
 literally corresponds to the Latin term, you might translate it 
 
 • Bishop Bull's Sorm , " lltiman Mnitis I'srfu! to Inspirrd Persons^' 
 Vol. I., p. 2«^2, Oxford rdil., IHIT.. 
 
 t See Bull of Gregory XV., /Klrrni TatriH Kilius.an. li.'JI, Tom. Ill 
 Bullarii, p. :ilM'), edit. Lugd., an l<-!''i 
 
340 MODE OF ELECTION. 
 
 *' vole by ballot," as it really means, which would not be very 
 extraordinary to your readers. Two-thirds of the electors 
 must concur in a choice ; and when, on balloting, this is found 
 not to be the case, a new balloting occurs, unless some accede 
 to a candidate, and thereby give iiim the necessary majority. 
 The tickets o{ accession are given in with the same caution as 
 in balloting, to secure the electors from the influence of fear, 
 or favour. No cardinal can, in any case, vote for himself, and 
 his vote is never, through compliment, counted in his favour. 
 The ceremonies which follow tiie election, are indeed mag- 
 nificent — indicative of profound veneration for him who, by the 
 judgment of God, if I may borrow the language of Cyprian, is 
 to occupy the chair of Peter. You surely cannot have any 
 serious difficulty about the term adoration^ used in the cere- 
 monial, as it originally signifies respect or reverence, and is not 
 at all intended here to signify divine homage. The genuflex- 
 ions — kissing of the feet and hands — are ceremonies of orien- 
 tal origin, used, in primitive times, to all bishops. The eleva- 
 tion of the newly elected Pope on the altar, is intended to 
 express that he is to be the special representative and vicege- 
 rent of Christ. The tiara which is placed upon his head, is an 
 ornament of great value, but designed to represent a far more 
 precious crown, that awaits him, if he prove a faithful steward 
 of his Divine Master. The epithet " Father of princes and of 
 kings," designates his high authority in the Church of God, in 
 which princes and kings are undistinguished from the lowliest 
 of their subjects ; and he is styled *' Ruler of the world," in 
 the same sense as Peter is said, by Chrysostom, to have been 
 placed over the entire world. It may be, that the magnificence 
 of this ceremonial ill accords with modern feeling and senti- 
 ment ; but it is enough that its object is to impress our minds 
 with veneration for tlie vicegerent of Christ, and that it has 
 precedents in antiquity, and derives authority from the splendid 
 ritual which God himself prescribed to the ancient priesthood. 
 Why should we be fastidious about vesture, or marks of re- 
 spect, if we revere in the Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, 
 
MISTAKES. 341 
 
 the High Priest of the new covenant, whose miiiisiry he exer- 
 cises i 
 
 In endeavouring to prove that the present mode of election 
 is opposed to the Nicene canon, which, however, did not at all 
 regard the IJishop of Home, but the general j)rovincial ordina- 
 tions, you have fallen into several mistakes. You slate that the 
 cardinal electors " are bishops already, although only titular 
 bishops, consecrated by the Pope, for some far distant coun- 
 try, without the least intention of ever beholding their nominal 
 dioceses." Allow me to set you rigiil. Of the cardinals, six 
 only are cardinal bishops, and these of the neighbouring Sees of 
 Oslia, Porto, Alhano, Prentste, Sabine, and Frescati. Some 
 belonging to the order of cardinal j)riests are bishops, having 
 Sees in Italy, France, Spain, or oilier countries, where ihey 
 reside, governing their dioce.ses, unless the Pontiff, for the 
 general interests of the Church, calls them to assist in his coun- 
 cils. Of this class was the late Archbishop of Bourdeaux, 
 whose memory is cherished with such veneration throughout 
 this country, no less than in the See where he closed his Apos- 
 tolic ministry. Fourteen are cardinal deacons ; so that of the 
 seventy who compose the council of the Pope, like the elders 
 who aided Moses in the government of the people, only six 
 belong to the order of cardinal bishops, and few, if any, are 
 of the class which you have described. It is wisdom to be 
 cautious in making assertions, and not easily to censure what, 
 when well understood, might be found worthy of approbation. 
 The present mode of electing the PontiO' is proved, by the 
 experience of ages, to be the best calculated to secure the 
 choice of a worthy successor to Peter, by leaving the electors 
 free from secular influence, whether it be imj)erial or regal 
 controul, or popular violence. It may be popular to extol an- 
 cient forms of election, when the ri/^ht of suffrage was more 
 extensive, but it would be fair to consider the tragic scenes 
 which sometimes disgraced public election.^, and which were 
 the occasion of the abridgment of lay, or clerical privileges. 
 Chrysosiom observed, that Peter could himself have chosen a 
 
 2 D» 
 
342 MODE OF ELECTION. 
 
 successor to the fallen Apostle, without suffering any nomina- 
 tion to be made by others, and that, in granting leave to the 
 faithful to propose candidates, he limited their choice to a cer- 
 tain class ; a power which his successors used, in the regula- 
 tions from time to time made for the proper management of 
 Pontifical elections. 
 
LETTER XXIX. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Right Reverknd Sir: 
 
 You wish to be permitted to hope, that tlie chiiins of Ponli- 
 lical supremacy will soon be abandoned : it might be cruel to 
 preclude iiope, if it were not criminal to foster delusion. The 
 organization of the Church, such as it was framed by its 
 founder, must remain unclianged until the consummation of the 
 world ; and the foundation must continue, whilst the edifice 
 stands — the monument of his power and wisdom. Every plant 
 that the Father halh not planted, will be rooted up; every 
 house, built on the sandy foundation cf iiuman wisdom, shall 
 fall in ruins ; every kingdom divided against itself shall be 
 brouglit to desolation: but that tree of life which the right 
 hand of Cod hath planted, will bloom, in undecaying verdure 
 and fruitfulness — against that house which is founded on a rock, 
 the winds and waves dash in vain — against the kingdoan go- 
 verned by Peter, who received the keys from Christ — the gates 
 of hell cannot prevail. Unity is its strength, and the See of 
 Peter is the principle of that imity. 
 
 You claim to belong to the Holy Catholic Church, but your 
 claim is necessarily vain, as long as you reject that unity which 
 is her vital principle, and refuse to harujonize, in faith, with 
 that Church " with \shich," now, as in the days of Irenacus, "on 
 account of iicr j)owerful principality, all must agree." To be 
 in the communion with ihe Catholic Cjiurch, you must, as 
 ('yj)rian and Auibiose, Augusiin and Ojitalus have tauiiht us, 
 be in the coinmunion of the Hishop of Rome. In the symbol 
 of the Ai)Ostles, you profess to "believe in the Holy Catholic 
 
344 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Church ;" but as long as you refuse to hear the voice of that 
 Shepherd, to whose care Christ comnutted his lambs and sheep, 
 you have no claim to be of his flock. The Arians repeated, with- 
 out difficulty, the Apostolic symbol, and would have been well 
 satisfied if no other test of their faith were exacted, than to 
 believe *' in Jesus Christ our Lord, the only Son of God the 
 Father." You say that " you profess liie faith held by the 
 primitive Church ; taught by the early Fathers ; sanctioned by 
 the first four General Councils." If you profess their faith 
 in regard to the mysteries which they protected against the 
 temerity of man, imitate, I pray you, their profound veneration 
 for the successor of Peter. You have heard the enthusiastic 
 acclamations of the Fathers of Ephesus, when the letter of 
 Pope Celestine was read : ^' This is a just judgment — to Ce- 
 lestine, the guardian of the faith — to Celestine, who harmo- 
 nizes with the synod — to Celestine, the whole synod returns 
 thanks. There is one Celestine — one Cyril — the faith of the 
 synod is one — the faith of the world is one."* On the reading 
 of the doctrinal letter of Leo, at Chalcedon, you have heard 
 the Fathers exclaim : " This is the faith of the Fathers — this 
 is the faith of the Apostles. All of us have this belief — the 
 orthodox believe this. Anathema to him who does not believe 
 this. PETER HAS SPOKEN BY LEO."t With what 
 appearance of consistency can you claim communion with those 
 venerable men, whilst you reject that authority under whose 
 guidance they proceeded, in their most solemn acts ? What 
 avails it to receive their definitions of the dogmas then contro- 
 verted, if you listen not, as they did, to him who " is estab- 
 lished the interpreter for all of the voice of Peter the Apostle ?":{: 
 Would not the Fathers of Chalcedon, could they re-appear on 
 earth, rebuke you for what, in their strong language, they 
 would call " frenzy against him to whom the care of the vine- 
 yard was entrusted by the Saviour ?"§ 
 
 * Act. IL, Cone. Eph., Tom. I., Coll. Hard., Col. 1472. 
 t Cone. Chalc., Act. II., Tom. II., Coll. Hard., Col. 505. 
 t Synodical Letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Leo, Tom. II. , p. 
 655, Coll. Harduin. § Ibid. 
 
EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. Jii) 
 
 Leaving you to answer lliese qucslions, 1 proceed to reply 
 to yours. *' Why do you insist that (christians, who hold the 
 same ancient creed, are not equally belonging to the Catholic 
 Church, because they are alienated from each other on minor 
 points of polity or doctrine ?" Were one question to be an- 
 swered by another, I would ask you why you would exclude a 
 Unitarian from the Catholic (.'hurch, who would repeat the 
 Apostolic creed in his own sense and meaning t But I reply, 
 more directly, that we exclude none from the Catholiir Church 
 for mere dillerence on minor points of polity; but for dissent 
 from revealed doctrines, solemidy defined by the highest doc- 
 trinal tribunal in the ('hurch, or for the violation of unity. Our 
 authority for this exclusiveness is no less than that of the di- 
 vine P^ounder of the Church, who ordained that the refractory 
 against her decree, even in a matter of much less importance, 
 should be regarded as the heathen and the publican. A\'hen 
 at the end of the profession of faith we declare that out of this 
 Catholic faith none can be saved, we certainly do not include a 
 belief in the deposing power ; and you are sufliciently acquainted 
 with our principles to know, that we do not, thereby, take 
 upon us to anticipate the divine judgment, in regard to such as, 
 through misfortune, rather than by their own fault, might be 
 ignorant of some article expressed in that formidary.^ You 
 know, also, in what terms Cyprian, Augustin, (Jptalus, and 
 the Fathers generally, urge the necessity of unity ; and how 
 unreservedly they declare that martyrdom itself cannot avail, 
 where unity is violated. You can, then, easily conceive why 
 
 " Episcopalian divines arc equally vehement in a.sscrtinjj the neces- 
 sity of belonging to the Catholic Church, though they are liberal en*)Ujrh 
 to embrace a strange amalgamation of sects, under this term. Bishop 
 Beveridge, in his sermon on " Salvation in the Church only," says . 
 " Seeing, therefore, that the Ilf)ly Ghost hath so positively affirmed that 
 the Lord added to the Church xucli as should be saved, and likewise 
 hath given us such extraordinary instances of it ; it is no wonder that 
 the F'alhers so frequently assert that there is no salvation to he liud out 
 of Christ's Holy C^atholic Church ; but that whosoever would l)e a mem- 
 b<'r of ilu' Church triumphant in heaven, must first be a member of the 
 Church licrc iinlitant on earlh. " — I'. 77, \ Ol. I. 
 
346 CONCLUSION. 
 
 we attuch so much importance to obedience to its guardian. 
 There is one faith, as there is one Lord ; and that faith re- 
 gards all things, whatsoever Christ teaches by the Apostolic 
 ministry, even to the consummation of the world. The images 
 which you use to illustrate the nature of the Church, are not 
 apposite when applied to dissentient sects: "Does a body 
 cease to be united to its head, because one member becomes 
 torpid, and another deformed, and a third spasmodic ? Does a 
 fold cease to be one, because the rams of the flock are accus- 
 tomed to contend, instead of feeding side by side in peace? 
 Does a family cease to be one, because the nearest relations 
 have quarrelled ? Does a crew cease to be one, because they 
 refuse to eat together ? Does a nation cease to be one, because 
 factions and party-spirit divide the people?" — I have learned 
 from the Divine Scriptures, that obstinate error against faith, 
 is the cancer that spreadeth,* and the limb must be amputated.t 
 The member that communicates not with the head, no longer 
 appertains to the body. The child who has abjured parental 
 authority, is not regarded as of his father's household. Mu- 
 tinous sailors, who will not acknowledge the captain, cannot 
 be any longer regarded as the crew of the vessel. A portion 
 of the people that refuses to recognise, in any way, the gene- 
 ral government, ceases to belong to the nation. Suppose that 
 any stale of the Union should utterly discard the national insti- 
 tutions, and not only assert its own sovereignty and independ- 
 ence, but refuse to pay any regard to the enactments of con- 
 gress, or the constitutional acts of the President ; could any man 
 say that a state thus asserting and maintaining its absolute 
 independence, would still continue to be one of the United 
 States? The bickerings of the schoolmen, national antipa- 
 thies, the rivalries of individuals, and all the miseries of weak 
 humanity, within the Church, do not cause separation ; but the 
 moment a proscribed error in doctrine is publicly avowed, or 
 the governing authority constituted by (^hrist is cast off, the 
 individual gains independence at the cost of the sacrifice of 
 
 * 2 Tim., H. 17. t Gal. V. 12. 
 
CASES NOT IN POINT. 347 
 
 communion with the Holy Catholic Church. In priilo and 
 folly he has left the house of his I'aiher, and cann<»l enjoy the 
 privileges of a son, until he return humble*! and uuhnjissive : 
 ♦* He cannot," says Sl(Jyprian, '♦ have (iod for his father, wlio 
 has not the Cliurch for his mother. "• Your cases are not in 
 point, ^^'hen Paul and Harnahas separated, neither of them dis- 
 agreed in doctrine, or hroke the bonds of Cjiurch communion, 
 but merely difVered in rej^ard to the indulijence to be exercised 
 towards one, w.hose former conduct seemed to demand severity. 
 If Victor actually executed his threat to cut oif the Asiatic 
 churches from the communion of tiie ('.iih(dic Church, which 
 may be questit)ned, they nuisl have remained cut oH", until the 
 remiMistrances of Irenicus and other j)rel:ites induced him to 
 revoke the measure. Slej)lien never excommunicated (Jypri- 
 an, but forbad any change in the ancient usage; and though he 
 thought that those who might persevere in the innovation 
 should be separated from the communion of the Catholic 
 Cliurch, peace, liowever, prevailed in his heart, and in the 
 hearts of the dissentient, that no evil of schisui should arise 
 between themt 
 
 You ask, secondly : Why do we " aver, that the creed of the 
 j)rimiiive Church Catholic warrants you in placing the supre- 
 macy of the I'ope among the articles of fiith ?" Becatise the 
 Apostolic creed speaks of only one " Holy Catholic Church," 
 and that of Nice and Constantinople explains it as •* one 
 Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." The Church could 
 not be one, without a princij)Ie or centre of unity, which is 
 only found in the government of the one Pastor of the entire 
 fold: it couhl not be Apostolic, unless the succession of its 
 ministry were preserved uninlerru()tedly fmm the days of ihr 
 Apostles; and this succ(>s8ion is only found in the See of 
 Rome, and in the chun-hes in i'onnnunion with it. •; Obedi- 
 
 • S. ('yi>ri;in, l)v Unit K<c\., p. H.J, i dil. Haail. 
 
 t S. Aug. I. .'>. do Bapt. contra. Donal. r. 2r>. 
 
 t " \Ve do not deny that the ApoNtolicai succroHion hntii l»» < n r<ui- 
 tinned in the Cliurcii of Rome." — HiKJiop Biveiidge Seriii. I. Christ's 
 Presence tnlh his .Minislcr.n, p. 21, Vol. I. 
 
348 CONCLUSION. 
 
 ence to the Bishop of Rome, as Bishop of the Catholic 
 Church, was acknowledged as necessary in the days of Cor- 
 nelius and of Cyprian ; and whatever forbearance was practis- 
 ed in regard to those, who, admitting the authority, remon- 
 strated against some acts of its exercise, those who obstinately 
 rejected the authority itself, were considered aliens from the 
 Church, and from Christ. Thus, Cyprian argues from the 
 words of Christ to Peter, that tliough the Apostles were equal 
 to him in the honour and power of the Apostolate, " Christ, by 
 his authority, ordained the origin of the same unity, that the 
 Church may be shown to be one — the commencement comes 
 from unity, that the Church may be shown to be one." Hence 
 he speaks ofNovatius as an alien from the Church, because not 
 subject to the authority of Cornelius, its lawful Bishop, and his 
 followers as persons separated from the Church ; and he treats all 
 who are not under one Bishop, as aliens from her communion. 
 His words are emphatically strong: — "By the mystery of his 
 [seamless) garment, Christ declared the unity of the Church 
 Who, then, is so wicked and perfidious — who so maddened by 
 the rage of discord, as to imagine, that the unity of God can 
 be rent, or as to dare rend it — the garment of the Lord — the 
 Church of Christ? He, himself, warns us in his Gospel, and 
 teaches us, saying : ' There shall be one flock, and one Shep- 
 herd.' And does any one think, that there can be in one place 
 either many shepherds or several flocks ? . . . . What peace, 
 therefore, do the enemies of the bretliren promise themselves? 
 what sacrifices do the rivals of tlie priests believe that they 
 celebrate? When they are assembled, do they think that 
 Clirist is with them, who are gathered together out of the 
 Church? Even should such persons be slain for the name of 
 Christ, that stain is not washed away by blood. The inexpi- 
 able and heinous crime of discord is not cleansed by suff'er- 
 ing. He who is not in the Church, cannot be a martyr."* 
 Take tliese words, and reconcile them with the theory which 
 would make a Catholic and Episcopalian bishop in the one city, 
 
 * S. Cyprian de Unit., p. 1G7 et 168. 
 
8T OPTATUS. 34W 
 
 with llioir separate flocks, portions of the C'atholie Clnin !» ; 
 and woiikl prei^eiU so many sects wiilioul any connecting link, 
 without any common authority to himl them together, as com- 
 posing the one foKl of the one Shepherd. Jerome surely be- 
 lieved with us, tliat communion with the successor of Peter 
 was esseniial, when he adilressed Damasus, assuring him that lie 
 knew that the Church was founded on that rock — th^t whoso- 
 ever is out of it, is like those out of the ark when the flood 
 came — ihat it is profane to eat tlie mystic Iamb out of this 
 house — that whosoever doth not gaiiier with him, scatlereth, and 
 that not to be with liim, is to fall away from Christ, a?id to 
 declare oneself a friend of Antichrist. Optatus believed the 
 same, when he declared it schismatical and sinful to erect any 
 Episcopal chair in opposition to that of Peter, and reproached 
 the Donatists with calling themselves the Church, whibt they 
 were in a state of separation from that See: " Christ," savs 
 he, •* indicates in the canticle of canticles, that his dove is one, 
 that she is a chosen spouse, an enclosed garden, and a sealed 
 fountain ; so that all heretics neither have the keys which Pe- 
 ter alone received, nor the ring with which the fountain is said 
 to be ."^ealed : and to none of them the garilen belongs in which 
 God plants the shrubs." .... *' What," he afterwards re- 
 marks, " can you say to these things, you, who secretly cher- 
 ish, and shamelessly defend schism, taking to yourselves the 
 name of the Church ?"• 
 
 If you believe, that an oath of true ol)edience to the Pope is 
 taken by every ('atholic, you are in this, as in other matters, 
 egregiously mistaken. Obedience is due to him by all, as the 
 prelate placed over all ; but that obedience is given, when the 
 faith is preserved, and the laws of the Church, and its order, 
 are maintained. What individual Catholic receives from him 
 a command ? Yet, to read your book, or.e would suppose that 
 we are daily receiving from him, or expecting to receive, new 
 mandates. 'I'he obligation of obedience, resulting from the di- 
 vine insiitulion of the Primacy, is strengthened by no special 
 
 • Opt. Afri. 1. I. pp. 7. 17. Edit. Wircibiirg. 
 2 E 
 
350 CONCLUSION. 
 
 pledge on llie part of the infinite majority of Catholics. The 
 pledge is scarcely given by any, except the clergy placed in 
 offices of high responsibility, as it is meet that they should 
 give a solemn engagement to fulfil the trust reposed in them. 
 Converts, in some places, make it on their admission into the 
 Church; because, having been previously estranged from this 
 authority, it is deemed proper that they give a voucher of their 
 sincerity. 
 
 You proceed to ask us : " Why do you, in the same creed 
 of Pope Pius IV., retain the clause by which the professor of 
 your faith most firmly admits and embraces Apostolical and 
 ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observ- 
 ances of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, when there 
 are so many changes, variations, and innovations, brought in 
 upon the primitive system ?" — Because it is meet, that all the 
 children of the Church should view with reverence her observ- 
 ances and institutions, whether they come down from the Apos- 
 tolic age, or be of later introduction, resting on the legislative 
 and governing authority of the successors of the Apostles. 
 The terms regard disciplinary usages, rather than articles of 
 faith, and are applicable to any modification of discipline which 
 may be sanctioned by the Church. As to the points on which 
 variation in discipline is asserted by you to have taken place, 
 I think it unnecessary to enter into any discussion ; for in all 
 things merely disciplinary, tlie discretion of the governing power 
 may be exercised: but when you begin by " the kiss of c/iari- 
 /y," which, however, is still preserved among the rites of so- 
 lemn mass, ordination, and other functions, you remind me of 
 the trivial causes of separation alleged by the Greeks against 
 the Latins in the eleventh century, one of which was, that the 
 Jjatins shaved their beards ! 
 
 Fourthly, you ask : " Why do you retain another clause of 
 the same creed : ' I also admit the Sacred Scriptures, according 
 to the sense which the holy mother Church has held, and docs 
 hold, nor will I ever lake or interpret them otherwise than ac- 
 cording to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,' when it is so 
 manifest, that the Failiers do almost unanimously interpret 
 
ANATHF.MA. 351 
 
 your lavounie texts in plain opposition to your present sys- 
 tem ?" 'J'o us, al least, this is not quite so niaiiircsi, and, I should 
 hope, that you yourself have serious niisj/ivirigs as to the cer- 
 tainty of your inference from these words. 'I'he rule, how- 
 ever, is borrowed from St Vincent of Lerins.* 
 
 Fifthly, '* Why,** you say, " do you (we) profess another 
 clause of the same creed : • I also profess, and undoubtedly re- 
 ceive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the 
 sacreil canons and general councils, and particularly by the 
 Holy Council of 'JVcnt,' when you know so well, that a vo- 
 lume might be filled with those passages from the canons and 
 councils which retain no place in your present system ?" — 
 There is not a single dogma defined by a General Council, that 
 is not professed by the Catholic world at this day. The doc- 
 trine of the Catholic Church, her solemn definitions, and au- 
 thoritative expositions, are especially contemplated by that 
 clause. None of the terms are strictly applicable to enact- 
 ments : so that you cannot fill a line, mucii less a volume, 
 with things delivered, defined, and declared, which are not in 
 full vigour. 
 
 ** AVhy," you again ask, '• do wr eoniinue tiie clause that 
 follows, in which the believer is bound to declare, that he con- 
 demns, rejects and anathematizes all things contrary thereto, 
 and all heresies whatever condemned and anathematized by the 
 Church V — The formulary is a close imitation of the seventh 
 canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which is the se- 
 cond of the four councils whose faith you profess to hold. In 
 that canon, the Fathers require that converts from heresy should 
 anathematize several sects of heretics by name, and, in a general 
 way, every heresy opposed to the teaching of the holy. Catholic, 
 and Apostolic Church of God.t You understand by anathema 
 a solemn curse: we have already seen, that there are others 
 who interpret it in the more gentle sense of separation from 
 
 • Common, n. 3 ot n. 2;^. 
 
 t m.nL^%fjL%Ti^iir%( vm.vs.t miftrir /ui $f9f cur at m( ^pct*i i tiyln rt 
 
 ^■ttt x<d-:A.ixii i «Vcroxi«a imnKnvi*. — Can. Tii. Cone. 1. Const. Col 
 812. Tom I. 
 
352 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the Church of God; but as the heresies are the object of the 
 anathema, it may not appear so odious to analliematize 
 them as it wouhl be the persons who profess them. You are 
 compelled to admit that the primitive Church was wont to use 
 this formulary; but you assert that "she confined it to errors 
 in the fundamental articles of faith."* Tiie canon just quoted 
 proves that she was equally unsparing as the Council of Trent 
 towards all heresies whatsoever: and all ecclesiastical history 
 shows that the Church anathematized all errors against re- 
 vealed truth, whether that truth was fundamental or otherwise. 
 Thus the Novatians, whose error regarding the power of for- 
 giveness, and the Quartoderimans observing Easter on the 
 same day as the Jews and the Rebaptizers, fell under the ana- 
 thema of the ancient Church. This formulary, borrowed from 
 St Paul, was considered as sanctioned by the divine injunction 
 — " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the 
 heathen and the publican."! You need no longer be scanda- 
 lized at the use of this expression in regard to heresies or here- 
 tics, for it has great precedents and high authority in its favour. 
 You know that the acclamations of the Council of Trent were 
 but the echo of all the ancient councils. If it pronounced 
 many anathemas, it is only a melancholy evidence, that errors, 
 opposed to the truth of God, were broached in great number. 
 I shall leave you to interpret " anathema" as you please, and 
 only observe that the Fathers of Trent affected no greater charity 
 than that which animated the early Fathers, who, in like man- 
 ner, proscribed every novelty that opposed the knowledge of 
 God — and that which the Apostle of nations cherished, who 
 himself would have wished to be an anathema from Christ for 
 the sake and salvation of his erring brethren. 
 
 I almost sicken with disgust at perceiving men delicate in 
 the choice of words, w^hen the rejection or detestation of per- 
 
 * Bishop Bull, of the Establishment, wrote against Episcopius, in 
 vindication of the analhima pronounced at Nice against the Arians. — 
 See his work entitled "Judicium Kcclesiae Catholicte, &c." Episcopius 
 had called the Nicene anathema ** harsh and uncharitable." 
 
 \ Malt, xviii. 17. 
 
pravi:r for civil AniiouiTiKs. 353 
 
 nicioi'.s error is to be expressed, :uul reckless in advancing 
 chari'es aHeclino^ ihe character and the rijjhls of millions of llieir 
 fellow beings. You say: '* throughout the British dominions 
 you are bound to curse, as a herrfic, the monarch whom you 
 obey as a king." You bring the mailer to our doors: •' True 
 it is, that even in the United Slates, the same melancholy ne- 
 cessily pursues you." It does not become me to repel ihese 
 assertions in the strong language which ihey provoke and so 
 juslly merit: but I must inform you that you are grievously 
 mistaken. The early Christians prayed for the pagan 
 emperors, even for those who persecuted them : and we sin- 
 cerely pray for all those who arc in high station, whether 
 they oppress or protect us. The anathemas which the tribu- 
 nals of the Church have pronounced against the professors of 
 heresy, deprive them of tiie privileges of ecclesiastical com- 
 munion, but do not change the social relations. We are 
 known publicly and solemnly to pray for the president, for 
 congress, for the governor and legislature, and for all our fel- 
 low-citizens ; and we yield to noi'.e in ihe sincerity of our sup- 
 plications for the prosperity of the national and slate govern- 
 ments, and the happiness, temporal and eternal, of all — even of 
 those who either openly traduce us, or who, with the honied 
 accents of kindness on their lips, utter unworthy insinuations 
 against our principles and conduct. 
 
 Lastly, you ask : " why do you cling to the phantom of in- 
 fallibility ?" You may call it a phantom, but Jesus ('hrist 
 gives us the assurance that it is He who teaches through the 
 Apostolic ministry :• and his Aposile declares that ihe ('hurch 
 is " the pillar aiul the groimd of truth. "t Tiie experience of 
 eighteen centuries shows that his words have not failed, for not 
 a single dogma has ever been solemnly defined which it has 
 been found necessary to recall or abandon, 'i'he temporal 
 power of ihc I'oj)c haunts you as a phantom ; and because it 
 appeared in the middle ages, and disappeared when society 
 had assumed anew form, you insist that the infallibiliiy of our 
 
 • Matt, xxviii. '>, uit. t 1 Tim. iii. ITi. 
 
 2e* 
 
354 CONCLUSION. 
 
 doctrinal tribunals has been forfeited. You will not consider 
 whether the Pontiff acted as the higliest interpreter of moral 
 obligation, defining the limits of relative (kuies- between sub- 
 jects and sovereigns, wlien both appealed to his judgment — or 
 whetiier his peculiar influence in the revival of the western 
 empire gave him special rights over the occupant of the throne; 
 — or whether the voluntary acts of sovereigns themselves gave 
 him the authority of a lord paramount; or whether the very 
 structure of society disposed men tacitly to concede, or recog- 
 nise this power.* None of these, or other considerations, 
 though all grounded on facts of history, are admitted by you to 
 account for the prevalence of the opinion favourable to the tem- 
 poral claim : but you fancy it to be a dogma, though no Pontiff 
 ever proposed it as such ; and you reason thence against what 
 you are pleased to call " the phantom of infallibility!" 
 
 You make a distinction, which, to me, is somewhat novel, he- 
 iween failing 2LWi\ falling. " The Saviour" you say "prayed for 
 St Peter, that his faith should not fail : therefore, that faith was 
 certainly infallible. But although the Apostle's faith was not 
 allowed to fail, it was assuredly allowed to fall, so that he de- 
 nied his master !" When Christ disclosed to Peter the vio- 
 lent efforts which Satan was determined to make against all 
 the Apostles, and gave him the assurance of having made a 
 special prayer for him, he did not surely refer to the approach- 
 ing temptation of that tragic night, for then he was to prove 
 more frail than the others. He especially regarded the time 
 in which he was to discharge the duties of his ofTice, as head 
 of the Church, by confirming his brethren in faith. How 
 beautifully, how naturally, does the great Leo explain the Sa- 
 cred Text! " The danger arising from the temptation of fear, 
 was common to all the Apostles, and they likewise needed the 
 
 * Although the empire was not a feud, the whole fabric of society was 
 feudal, and the dependance of sovereigns on the Pope, as the representa- 
 tive of Him who is the source of power, was more easily conceived than 
 the dependence of an inferior lord on the sovereign. The ideas of men 
 were borrowed from the actual social relations, and every thing assumed 
 a feudal charactei-, just as the republican system prevails, and its forms 
 are assumed here most naturally in all the relations of society. 
 
PLAN OF RE-UNION. 355 
 
 aid of the Divine proleoiion, since llie devil was desirous of 
 hanissin^r llieni all, and of destroying ilieni all ; and yel, .«^j)ecial 
 care of Peter is taken by the Lord, and supplicmion is made 
 especially for ihe failli of Peter, as if the slate of the others is 
 likely to be more sec'ure, if the mind of the prince be not over- 
 come."* But, explain as you will this text, have you not 
 heard Christ's promise, that the gates of hell shall not prevail? 
 I am not disposed to borrow your phraseology, and term your 
 nice distinction between y'c/////j if nnd /'(t//ini( mere trifling; but 
 when I see you perpetually recurring to the opinion about the 
 temporal power, 1 cannot but think that you feel the difficulty 
 of combating, by direct argument, the certain prerogatives of 
 the Primacy. 
 
 AVe have, at length, arrived at your conclusion. You ad- 
 vert to the plan of re-union, which was entertained, for a lime, 
 by Bossuet, Leibnitz, and some others, but which was soon 
 abandoned ; and you express your reasons for believing that 
 there is, al present, an approximation towards unity. I am 
 surprised, however, to tindyou laying great stress on the part 
 which governments should lake in bringing about so desirable 
 an object. Surely this observalion is, at least, useless in this 
 country, where the government cannot in any way interfere in 
 matters of a purely religious nature, and is scarcely in harmony 
 with the sj)irit of the age in which wt* live. '*'J'he ellbrts, 
 however," you add, addressing us, " necessary for such a pur- 
 pose, rest chielly with yourselves," and ihe reason you give, 
 is indeed extraordinary in liie exlren)e. *' As your claims now 
 stand, it is a mistake lo sujipose that you can be sali.'irutl with 
 equal rights and privileges. You may think so in a country 
 like the United States, so long as nothing belter is attainable. 
 You may think so in a country like (iieat Britain, where you 
 have been deprived of those equal riuhis for cenluries :" you 
 might have added that we think so in France, and in B( Igium, 
 where we arc cmphalically the nation. But, by whal right 
 
 S. Leo M. Svrin. 3, in anniv. asauinpt. suic. 
 
356 CONCLUSION. 
 
 do you make an assertion so prejudicial to our civil rights, and 
 excite the jealousy and suspicion of our fellow citizens, belong- 
 ing, as you do, to a church which, in the only country in which 
 it can be said to have had existence, or, at least, influence and 
 power, has "galled us," as you admit, "with the yoke of 
 Protestant ascendancy ?" Do you not lay yourself open to the 
 suspicion of sigliing after the union of church and state, when, 
 after having, throughout your work, laid much stress on 
 the part which emperors took in convoking councils, at its 
 close you distinctly state, that the great majority of the early 
 
 councils WERE ORDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT? What WOUld 
 
 you say of us, were we to repeat your remark, that "a judi- 
 cious employment of encouraging eflbrt, on tlie part of those 
 governments which have an established religion to maintain, 
 would soon, under God, produce a settlement of all serious 
 difficulty?" 
 
 You multiply assertions, which, to say the least, are ground- 
 less. Thus, addressing us, you say : " You are bound in 
 conscience, to contend for power, until your Church is what 
 you think she ought to be, the acknowledged mistress of the 
 world. You are bound in conscience to be discontented un- 
 til your rulers conform to your faith." . . . You accuse us "of 
 being compelled, by the very terms of our professed belief, to 
 intrigue, to agitate, to proselyte, to strive and to peisevere, 
 until we have gained every inch of our ancient territory." 
 These are serious ciiarges : they ought not to have beenliglitly 
 or wantonly made. Permit me to say, sir, with all the em- 
 phasis which truth can warrant, or self-respect allow, that we 
 have no power to contend for, save the triumph of truth, by 
 the acceptance of the eternal Gospel of Him whose kingdom 
 is not of this world. AVhen He shall reign in the minds and 
 hearts of all, from one extremity of the earth to the other, then 
 shall his Church appear as a queen on his rigiit hand in golden 
 vesture, sparkling with every precious ornament. The vir- 
 tues of her chiklren — the humility of their faitli — the purity of 
 their love— their patience under oppression — their heroic re- 
 
SPIRITUAL TRIUMPH. 367 
 
 turn of kindness to tlieir traducers — are llie brightest jewels 
 of lier crowii — and she covets no dominion — no ast-cndancy — 
 save that of virtue over vice — of faith over unbelief — of the 
 truth of God, and of his grace over the passions and pride of 
 his rebellious creatures. ♦* The weapons of our warfare are 
 not carnal, but powerful through God to the destruction of for- 
 tifications, subverting of counsels, and every height that ex- 
 alteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into 
 captivity every understanding to the obedience of Christ."^ 
 — Our ol)ligaiions are somewhat belter understood by our- 
 selves, than you have succeeded in explaining them. We are 
 bound to respect our rulers, and to submit to every legitimate 
 exercise of the established authorities, — to obey the laws, — to 
 maintain the order of society — to love all men — and last, not 
 least of all, to pray for them that persecute and calumniate us. 
 There are persons who intrigue, who agitate, who proselytize, 
 who are never weary in devising schemes for gathering mo- 
 ney, and scattering tracts, and who send agents in every direc- 
 tion, avowedly to oppose the diffusion of our faith ; and yet I 
 would rather ascribe all this to that zeal which is not according 
 to knowledge, than to any malignant spirit of anti-christian 
 hate. You exhort us to examine over and over again the 
 grounds of our system : but, it has been the study and guide 
 of our youth — the meditation which occupied mature age, and 
 gave us strength for virtuous exertion ; and we have seen num- 
 bers expire in the settled conviction of its truth and divine 
 origin. Every examination confirms the belief, that God is 
 its author, and challenges the expression of our gratitude to 
 Him, who strengthens the pupil of our eye to gaze on his 
 glory, as here rellecled through the mirror of revelation, for 
 ** he liath not done in like manner to every nation, nor hatli 
 he manifested his judgments to them."t 
 
 You seem to have written for the government of England 
 and for the congress of sovereigns, whom you urge to bring 
 
 2 Cor. X. 4. t Psalm cxlvii.