CHAPTER VIII.

SUMMARY OF PROOF GIVEN FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.

It would now seem to be made clear to all that the controversy on S.

Peter's Primacy relates _generally_ to the question of inequality in

the Apostolic college, and _specially_ to the question, whether

Christ, the Founder of the Church, set any one of the Apostles, and

whom of them in particular, over the rest. For as, on the one hand,

there would have been no room for the superior dignity of the

Primacy, had all the Apostles been completely equal, and

undistinguished in honour and authority from each other; so, on the

other hand, it is the nature of the Primacy to be incapable of even

being contemplated, save as fixed on some certain definite subject.

But to determine the two questions, whether the Apostles stood, or

did not stand, on a complete equality, and whether one of them was

superior to the rest in honour and dignity, it seemed requisite to

examine chiefly four points.

First, the words and the acts of Christ respecting the Apostles.

Secondly, His expressions which seemed to mark the institution of a

_singular_ authority.

Thirdly, the mode of writing and speaking usually and constantly

employed by the Evangelists and other inspired writers.

Lastly, the history of the Church, from its beginning, from which

might be drawn conjectures, or even certain proofs, of the power

which either all the Apostles had exercised equally, or one had held

above the rest.

For should it become plain, from the agreement of these four

sources, that a certain one of the Apostles, and that one Simon

Peter, had been distinguished from the rest by the acts and words of

Christ, and set over the Apostles; had been invariably described by

the inspired writers, as the Head and supreme authority; and in the

history of the rising Church, been portrayed in a way which could

only befit the universal ruler, no difficulty would remain, and

there would be arguments abundant to prove that Christ was the

author both of the inequality among the Apostles, and of Peter's

Primacy.

Now we seem to have proved _absolutely_, what we proposed

_hypothetically_. For we have shewn that Christ declared by His

whole method of acting, and by solemn words and deeds, that He did

not account Peter as one of the rest, but as their Leader, Chief,

and Head.

We have shown it to have been the will of Christ to concentrate in

Peter the distinctions which belong to Himself, as Supreme Ruler of

the Church. For such must be deemed the properties of being the

Foundation, the Bearer of the keys, the Holder of universal

authority, the Supporter, and lastly, the Chief Shepherd. Of these

there is no one which He did not promise to Peter singly, and confer

on Peter singly: no one, with which He did not associate Peter, and

Peter only, in making him the foundation of His Church, bestowing on

him the keys, and universal power of binding and loosing, in

setting him over his brethren to confirm them, and over His fold as

universal Pastor.

We have shown that the Evangelists place almost the same distinction

between the Apostles and Peter, as between Peter and Christ, while

still among us. For as they set forth Peter as second after Christ,

so do they subject the Apostles to Peter; as the acts and words of

Christ occupy the foreground in respect to those of Peter, so do his

in respect to those of the Apostles; as Christ, in their histories,

is pre-eminent above Peter, so is Peter more conspicuous than the

Apostles; and as the Gospels cannot be read without seeing in them

Christ as the prototype, so neither can they without seeing that

Peter approaches the nearest to Christ.

We have shown that S. Paul spoke of S. Peter in no other way than

the Evangelists, and that his pre-eminence is evident in S. Paul's

Epistles, as well as in the Gospels.

Lastly, we have shown that Peter shines as the superior luminary in

the history of the rising Church. The lustre of his deeds in the

Acts recalls that of Christ in the Gospels. In the Gospels Christ is

named by far most frequently; in the Acts no one occurs so often as

Peter. The discourses, the acts, the miracles of Christ occupy every

page of the Gospels; and in that portion of the Acts which embraces

the history of the whole Church, a very large part has reference to

the discourses, the acts, and the miracles of Peter. In the Gospels,

Christ leads, the Apostles follow; in the Acts, Peter takes the

precedence, the Apostles attend him. In the Gospels, Christ teaches,

and the Apostles, in silence, consent; in the Acts Peter alone makes

speeches, and explains the doctrine of salvation; the Apostles by

their silence consent. In the Gospels, Christ provides for the

Apostolic college, guards it from injury, defends it when attacked;

in the Acts, Peter provides for filling up the place of Judas,

determines the conditions of eligibility, enjoins the election, and

defends the Apostles before people, rulers, and chief priests, in

quality of their head.

Moreover, he alone is pre-eminent in exercising the triple power of

_authoritative Teacher, Judge, and Legislator_. _Of authoritative

Teacher_, not only towards Jews and Gentiles, whom he is the first

to join to Christ, so that the same person who was the Church's rock

and foundation, also became its chief architect; but towards the

Apostles likewise, who are taught by his ministry, that the time was

come for the blessing of redemption to be extended no less to

Gentiles than to Jews, and that the burden of legal rites could not

be laid on the Gentile converts without tempting God. _Of Judge_,

because, while the Apostles are silent, he is the first to hear the

causes of the faithful, to erect a tribunal, to examine the accused,

to issue sentence, and to support and confirm it by inflicting

excommunication. Of _Head and Supreme Legislator_, both when he

singly visits Christians in all parts, and provides for their needs,

or when he uses the prerogative of first voting, and draws with

authority the wording of the law to which the rest are to give an

unanimous consent.

From this compendious enumeration we draw a multifold proof, both of

inequality in the Apostolic college, and of Peter's superiority at

once in rank and in real government.

I. For, _first_, a college cannot be considered equal, out of which

Christ chose one, Simon Peter, whom, by His words and His actions,

He showed to be set over all. Now Christ's whole course of speaking

and acting, of which the Gospels give us the picture, tends to

exhibit Peter as chosen out from the rest, and set over them.

Accordingly, neither is the college of the Apostles equal, nor can

Peter be accounted as one of the rest.

II. Again, one who has received all in common with the rest, but

much besides peculiar to himself, special and distinguishing, must

seem to be taken out of the common number. Now such must Peter have

been among the Apostles, since Christ granted nothing to them which

He denied to Peter, but did grant to Peter many most distinguishing

gifts which He gave not to the rest.

III. And, further, it is apparent that the Foundation and the

Superstructure, the Bearer of the keys, and those who inhabit the

house or city whose keys he bears, the Confirmer, and those whom he

is to confirm, the universal Pastor and the sheep committed to his

charge, cannot be comprehended under the same order and rank. Now

the distinctions expressed by the terms Foundation, Bearer of the

keys, Confirmer, and universal Pastor, are Peter's official insignia

in reference to, and over, the Apostles themselves. His distinction

from them, therefore, and the inequality of the apostolic college,

are plain.

Perhaps this may be put somewhat otherwise even more clearly. And

so, IV. Let it first be considered, what is plain in itself, that a

distinction carrying pre-eminence depends on distinction in

perfection and gifts, and follows in a greater or less degree from

the greater or less inequality of these, or in case of their parity

exists not at all. Next, be what we hold both of reason and of faith

remembered, that "every best gift and every perfect gift, is from

above, coming down from the Father of lights," that God is the

fountain head of all good, and that all gifts whatsoever flow over

from Him to His creatures. From both points it follows that the

amount of the creature's dignity and perfection lies in the

participation of divine goods, and is greater or less in proportion

to the participation and association with divine goods. So, then,

the controversy on Peter's Primacy and the inequality of the

Apostolic college, comes ultimately to this: _whether Christ, the

God-man, associated Peter singly, above all, with Himself, in the

possession of those properties on account of which He stands Himself

related to the Church as its supreme Ruler_. For let it be once

evident that Christ did so, and it will of necessity be evident

also, not only that Peter was preferred to all, but wherein his

leadership and headship consisted. And since we have made the

inquiry, there is abundant evidence to prove that Christ really did

associate Peter singly in five properties, which, belonging to

Himself _primarily_ and _chiefly_, contain the special cause for

which He is the Prince and Supreme Head of the Church.

For, in truth, it is specially due to the properties and

distinctions of _Foundation, Bearer of the keys, Establisher, Chief

Shepherd_, and _Lord_, who has received all authority from the

Father, that the Church has an entire dependence on Christ, is

subject to Him, and that He enjoys over the Church the right and

authority of Supreme Lord and Ruler. But which of these properties

did He not choose to communicate to Peter, according to the degree

in which they were communicable? He bestowed them all upon Peter,

and upon Peter alone, so that Peter also is termed _the Foundation,

the Bearer of the keys, the Confirmer, the universal Pastor_, and

_the_[1] _Chief of the whole Church_. We see, therefore, a

remarkable proof of Peter being distinguished from the rest of the

Apostles, and set over them, in his singular and special association

with these gifts.

Again, V., to this tends that disposition of divine wisdom which

provides that Peter holds in the Church, and among the Apostles, a

rank of dignity greatly resembling that which Abraham among the

Patriarchs, and Judah among his brethren, received from God. The

former of these relations has been exhibited, and shown not to be

arbitrarily conceived, but grounded on due proof. The latter will be

presently farther touched upon. Now who shall deny Abraham that

superiority whereby he was made the Father and Teacher of all the

faithful, or strip Judah of the dignity in which he excelled his

brethren, and was in many points preferred to them? As little may

any one strip Peter of his authority as supreme teacher, and take

from him those singular endowments, which make him "the greater one"

among his brethren the Apostles.

Especially as, VI., this authority of Peter is clearly confirmed by

the mode of writing usual to the Evangelists. For it is monstrous

and preposterous to confound with the rest one whom the Evangelists

constantly distinguish and prefer to all. For what more could they

do to show their purpose to distinguish Peter, select him from the

rest, and place him at all times before all the Apostles? We may

venture to say that they omitted nothing to this end. And so it is

absurd to doubt of Peter's prerogatives, or set him on the same

footing with the rest.

For, indeed, VII., no one would endure it to be denied, from the

usual mode of writing of the Evangelists, that Christ was

pre-eminent among the Apostles as their Supreme Head, and was

removed from them in dignity by an infinite interval. Now though the

Evangelists do not give Peter all things, nor in the same degree,

yet they do give him much, and in a degree not dissimilar, to

distinguish him from the rest, showing him, as in a nearer relation

to Christ, so proportionally exalted above the other Apostles.

And this proof, VIII., is the more persuasive because S. Paul

follows the very same mode of speaking as the Evangelists. For in

repeatedly mentioning S. Peter in his epistles, he always gives him

the place of honour, and joins him as near as may be with Christ.

Who then can doubt that Peter held a certain pre-eminent rank?

And the more, IX., because what is read in the Acts, and the view of

primitive history therein contained, looks the same way, and seems

set forth with the same purpose. For if you compare together the

Acts and the Gospels, the mind at once suggests that the position of

Prototype which Christ holds in the Gospels, belongs to Peter in the

Acts, and that Peter seems distinguished above the rest of the

Apostles in the Acts, as Christ is pre-eminent far above all in the

Gospels. Now what is the result of so apparent a likeness? What is

it fair to deduce from such a bearing in the Evangelical and

Apostolical history? Those who are obedient to reasoning, and follow

the bright torch of the Scriptures, must confess with us that in

this parallelism of both histories, and so of Christ and Peter, is

contained a mark and sign, proving that Peter follows next after

Christ in dignity and authority.

In authority, X., I repeat, and, therefore, that kind of superiority

which very far surpasses the limits of precedence and order. For

what are the grounds on which we see Peter's eminence in the Acts,

or a resemblance between the Acts, when speaking of Peter, and the

Gospels when speaking of Christ? Chiefly these, that Peter is set

forth as remarkable, singly, above all, for the use and exercise of

the triple power, of Judge, Legislator, and authoritative Teacher.

Now, the superiority herein asserted, not merely distinguishes Peter

from the rest, but attaches to him a greater authority over the

rest.

XI. And, indeed, propose an hypothesis which is necessary to solve a

complex and undoubted series of facts: is such an hypothesis thereby

made a certainty. At least these are the principles of philosophy,

from which the laws of reasoning will not allow us to depart. Now,

Peter's pre-eminence and supremacy are such an hypothesis, without

which you can render no sufficient cause of the facts narrated in

the first twelve chapters of the Acts. Accordingly, this supremacy

of Peter may be considered as proved.

XII. Or to put the argument somewhat differently, thus: As the

existence of causes is deduced, _a posteriori_, from effects, so it

is perfectly established, _a priori_, whenever the series and sum of

effects, of which the senses are cognisant, are foretold from it

with certainty. We deduce the force of gravity necessarily from its

effects, a posteriori, but we likewise determine it to exist, with a

judgment no less invariable, a priori, when it is such that we do

not merely guess at, but certainly anticipate, its sensible

effects. Now Peter's supremacy is not inaptly compared with this

very force of gravity. For it is a characteristic of each to be, in

its proper order of things, the source and principle in which

effects are involved, which afterwards become apparent, whether in

this physical universe, or in the supernatural region of the Church.

Suppose, then, Peter to have held the dignity which we claim for

him. What happens in the Acts which might not, nay, which should

not, have been anticipated? Is it his being mentioned above all, his

speaking in the name of all, his constantly taking the lead, and his

eminence, as if he were the head? But it could not be otherwise if

he alone received from Christ a higher dignity than all the rest. Is

it his discharging the office of supreme Judge, Legislator, Teacher,

and Doctor? Is not this just what was to be expected from the rank

of Head and universal Pastor? The Primacy, then, the larger

authority, and the unshared majesty of Peter, belong to that class

of truths which are indubitably believed on the strength of

deduction, and rational anticipation.

Having noted, if not all, at least the greater number of those

arguments which we have alleged hitherto in favour of our cause, we

approach the question which was secondly to be cleared up, what,

namely, is _the force and nature of that Primacy_, which the same

arguments prove to belong to Peter. For I know that all Protestants

are possessed with the notion that no other pre-eminence should be

ascribed to Peter, on scriptural authority, than one limited to a

certain precedency of honour and order. That _precedency_ should be

granted Peter they are not unwilling to admit, but _supremacy_, they

stoutly maintain, must not and cannot be allowed him. As to which

their opinion I consider, that it would be much the shorter way to

strip Peter utterly of every prerogative, than to attenuate the

distinctions applied to him in Scripture to a sort of shadowy

precedency. I consider that nothing is so foreign to truth and the

Scriptures, as on their testimony to allow that Peter was

distinguished from the rest of the Apostles, but to confine that

superiority within the very narrow bounds of honour and order.

For, _first_, whence do we most evidently and chiefly draw the

greater dignity which Peter clearly possessed above the others? We

draw it from the endowments separately bestowed upon him, whereby he

became the Foundation of the Church, the Supreme Bearer of the keys,

the Confirmer of his brethren, and the universal Pastor. But are

these names, images, signs, expressing a naked superiority of honour

and order, or rather designating an authority of jurisdiction and

power? I cannot hesitate to assert either that these forms are most

fitted of all to express a singular authority, or that none such

exist in language. For, _secondly_, their force is to ascribe to

Peter the main sway, and to mark him as set for the head and leader

of all. Who that hears them can, without perverting the natural

force of words, or disregarding the laws of interpretation, imagine

anything merely honorary, or figure to himself Peter with a mere

grant of precedency?

Especially as, _thirdly_, he is named in Scripture not only _the

First_, but, comparatively, the _Greater_, and absolutely, the

_Superior_.[2] Now these terms do, of themselves, and far more if

you consider the context of the discourse in which they occur,

express a singular authority, and one without rival. An authority,

_fourthly_, kindred to that with which Christ, while yet in His

mortal life, presided over the Apostolic college, and administered

as supreme Head, the company which He had formed. For we can never

sufficiently urge a point which, being in itself most true, is of

itself abundantly sufficient completely to set at rest the present

controversy. It is this, that Peter's Primacy proceeds from a

singular association with those distinctions, in virtue of which

Christ is considered the Head and Chief, and Supreme Ruler of the

Church. So that the more his Primacy is depressed, the more Christ's

prerogatives and dignity are lowered; nor can he be confined to a

precedency of honour and order, without Christ's superiority being

shut within well nigh the same limits.

Besides, _fifthly_, are tokens wanting in Scripture which disclose

the nature of Peter's Primacy? Are there not effects which unfold

the force and quality of the cause from which they spring? Such

tokens there are in abundance, and such effects manifold. These are,

the care with which Peter guarded the Apostolic college; the

authority with which he visited Christians in every part; the

singular exercise of judicial power, by which he established Church

discipline, and provided for its maintenance; his acts of

authoritative teaching; his drawing the form of laws which were to

rule the universal Church; and, in short, the wonderful regard with

which that Church followed Peter as its Head, and the Steward of all

the Lord's family. What Primacy is it which these tokens set forth?

What cause which these effects demonstrate? Is it one limited to a

precedency of honour and order? or one pre-eminent by an inherent

jurisdiction and authority? It is a point which needs no further

words. For if any there be whose minds are not struck by a candid

and sincere exposition of facts, you will in vain attempt to

persuade them by arguments.

Unless, indeed, _sixthly_, they allow themselves to be forced out

of their prejudice by the Scriptures exhibiting such a Primacy of

Peter as compels all others to profess one and the same faith with

him, and to maintain one and the same society. For such an

obligation could proceed neither from titles of honour, nor from

precedency. It demanded a stronger cause--none other, in fact, but

that supreme authority by which Peter is made head of all.

But we shall feel much more at home in the truth of this deduction,

if we enquire a little more deeply into the reasons for selecting

one among the rest, namely Peter, and instituting the Primacy. For

the purpose, and end proposed in a work, have the force of a

_negative_ rule by which we may judge with certainty what ought to

be done, or could not be left undone. I know well that it does not

follow, if anything has been instituted for a certain purpose, that

it ought to be endowed _only_ with those properties which appear

necessary for the end to be gained; for it may be much more

munificently established than the absolute need required. But at the

same time I know that there would be a failure in prudence and

wisdom in one who, desiring a certain work for a specific end, did

not provide it with everything that could be deemed necessary. Thus

the _knowledge of the intention and purpose_ is equivalent, if not

to a _positive_ rule, determining all and singular the powers

bestowed on any institution, at least to a _negative_, ascertaining

what must be given to it, and what cannot be denied to it.

Now is the purpose for which Christ instituted the Primacy, and

honoured Peter with its dignity, unknown, or is it most truly

ascertained? The end which moved Christ to make the college of

Apostles unequal, and to set Peter as head over it, is it secret, or

very conspicuous? There are in all three _classes of reasons_ which

enable us to form, not a mere guess, but an ascertained judgment, as

to the purpose of Christ in instituting the Primacy. There are

_typical_ reasons, drawn from previous shadowings forth of it: there

are _analogical_, derived from relations of resemblance; and there

are _real_, inherent in the testimonies themselves, and the Church's

endowments. Let us briefly exhibit these in order.

I. By, then, that signal agreement wherewith the two dispensations,

the old and the new, correspond to each other, the first in outline,

and the last as filled up, this rudimental, and that complete, we

are plainly instructed that it was Christ's purpose for Peter, in

the new dispensation, to bear the character, whose lineaments had

been traced before in Abraham, and to be eminent among the Apostles,

for the prerogative which Abraham had possessed among the

Patriarchs. Now Abraham's special prerogative, and pre-eminence, was

this, that no one could share either promise, whether carnal or

spiritual, which is expressed in Scripture, by "the Blessing," who

was not joined with Abraham by a double, that is, a carnal and

spiritual, a physical and moral, bond. For to him and to his seed

were the promises made, with the condition, that only by conjunction

with him, and with his seed, they could flow over to the rest.

Since, then, in the new dispensation, Peter was to sustain the

character of Abraham in the old, and since the only-begotten Son of

the Father, having put on the form of a servant, granted to Peter

the prerogative which, in prelude of His future order, He had given

to Abraham, it is plain that Simon was chosen, honoured with the

name of Cephas, and preferred above all, in order that from him as

supreme minister of Christ, and by union with him as visible head,

all the members of the Church's body might enjoy the blessings and

fruits of the Christian institution.

The deductions from this are easy to see. For two things chiefly

follow, specially declarative of the nature of the Primacy, and

shewing its intent, to be the cause and efficient principle of that

unity by which the Church of Christ is one visible body. First,

there follows the _duty_ laid upon all the faithful, of being joined

with Peter, if they would not fall from those promises with which

Christ has most bountifully enriched His mystical Body, being no

other than that which reverences Peter as its visible head.

Secondly, there follows Peter's _jurisdiction_, in virtue of which

he enjoins all to form one communion and society with him, as well

as effects, defends, and maintains it. Now, nothing can be stronger

than this ordinance of Christ, either to prove a Primacy of supreme

jurisdiction, or to unfold its purpose of effecting and maintaining

unity.

The same is the bearing of another type no less remarkable, and no

less adopted to explain the whole matter. For, as Israel, "according

to the flesh," was the shadow of the "Israel of God," which was

"according to promise:"[3] and as the kingdom of Israel was a type

and ensample of the kingdom of heaven, the approach of which Christ

proclaimed in these words, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom

of heaven is at hand:" so the twelve sons of Israel, the heads of

the Israelitish race, represented and imaged out those Twelve whom

Christ chose, made princes in His Church, and endowed with supreme

authority to build up that Church's structure, and enrich it day by

day with new accessions of spiritual children. Of this type our

Lord's words are the strongest guarantee: "Amen, I say unto you,

that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of

Man shall sit on the throne of His Majesty, you also shall sit on

twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And, again, in

the very discourse where He sets forth the future Superior, "I

dispose to you, as My Father disposed to Me, a kingdom; that you may

eat and drink at My table, in My kingdom; and may sit upon thrones,

judging the twelve tribes of Israel."[4]

But now, though all the sons of Israel in the former typical kingdom

were chiefs, and heads of tribes, yet one of them, that is Judah,

had a special prerogative, which the Scriptures set forth, and which

was called the _right of the first-born_. In virtue of this, on the

one hand, Judah was esteemed the Lord of his brethren, whom they

were to reverence as the parent of the whole family, and on the

other, it was only by union with him, and with the seed that was to

spring from him, that the other chiefs could promise to themselves

the divine blessing. And so the tribe of Judah had a great

pre-eminence over the other eleven. It was its prerogative to take

the[5] lead: it had received from God the promise of an[6] authority

which was not to terminate before the old covenant should be

transformed into the new: from it was the seed[6] to be expected,

which should be the source of blessing to all nations, prefigured as

they were by the twelve tribes; the other tribes were bound[7] to

union with it, and to the profession of its religion, on pain of

falling into schism, and forfeiting the divine covenant. All this

was expressed by Jacob in prophetic inspiration, when he addressed

Judah as the head and root of his line: "Judah (praise) art thou,

thy brethren shall praise thee: thy hand is on the neck of thine

enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee." It remains,

then, to ask, who was to represent Judah's person in the new

kingdom, and on whom Christ bestowed the prerogative, the type and

image of which had gone before in Judah. It is most plain that this

was Simon Peter, for whom we have, therefore, to claim a double

prerogative, the one of being the source and origin, from which no

one may be separated without severance from the kingdom and promises

of Christ: the other of being the first-born, as betokening

excellence, by which he was pre-eminent in the possession of special

rights among his brethren, the Apostles.

The former prerogative was expressed by the Fathers of Aquileia,

when, in the words of S. Ambrose, they stated their belief in S.

Peter's chair, "For thence, as from a fountain head, the rights of

venerable communion flow unto[8] all." The latter is confirmed and

illustrated by the solemn expressions so often recurring in

Christian records, wherein Peter is called, "[9]the Bishop of

Bishops," "[10]the Pastor of Pastors," "[11]first prelate of the

Apostles," "[12]Patriarch of the whole world," "[13]universal

bishop," "[14]father of fathers," "[14]having the dignity of

pastoral headship," "[14]the most divine head of all heads,

arch-pastor of the Church."

II. To these reasons, which, as we think, may be called _typical_,

succeed the _analogical_, which prove with equal evidence the

purpose of the Primacy as instituted, and its inherent powers. If we

ask what are these reasons from analogy, and to what they point, one

only answer can be given commended by any show of truth, that the

Primacy was instituted in order that the Church of Christ might seem

to be moulded after the analogy of one human body, one house, one

kingdom, one city, and one fold. But whence the need that so very

remarkable and clear an analogy should be obtained by the

institution of the Primacy? Doubtless because the Primacy was

created as a principle, by whose virtue and efficiency what was

various and manifold should be gathered up into unity, because it

was to be a head in which all the diverse members of the

ecclesiastical body should be joined, the centre of the Church's

circle.

Therefore the reasons drawn from analogy show that the unity of the

Church is to be considered the special end for which the Primacy was

instituted, and the Primacy itself a principle abundantly provided

with all those means by which so admirable a blessing as unity may

be first produced and then maintained.

And this is confirmed by another analogy, well worthy of close

attention. This consists in the double and reciprocal relation in

which the universal Church stands to particular Churches, and the

institution of the Primacy to the institution of bishops, who, by

Christ's appointment, govern those particular Churches: an agreement

which ought to have especial force with those who believe in the

divine institution of bishops. For as the whole society of true

believers, and the particular congregations of which it is made up,

are called in Holy Scripture and the Christian records by one and

the same name of the Church, so is there the very closest analogy

between the bond which connects the universal Church and that which

connects its several parts.

Exactly, then, as it is asserted with great truth of all these

particular Churches that they are one house, one city, and one fold,

so must this be repeated of the whole Church, since it is set forth

in Scripture by no other images, and has no less right to claim the

property of unity. Hence S.[15] Chrysostome's golden saying, "If it

is the Church of God, it is united and one, not at Corinth only, but

in the whole world. For _the Church_ is a name not of division, but

of union and harmony;" and S.[16] Gregory calls it, "The tunic

without seam, woven from the top throughout."

Now the same reason which existed for instituting particular bishops

to govern and preserve in unity particular flocks, moved Christ to

institute an universal Primate, and to set him over the whole fold.

If in the former case the best description of a particular Church is

that of S. Cyprian, "A people united to its priest, and a flock

adhering to its pastor;"[17] in the latter the _form of unity_,

which Christ established in the universal Primate, no less imposes

on all, both taught and teachers, the necessity of saying with S.

Jerome, "I following none as the first save Christ, am joined in

communion with your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter.

Upon that rock the Church is built, I know. Whoever outside of this

house eateth the lamb, is profane. If any one was not in the ark of

Noah, he shall perish. I know not Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I am

ignorant of Paulinus. Whoever gathers not with thee, scatters: that

is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist."[18]

III. A great accession of evidence will accrue to what we have said

if we attentively consider the reasons deduced from the texts

containing the institution of the Primacy, and those proceeding from

the inherent properties of the Church. To speak of the texts first:

1. Either they carry no meaning with them, or they prove at least

this, that Christ, in instituting the Primacy, intended,[19] while

exhibiting the whole Church under the usual image of a house and

building, to give it a _foundation_, the bond at once of its

strength and unity; and, again, while communicating to one the

special gift of unwavering faith, to make him the channel for

establishing and[20] _confirming_ all the faithful; to[21] render

the fold which he had gathered out of all nations one by the unity

of a supreme visible _pastor_, and to[22] constitute in the Lord's

family, amid so manifold a distinction of officers, one of such

eminence as to be _the Ruler_ and _the Greater_ among all.

But can we, or ought we, to conclude from this as to the purpose of

the Primacy, and as to its constituent force and principle?

Assuredly these texts prove directly and categorically that the

Primacy was set up as _the efficient principle_, whereby to mould

the Church's visible unity, and was endowed with all that authority,

without which unity could neither have been produced, nor maintained

in existence.

2. And in this judgment we shall be confirmed if we investigate the

properties of which the Church cannot be deprived, without taking a

form and an appearance different from that which it received from

Christ. The first which occurs is that _identity_ by which the

Church must always be like itself, and cannot be substantially

different at its beginning and in its growth; one thing when it had

Christ for its visible head, and another when His words had come to

pass, "A little while, and now you shall not see Me--because I go to

the Father." Now at its first commencement, in the time of our

Lord's mortal life, the Church presented the form of a society

governed by the supreme power of one, and deriving its visible unity

from one supreme visible head. That it might not subsequently lose

this identity, and put on another form, our Lord chose a Primate to

be the principle of visible unity, and to have the power of a head

over the whole body.

And indeed this was necessary to maintain the double character and

test of[23] _unity_ and[24] _Catholicity_, by which the Church is

distinguished in Holy Scripture and in the records of Christian

antiquity. As to _unity_, not only are the expressions in the

creeds, and the more ample explanation of them in the[25] Fathers,

most clear and emphatic, but likewise what is said in the Holy

Scriptures of the _end_ for which the Church was founded by Christ.

For the[26] grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men,

instructing those who had[27] changed the truth of God into a lie,

and liked not to have God in their knowledge, that[28] denying all

these things they might become an acceptable people, and[29]

enlightened by Christ, and sanctified in the truth, might by the

profession of one faith be[30] one body and one spirit, in the

same[31] manner in which the Father and the Son are one, and might

be[32] divided by no sects and dissensions, which are manifestly the

works of the flesh, not of God, who is not the[33] God of dissension

but of peace. For therefore[34] Christ, the only-begotten of the

Father, gave His blood for it, to present it to Himself, a glorious

Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, which would

break peace, and disturb the agreement of faith; but that it should

be holy and without blemish,[35] immovable through that rock on

which it rests, and against which not even the gates of hell shall

prevail; wisely ordered as the[36] house of God, in which[37] all

hear his voice, who is set over as the[38] ruler, and has received

his brethren to be[39] confirmed, and the[40] care of the whole

flock;[41] endued with virtue from on high, and strengthened by

the[42] Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father; possessing the

power of[43] authoritative teaching, which if any[44] hear not, nor

obey, they are to be accounted as heathens and publicans, by a

judgment which binds both in heaven and on earth. Are there any who

do not see that in this description, which sets forth the Church's

pre-ordained end, its proper character and very lineaments, the

Primacy itself is included, and exhibited as the principal cause

which effects the unity of the whole body? I hardly think that any

such can be, so apparent is the bond which ties these several parts

together.

Yet perhaps this may be more vividly brought out if we shortly

mention the common opinions among Protestants on the Church's unity.

For, omitting those who hold an[45] invisible Church, and so expunge

visible unity from its attributes, all the other opinions may be

reduced to three.

A. Anglicans, whose belief has been set forth, besides Pearson on

the Creed, with more than usual care by Dodwell, (in his Treatise on

the Bishop, as the Principle of Unity, and S. Peter's Primacy among

the Apostles as the Exemplar of Unity,) begin by noting that the

question of visible unity cannot be determined in the same way as it

respects the universal Church, or each particular Church. But why?

Because, they say, it was indeed the will of Christ, that each

particular Church should have a double unity, inward and outward,

but it was not His will that the whole Church, the sum of these

particular Churches, should have the same mark and test. Because, it

was His will that both unities should characterise the particular

Churches, to use a school phrase, _separately_ and _distributively_,

but not the whole body, and the sum of these, taken _collectively_.

Whence they conclude that Bishops were chosen and made, by the

command of Christ, to preside over particular Churches, and be in

them the source and principle of external unity, but that a Primate

was not chosen, to whom the whole Church should be subject, and on

whom its external unity should depend.

At this argument one is lost in astonishment, how it could have

suggested itself to learned men, and gained their assent. For what

had they to prove, or how could they assure themselves, or others,

as to either of these two points, that external unity was necessary

to particular Churches, but not to the whole Church, or that the

institution of Bishops, presiding over particular Churches, came

from Christ, but not that of the Primate, whose charge was to rule,

administer, and maintain in unity the whole Church. Had they texts

wherein to trust? But as often as the Bible speaks of the Church's

unity, it means that Church, which is called "the kingdom of God,"

"the kingdom of Christ," and "the kingdom of heaven," which is

termed "the inheritance of the Gentiles," and embraces with a

mother's bosom, and a mother's love, the whole race of man, from one

end of the earth to the other. Had they creeds to cite? But in these

unity is attributed to that Church only, which is so termed

absolutely, and very often has the epithet of Catholic.

Moreover, is the word Church, in its unrestricted application, of

doubtful meaning? On the contrary, it is specially defined as well

in the Holy Scriptures,[46] where it expresses of itself the whole

society of believers, as in the Fathers, such as Irenaeus,[47]

Tertullian,[48] Clement[49] of Alexandria, Origen,[50] Hilary,[51]

Jerome,[52] and all the rest without exception, who, in using it,

express the whole Christian people joined in one sole communion. It

is defined also by Councils, as in the Canons of Laodicea,[53]

Carthage,[54] and Constantinople,[55] where the Church means the

whole assembly of orthodox believers, as distinct from heretics and

schismatics. It is defined in the most ancient explanation of the

creeds, the unanimous meaning of which Tertullian seems to have

rendered in saying: "And, therefore, so many and so great Churches

are that first one from the Apostles, whence all come. So all are

first, and all Apostolical, while all set forth one unity, while

they have interchange of peace, the appellation of brotherhood and

the common rights of friendship, privileges regulated by no other

principle than the tradition of the same sacrament."[56] Lastly, the

very heretics[57] defined this term, who, in order to make

themselves understood, could use the word Church in no other sense

than to express the universal assembly of the faithful.

After this it is not at all necessary to ask Anglicans afresh if

they have ancient Fathers whose authority they can quote. What these

thought and believed about the Church's unity is fully shown by

those whom we have quoted, and by the words of Irenaeus, "The Church,

though dispersed throughout the whole world, yet as if it were

contained in the same house, carefully preserves the rule of faith,

and holds it as if she had one soul and one heart, nay, and teaches

it with one consent, as if she spoke with one voice. For although

different tongues occupy the world, yet the force of tradition is

one and the same, nor do the Churches of Germany, Spain, Gaul, the

East, Egypt, Libya, and the middle of the world, embrace any other

faith. But as there is one and the same sun shining over the whole

world, so the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and

enlightens all men who desire its knowledge."[58]

What, then, was the motive of Anglicans, in maintaining the unity of

particular churches, and the institution of bishops cohering with

it, to be necessary, while they denied the necessity of unity in the

Church universal, or of a Primate's institution, to effect universal

unity? What induced them to assert incompatibilities, and defend

them as a matter of life and death? The evidence of the Scriptures,

and the unquestionable belief of all Christian antiquity, extorted

from them the acknowledgment that unity was a mark of the Church,

and the ascription to Christ of the institution of bishops as

necessary for the forming and maintaining unity. _But the fixed

purpose of defending their schism, and their determination to reject

the Primacy, urged them to deny that unity in the whole Church was

ordered and provided for by Christ._ The result of these

affirmatives and negatives was a doctrinal[59] monster of

incomparable ugliness, an outrage on the light both of nature and of

revelation, as incapable of defence, as abhorrent from reason and

from grace.

B. The second Protestant opinion has been set forth at length by[60]

Vitringa, and supported with all his ingenuity. It is that of those

who distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church, one interior,

spiritual, proceeding from union with one and the same invisible

Head, Jesus Christ, and completed and perfected by the inhabitation

of the Holy Spirit, and the bestowal of heavenly gifts; the other

exterior, visible, depending on profession of the same faith,

participation of the same sacraments, obedience to the same

superiors. Having made this distinction, they proceed to argue for

the purpose of proving that while the former unity is universal, and

absolutely necessary, the latter is neither universal nor necessary,

save hypothetically, (of which hypothesis Vitringa nowhere explains

the nature,) and so is capable both of extension and restriction. In

a word, they attach simple and absolute necessity and universality

to the spiritual and invisible unity, but by no means to the

external and visible.

But for this what are their authorities? Can they allege the most

ancient Fathers in unbroken succession from the Apostles? Nay, they

candidly confess that the Fathers thought external and visible unity

simply and absolutely necessary, and not those only of the fourth

and fifth century, but those of the second and third. Witness

Vitringa,[61] who says, "If we consult on this point the doctors of

the ancient Christian Church, they seem on all hands to have

embraced the view that the communion of believers in holy rites, in

the supper of the Lord, and in reciprocal offices of brotherly love,

was maintained absolutely, not hypothetically. They supposed, and

seem to have persuaded themselves, that all who were joined to the

Christian Church by the due rite of baptism after previous

preparation, were really regenerated by the grace of the Holy

Spirit, and so that the Christian Church was an assembly of men,

who in far greater part, saving hypocrites, of whom a few might

exist in secret, participated in the renewing and sanctifying grace

of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, to be joined to the Church was much

the same as being joined to the heavenly city. To have one's name on

the Church's books, much the same as to have it in God's book of

life. On the other hand, to be severed from Church communion, or to

use Tertullian's words, "to be deprived of the sacrament of the Body

and Blood of the Lord, and to be debarred from all brotherly

communion," was to risk salvation, and incur the danger of eternal

death. That is, they supposed that no one was saved out of the

external communion of the Church, which they confounded with the

mystical and spiritual communion of the Saints. And again, kindred

points to these, and resting on the same principle, that bishops

represent the office and person of Jesus Christ Himself in the

Christian Church; that those who separated themselves from them when

rightly and duly elected, separated themselves at the same time from

the communion of Christ Himself. That those who were absolved by the

bishops after penance publicly performed according to the canons of

ecclesiastical discipline, restored to their rank, and honoured with

the kiss of peace, were absolved in the heavenly court by God

Himself, and Christ the Judge. Lastly, which was the most[62]

_audacious_ of all such hypotheses, that it was all over with the

salvation of all who separated themselves in schism from the

external communion of the Church and its rites, although hitherto

they had neither been tainted with heresy, nor involved in crimes

destructive of the Christian[63] profession. It would be easy for me

to support at length each one of these particulars by the sentiments

and the discipline of the doctors of the primitive Church, were they

unknown to the more instructed, or did my purpose allow it. I now

only appeal to Cyprian's letter to Magnus, in the whole of which He

supposes and urges the very hypotheses which I have been

enumerating; and amongst the rest, speaking of Novatian's schism, he

writes thus distinctly: "But if there is one Church, which is

beloved by Christ, and alone is cleansed in His laver, how can he

who is not in the Church," (that is, in communion with that

particular external assembly which makes a part of the external

Catholic Church,) "be loved by Christ, or washed and cleansed in His

laver? Wherefore as the Church alone possesses the water of life,

and the power of baptizing and washing a man, let him who asserts

that any one can be baptized and sanctified with Novatian, first

show and teach that Novatian is in the Church, or [64]_presides over

the Church_. For the Church is one, which, being one, cannot be at

once within and without. For if it is with Novatian, it was not with

Cornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who succeeded the Bishop

Fabian in regular order, and whom the Lord hath glorified with

martyrdom over and above the rank of his high priesthood, Novatian

is not in the Church."[65] It is the precise thing which we have

been stating."

But where did Vitringa and the supporters of his doctrine get

courage to contradict the whole line of Fathers and their unbroken

tradition? You would surely expect from them decisive arguments, and

expressions from Holy Writ distinctly laying down no other than a

_hypothetical_ necessity of visible and external unity. But you may

search in vain all over the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Acts, for

any such. Not only is there no mention in them of such a distinction

as that invisible unity is absolutely necessary, while external and

visible unity is but hypothetically so, but this latter is plainly

enjoined and set forth as the note which the mystical body of

Christ, the true Church, cannot be without; and its violation is

reckoned among those works of the flesh which exclude from the

kingdom of God.

How, besides, can that be deemed necessary only under hypothesis,

without holding and faithfully maintaining which you cut yourself

off from the very fountain of blessing, and transgress and subvert

the order appointed by God for attaining salvation? Such an

assertion would be senseless. Yet in most of the Protestant

confessions,--the Helvetic, art. xiv., the Galliean, art. xvi., the

Scotch, art. xxvii., the Belgian, art. xxviii., the Saxon, art.

xii., the Bohemian, art. viii., and that of the Remonstrants, art.

xxii.,--it is laid down as an indisputable principle, "That the

heirs of eternal life are only to be found in the assembly of those

called." What then do those who violate outward and visible unity,

and withdraw from the outward and visible body of the Church? They

stop up the very way which Providence has opened for their obtaining

"the inheritance of sons."

For indeed Christ is the Saviour, but of His mystical body,

which[66] is the Church, which therefore He purchased with His own

blood, joined to Himself by that closest bond of being His spouse,

enriched with promises,[67] provided with all manner of graces, and

most nobly dowered with[68] truth, charity, and the Holy Spirit, to

give her at last salvation, and[69] "the weight of eternal glory."

But have these things reference to a visible or an invisible Church?

To a Church one and coherent, or rent and torn by factions? It is

the Church which Christ founded, which He made to be[70] "the light

of the world," bound together by[71] manifold external links,

ordered to be one with the unity of a house, a family, a city, a

kingdom; with that unity wherewith the Father and the Son are one;

in which He placed[72] pastors and doctors to bind and to loose, and

to watch over the agreement of all the parts; which He founded upon

Peter, committed in chief to Peter to rule and to feed it. Such,

then, as fall off from one single visible Church are of the

condition of those whom the Apostles of the Lord foretold, that "in

the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their

own desires in ungodlinesses: these are they who separate

themselves, sensual men, having not the[73] Spirit:" these tear

themselves from their Saviour, lose the fruit purchased by His

blood, and fall from the inheritance which the Head obtained for His

body and His members.

Therefore the necessity of union with the one single visible Church

is as great as the necessity of union with Christ the Head, as the

necessity of the remission of sins, "for[74] outside of it they are

not remitted: for this Church has specially received the Holy Spirit

in earnest, without whom no sins are remitted:" as the necessity of

charity, "[75]for it is this very charity which those who are cut

off from the communion of the Catholic Church do not possess,"

whence "[76]whatsoever thing heretics and schismatics receive, the

charity which covers a multitude of sins is the gift of Catholic

unity and peace:" as great, in fine, as the necessity not to involve

oneself "in[77] a horrible crime and sacrilege," "in[78] the

greatest of evils," one "by[79] which Christ's passion is rendered

of no effect, and His body is rent," by which[80] the sin is

committed of which Christ said, "It shall not be forgiven, neither

in this world nor in the world to come:" by which one is estranged

"from the sole Catholic Church, which retains the true worship, in

which is the fountain of truth, the home of faith, the temple of

God, into which if any one enter not, or from which if any one go

out, he loses the hope of life and eternal salvation. Let no one

flatter himself in the spirit of obstinate contention, for life is

at issue, and salvation, which without care and caution will be

forfeited."[81] Can any necessity be greater, or less conditional

than this? Or what can be more plain than this statement of the

simple and absolute necessity of visible unity and outward

communion?

Where then are we to find the cause which induced so many learned

and able Protestants first to imagine this distinction between the

necessity of internal and external communion and unity, and then to

deceive themselves and others with such a mockery? The real cause

was, as I believe, that having denied the institution of the

Primacy, and the authority lodged in it for the purpose of forming

and maintaining unity, they were without a criterion or proof, in

virtue of which, among so many Christian societies divided from and

condemning each other, they could safely choose the one with which

they were to be joined in communion, and the outward unity of duty

and obedience. For they would readily conclude that the unity so

often commended in Scripture, and so earnestly enjoined, could not

be external, since God, who does not command impossibilities, had

instituted no visible sign to mark that company of Christians, which

alone among all the rest was the continuation and development of the

Church founded by Christ, and built up by the Apostles.

C. From the same source must the third Protestant doctrine on unity

be derived. [82]Jurien filled up the sketch of this, which

[83]Casaubon, [84]Claude, and [85]Mestrezat had drawn, and it became

so popular as not only to infect a large number of Protestants, but

to exert a withering influence on certain unstable members of the

Catholic body. It teaches that we must believe not only in an

internal and spiritual, but in a visible and external unity, for the

Scriptures plainly urge its necessity, and Christian tradition fully

describes it, so that there is not a truth more patent or

established on greater authority; but this unity is restricted

within narrow bounds, and confined to the articles called

fundamental, though as to how many these are no one defender of the

system is agreed with another. For it is sufficient for Christians

not to differ in the profession of such articles for them to be

deemed members of one and the same Church. Whence they infer that

one and the same true Church is made up out of almost all Christian

societies, the Roman, the Greek, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the

Waldensian, the Lutheran, the Anglican, and the Calvinist, for their

differences, important as they are, offer no hindrance to the unity

which Christ enjoined, the Apostles preached, the creeds express,

and universal tradition demands.

As Bossuet,[86] the brothers Walemburg,[87] Nicole,[88] and even

some Protestants have most fully dealt with this portentous opinion,

there is no need to urge much against it here. I prefer repeating

the question, what _occasion_ the Protestants had to get up so

unheard-of a paradox, and a system so absurd? It was twofold: one

theoretical, and the other practical.

The theoretical was this. The crime of heresy, depicted in

Scripture, and Christian antiquity, with colours so dark, had

gradually lost its foulness and its magnitude in the minds of

Protestants, who had, at length, come to the pass of reckoning

religious, as well as civil, liberty, among the unquestionable

rights of man. As if, all other human acts being subject to a law,

those alone which proceed from the intellect are exempt: as if the

difference between right and wrong, which embraces the whole range

of man's life, did not relate to its noblest part, in the acts of

the intellect and the reason: as if God had laid down a law of

justice, charity, fortitude, and prudence, but entirely omitted a

_law[89] of faith_: as if the will submitted to a law of _good_, but

the mind owned no law of _truth_: or as if God cared for the boughs

and leaves, but took no thought of the root.[90] But what could

Protestants do? Having allowed to all full license of thought, and

overthrown the authority which ruled the mind, they were forced,

while they kept the _name_ of heresy, to give up the _thing_ meant

by it, and the effects springing from that thing: they were forced

to attenuate to the utmost the crime of heresy, and to reduce to the

smallest possible number the articles necessary to be believed by

all; they were forced to extend beyond all measure the Church's

limits, while they contracted beyond all measure the range of

necessary unity.

Besides the theoretical, there was a practical occasion in those

schisms which, not merely in later or in mediaeval times, but in the

first ages also, rent the Christian society. Jurien and Pfaff appeal

to these, pretentiously enumerating those which arose under Popes

Victor, Cornelius, Stephen, Urban VI., and Clement VII., and those

named from Donatus, Meletius, and Acacius. Then they ask if the true

Church of Christ can be thought to consist in one single society

perfectly at union with itself. They allege many conjectures against

this, but dwell on the argument, that _in defect of a visible

external test_, such an assertion could not be maintained without

_imposing upon all a most intolerable burden of searching out where

is the true doctrine and the legitimate ministerial succession_: for

it is not until those are found, that, at length, that one single

society will be recognised, with which, as the only true Church,

unity of Communion is to be kept.

Now, I profess that I do not see how this argument can be met, if

the institution of the Primacy, and its proper function to form and

maintain unity, be rejected. For, without this, by what visible

token among so many Christian societies, divided by intestine

dissension, and condemning each other, can you distinguish the one

which has the character of the true Church, and the right to exact

communion with itself? There is none to be found; and so, either all

hope of finding the true Church must be relinquished, or an enquiry

must be undertaken into purity of doctrine, and legitimate

ministerial succession, on the termination of which the only true

Church will at last be found. But as this latter course is to by far

the greater number of men impossible, dangerous[91] to all without

exception, and most foreign to the Christian temper, the only

conclusion remaining, is, that the selection of a Primacy with the

power of effecting unity impressed upon it, _is most intimately

involved and bound up in the visibility and unity of the true

Church_.

And quite as closely is it bound up with that other test of the

Church, its Catholicism. We are not to believe Voss and King,[92] in

their assertion that this test began to be applied first in the

fourth century, for the purpose of distinguishing the genuine

company of the orthodox, and the true body of Christ, from heretics

and schismatics. For we find the Church distinguished by the epithet

of Catholic, not merely in the records of the fourth[93] and

fifth[94] century, but in those of the third,[95] and the

second,[96] at the beginning of which S. Ignatius wrote, "Follow all

of you the bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father; and the body of

presbyters, as Apostles. But reverence deacons, as the command of

Christ. Without the bishop let nothing of what concerns the Church

be done by any one. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is

under the bishop, or with his sanction. Where the bishop is, there

also let the multitude be; as, where Christ Jesus is, _there is the

Catholic Church_."[97] As, therefore, that cannot be the Church of

Christ, which is not Catholic, we ought to investigate the meaning

which is given to this word by the consent of all orthodox

believers.

Now, two points are signified in it, one of which is its _material_,

the other its _formal_, or _essential_, part. Its _material_ part

is, that the geographical extension of the true Church be such that

its mass be _morally_[98] universal, _absolutely_ great, and

eminently visible, but _comparatively_ with all heretical and

schismatical sects, larger and more numerous. Of this _material_

meaning attached to the epithet, Catholic, we find abundant

witnesses in all[99] the orthodox writers who defended the cause of

the Church against the Donatists, and again, against the

Luciferians,[100] and Novatians; and likewise, in those who have

explained the creeds,[101] and, as occasion offered, have touched on

the force of the term Catholic.[102] But the same first cited

witnesses tell us that universal diffusion is not sufficient, and

that we require another element to infuse a soul into this

universally extended body, and to bring it to unity.

For two properties are continually recurring in Christian records, one

of which may be called _negative_, the other _affirmative_. The force

of the former is to _expel from the circle of the one true Catholic

Church all sects of heretics and Schismatics_: of the latter, that

this Church _consist in one single communion and society, whose

members cohere together by hierarchical subordination_.

But is it true that both these points are so plainly and constantly

inculcated? To remove all doubt we will quote the authors who most

distinctly assert the one and the other. As to the first, there are

[103]Clement of Alexandria, [104]Tertullian, [105]Alexander of

Alexandria, [106]Celestine, [107]Leander, the Emperor Justinian;[108]

then again the Councils of Nice,[109] Sardica,[110] and the

third of [111]Carthage; nay, the heretics[112] themselves; and all

these agree in asserting that _there is one only ancient Catholic

Church_, outside of which the divine patience endures and bears with

heresies, which are as thorns. Thus in language ecclesiastical and

Christian nothing can be considered as more certainly proved than

that the epithet of Catholic is _distinctive_, and shows the

communion which rejects from its bosom all heresies and all schisms.

It was with great reason, therefore, that [113]Pacian wrote what

[114]Cyril of Jerusalem, and [115]Augustine very frequently

repeated, "Our people is divided from the heretical name by this

appellation, that it is called Catholic."

Moreover this unity, which we have said may be called _negative_, is

necessary indeed to the understanding of the Church as Catholic, but

is by no means sufficient to complete the idea of Catholicity. To it

therefore must be added the _affirmative_ unity, by which

Catholicism is not only divided from heretics and schismatics, but

becomes in itself a coherent body with members and articulations. It

is to the assertion and maintenance of this unity, which is the soul

of Catholicity, and without which it cannot even be conceived, that

has reference what we so often read in the monuments of antiquity

about the [116]necessity of communion among the members of the

Church and the [117]tokens and means of that communion. There are

very distinct and innumerable testimonies about it in the ancient

Fathers,[118] declaring its _necessity_, and setting forth its

_mode_ of composition and coherence.

For to set forth the _mode_ of this is the plain drift of what

[119]Irenaeus writes in confutation of heretics by the tradition of

the Apostolical churches: "For since it would be very long in the

compass of our present work to enumerate the successions of all the

Churches, taking that Church which is the greatest, the most

ancient, and well known to all, founded and established at Rome by

the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, by indicating that

tradition which it has from the Apostles, and the faith which it

announces to men, which has reached even to us by the succession of

bishops, we confound all those, who, in whatsoever manner, either

through self-pleasing, or vain glory, or blindness and evil

intention, [120]gather otherwise than they ought. _For_ to this

church on account of its superior chiefship, it is necessary that

every Church should come[121] together, that is, the faithful who

are everywhere; for in this Church the tradition which is from the

Apostles has been ever preserved by those who are everywhere.

...By this ordination and succession, the tradition and preaching of the

truth, which is from the Apostles in the Church, has reached down to

us. And this proof is most complete, that it is one and the same

vivifying faith, which has been preserved, and handed down in truth,

in the Church from the Apostles to the present day."

The churches, therefore, which are everywhere diffused, derive that

strength and harmony of parts, out of which the whole body of the

Catholic Church is made up, from the fact of their agreeing in the

unity of faith and preaching with that Church of Peter, which is the

greatest, the chief, and the more powerful. It follows that the

Primacy of Peter, and the authority inherent in it to effect unity,

is that principle which Christ selected, that the Church which He

had set up might be Catholic, and bear the note of Catholicity on

its brow.

And Cyprian would set forth the same _mode_ of communion, when he

speaks of the _coherence of bishops_, by which both the _Catholic

episcopate_ is made _one, and the Church one and Catholic_. For as

the _several communities draw the unity of the body from the unity

of the prelates_ to whom they are subject; so all prelates, and the

communities subject to them, constitute _one Catholic episcopate and

one Catholic Church_, because they cohere with the _principal_

church, _the root and matrix_, which is the Church of Peter, _upon

whom_ the Lord founded the whole building, and whom He instituted

_to be the fountain and source of Catholic unity_.[122]

These words are a clue to understand [123]Tertullian's meaning, when,

already become a Montanist, he called the Catholic Church, whose

discipline he was attacking, _the Church near to Peter_--"Concerning

your opinion, I now enquire whence you claim this right to the

Church. If because the Lord said to Peter, 'Upon this rock I will

build My Church,' 'to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of

heaven,' or 'whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose on earth, shall be

bound or loosed in heaven,' you, therefore, pretend that the power

of binding and loosing is derived to you, that is, to all the Church

near to Peter; how do you overthrow and change the manifest

intention of the Lord in conferring this on Peter[124] _personally_,

'Upon thee I will build My Church,' and 'I will give to thee the

keys,' not to the Church, and 'whatsoever thou bindest or loosest,'

not what they bind or loose." Now he used this mode of speaking

because it was customary with Catholics, who were wont to exhibit

_nearness with Peter_ as the characteristic of the Church, and the

necessary condition for sharing that power, whose plenitude and

native source Christ had lodged in Peter.

This certain and undoubting judgment of Catholics, Tertullian

himself, before his error, had clearly expressed in his book, De

Scorpiace, c. x., where he says, "For if you yet think the heaven

shut, remember that the Lord here (Matt. xvi. 19) left its keys to

Peter, and _through him to the Church_." Nearness, then, with

Peter, and [125]_consanguinity of doctrine_ thence proceeding, are no

less necessary to the Church, that it may be the Catholic Church

which Christ founded and built upon Peter, than that it be partaker

in those gifts which, again, He Himself granted only to unity, as it

is effected in Peter and by Peter.

Now not only the most ancient Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and

Cyprian, but the whole body of them, assign the origin of this to

Peter. This they make the vivifying principle of agreement, society

and unity, without which the Church can neither be intrinsically

Catholic, nor the mind conceive it as such. It is so stated by

[126]Pacian, [127]Ambrose, the [128]Fathers of Aquileia, [129]

Optatus, [130]Gregory Nazianzen, [131]Jerome, [132]Augustine, [133]

Gelasius, [134]Hormisdas, [135]Agatho, [136]Maximus Martyr, and, to

shorten the list, by Leo[137] the Great. It is in setting forth the

unity of the Catholic episcopate that he writes what ought never to

be forgotten by Christian minds: "For the compactness of our unity

cannot remain firm, unless the bond of charity weld us into an

inseparable whole, because, as we have many members in one body,

and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one

body in Christ, and every one members one of another. For it is the

connection of the whole body which makes one soundness and one

beauty; and this connexion, as it requires unanimity in the whole

body, so especially demands concord among bishops. For though these

have a like dignity, yet have they not an equal jurisdiction; since

even among the most blessed Apostles, as there was a likeness of

honour, so was there a certain distinction of power, and the

election of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to

one, from which mould, or type, the distinction also between bishops

has arisen, and it was provided by a great ordering, that all should

not claim to themselves all things, but that in every province there

should be one whose sentence should be considered the first among

his brethren; and others again, seated in the greater cities, should

undertake a larger care, through whom the direction of the universal

Church should converge to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere

disagree from its head."

And, if I do not deceive myself, the direct drift of all this is to

answer the question, whether the doctrine of Peter's Primacy, and

its virtue, as the constituent of unity and Catholicity, is

contained in the most solemn standard of faith, the creed. For

although there are unimpeachable testimonies to prove that the

creeds were not published and explained to Catechumens, in order to

convey to them a full and complete Christian instruction; and though

it be proved further to have been the purpose of the Church's

ancient teachers to omit many points in the creeds which were to be

set before the initiated at a more suitable season afterwards, it

may nevertheless be said that the most commonly received articles

of the creed may be regarded as so many most fruitful germs, from

which the remaining doctrines would spontaneously spring. And so, to

keep within our present point, what is more plain than that the sum

of doctrine concerning Peter's Primacy, contained in the Bible,

illustrated by the Fathers, and defined by Councils, is involved in

that article of the creed in which we profess that the Church is one

and Catholic? No doubt there nowhere occurs in the creeds,

_expressed in so many words_, mention of Peter, or of the Primacy

bestowed on him, or of hierarchical subordination; yet it is most

distinctly stated that the Church is one and Catholic. What meaning,

then, were the faithful to give to those epithets? What were they to

intend in the words, I believe one Catholic Church? What but the

meaning of the words themselves, which they received from the

Church's teachers together with the creeds? But they could not form

the conception of one Church and that Catholic, without thinking

likewise of one Catholic _principle_ of the Church; nor could they

assign the dignity of that one Catholic principle to any other but

Peter, whom alone they had invariably been taught to have been set

over all. For what S.[138] Bernard wrote in mediaeval times, "For

this purpose the solicitude of all Churches rests on that one

Apostolic See, that all may be united under it and in it, and it may

be careful in behalf of all to preserve the unity of the Spirit in

the bond of peace," must be considered nothing but a repetition of

the faith which resounded through the whole world, from the very

beginning of the Christian religion.

Unless, therefore, any can be found who prefer asserting _either_

that true believers _never_ understood what they believed, in

professing the Church to be one and Catholic, _or_ that they

understood this _otherwise_ than it had been universally and

constantly explained by the Church's teachers; it must be admitted,

that faith in Peter's Primacy, and in the power bestowed upon it for

the purpose of making the visible kingdom of Christ one and

Catholic, is coeval with that profession of the creeds which sets

forth the Church as one and as Catholic.[139]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hegoumenos, Luke xxii. 26, the very term still given in

the East to the head of a religious community; and also, as has been

said, that which marks our Lord in the great prophecy of Micah,

recorded in Matt. ii. 6.

[2] Protos, meizon, hegoumenos. See ch. 2.

[3] 1 Cor. x. 18; Gal. vi. 16.

[4] Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 29.

[5] See Num. ii. 3-9; x. 14; Judges i. 1-3; xx. 18.

[6] Gen. xlix. 10; and see John iv. 22.

[7] 3 Kings, xii.

[8] S. Ambrose, Ep. 11.

[9] Arnobius Junior in Ps. 138.

[10] Eucherius of Lyons, hom. in vig. S. Petri.

[11] Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, on the Transfiguration.

[12] The Archimandrites of Syria to Pope Hormisdas, Mansi 8, 428.

[13] S. Bernard, de Cons. Lib. 2, c. 8.

[14] S. Theodore Studites to Pope Leo III., Lib. 1, Ep. 33.

[15] In 1 Cor. Hom. 1, n. 1.

[16] S. Greg. Naz., Orat. 12, alluding to John xix. 23.

[17] S. Cyprian, Ep. 79.

[18] S. Jerome, Ep. 57.

[19] Matt. xvi. 18.

[20] Luke xxii. 31-2.

[21] John xxi. 15.

[22] Luke xxii. 26.

[23] Unity, John x. 16; xvii. 20-23; 1 Cor. xii. 12-31; Ephes. ii.

14-22; iv. 5; 1 Cor. i. 10.

[24] Catholicity. Luke xxiv. 47; Mark xvi. 20; Acts i. 8; ix. 15;

Rom. x. 18; Colos. i. 8-23.

[25] For all the fathers hold the doctrine thus expressed by St.

Hilary of Poitiers on Ps. 121, n. 5. "The Church is one body, not

mixed up by a confusion of bodies, nor by each of these being united

in an indiscriminate heap and shapeless bundle; but we are all one

by the unity of faith, by the society of charity, by concord of

works and will, by the one gift of the sacrament in all." No notion

of the Church's unity in England, it may be remarked, outside of

Catholicism, goes beyond "the indiscriminate heap and shapeless

bundle."

[26] Tit. ii. 11.

[27] Rom. i. 25.

[28] Tit. ii. 14, with 1 Pet. ii. 25.

[29] John xvii. 17.

[30] Eph. iv. 4.

[31] John xvii. 21.

[32] Gal. v. 20, 19.

[33] 1 Cor. xiv. 33.

[34] Eph. v. 27.

[35] Matt. xvi. 18.

[36] 1 Tim. iii. 15.

[37] Matt. xviii. 17.

[38] Luke xxii. 26.

[39] Luke xxii. 31-2.

[40] John xxi. 15.

[41] Acts i. 4-8.

[42] John xv. 26.

[43] Matt. xxviii. 20.

[44] Matt. xviii. 18.

[45] The first Reformers fell into this grievous error because they

had no other way to defend their schism. They may be passed over at

present, as in most even of the Protestant confessions visibility is

reckoned among the notes of the Church.

[46] 1 Cor. vi. 4; x. 32; xi. 22; xii. 28; Ephes. i. 22; iii. 10-21;

v. 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Colos. i. 18-24; 1 Tim. iii. 15.

[47] Irenaeus, Lib. 1, c. 3, Lib. 3, c. 4.

[48] Tertullian, de Praesc. c. 4.

[49] Clement. Stromat. Lib. 7, 17.

[50] Origen in Cantic, Hom. 3.

[51] Hilary, De Trin. Lib. 7, c. 12.

[52] Jerome, adv. Lucifer.

[53] Concil. Laodic. Can. 9, 10.

[54] Concil. Carthag. 4, Can. 71.

[55] Concil. Constant. 2, act 3.

[56] De Praesc. c. 20.

[57] See in the sixth act of the second Nicene Council the

quotations from the iconoclast synod of Constantinople.

[58] Adv. haereaes, Lib. 1, c. 3.

[59] Even the Puritan Cartwright observed, "if it be necessary to

the unity of the Church that an archbishop should preside over other

bishops, why not on the same principle should one archbishop preside

over the whole Church of God?" Defence of Whitgift.

[60] Sacred observations, Lib. 5, c. 7, on the hypothetical external

communion of Christians.

[61] See also the testimony of Mosheim, quoted above p. 197, note.

[62] Thus the universal belief of the Fathers from the beginning is

charged with _audacity_. It is difficult not to be struck with the

utter antagonism of feeling which separates Protestants from the

whole body of the Fathers. The statements here ascribed, and truly,

by Vitringa to them, would be viewed in modern English society, as

the very insanity of bigotry.

[63] Because to rend Christ's mystical body, and to subvert that

unity for which He had prayed the Father, was regarded by them as a

crime of the deepest dye. In modern England it would be consecrated

by the glorious principle of "civil and religious liberty."

[64] The unrestricted expression, "to preside over the Church," used

by Cyprian of Novatian, who claimed to be Peter's successor,

contains a clear indication that the fold entrusted to Peter was as

wide as the Church itself. It is the same Church in the two clauses,

but in the former it _must_ be understood universally.

[65] Ep. 69.

[66] Ephes. v. 23-25.

[67] Ephes. iv. 15-17.

[68] John xiv. 16-26; xv. 26; xvi. 7.

[69] 2 Cor. iv. 17.

[70] Matt. v. 14.

[71] Compare Luke xii. 8, 9, with Matt. x. 32; Mark viii. 38; Rom.

x. 10; and again, Mark xvi. 15, with Matt. xxviii. 19; Acts ii. 41;

viii. 36; xix. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 13; and Matt. xxvi. 28, with Luke

xxii. 19; 1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 21; and Ephes. iv. 11, with Acts xx. 28;

Tit. i. 5.

[72] Compare Ephes. iv. 11-16, with 1 Cor. xii. 13-31; and Matt.

xviii. 18, with John xx. 21; Acts xv. 41; xvi. 4; 2 Cor. x. 6; 1

Tim. v. 20; Tit. i. 13; ii. 15.

[73] Jude 18; 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3.

[74] Augustin. in Euchirid. c. 63.

[75] Aug. In Tract de Symb. c. 11.

[76] Aug. De Baptismo Cont. Donat. Lib. 3, c. 16.

[77] Aug. Cont. Litt. Petiliani, Lib. 1, c. 21-2, Lib. 2, c. 13-23.

Lib. 3, c. 52.

[78] Optat. Lib. 1.

[79] Ambros. de Obitu Satyri fratris, Lib. 1, n. 47.

[80] Idem. de Poenit. Lib. 2, 4.

[81] Lactant. Div. Institut. Lib. 3, c. 30.

[82] Le vrai Systeme de l'Eglise.

[83] Answer to Cardinal Perron.

[84] Defense de la Reforme, p. 200.

[85] Traite de l'Eglise, p. 286.

[86] Bossuet, writings against Jurien.

[87] The brothers Walemburg, Treatise on Necessary and Fundamental

Articles.

[88] Nicole, de l'Unite de l'Eglise.

[89] See the recognition of this law, Mark xvi. 16; Matt xxviii.

18-20; Luke xii. 8, 9; Rom. x. 10.

[90] Such the Fathers call Faith, terming it, "the beginning and

foundation," "the greatest mother of virtues," "the principle of

salvation," "the prelude of immortality," "the clear eye of Divine

knowledge," "the foundation of all wisdom." See Suicer, art.

pistis.

[91] After having gone through this search for ten long years, it

may be allowed to express how great its danger, and how great too

the blessedness of those who are not exposed to it. It is worth the

experience of half a life to receive the truth, without personal

enquiry, from a competent authority. Protestantism begins its

existence by casting away one of the greatest blessings which man

can have.

[92] De Symbolo, Diss. 1, 39, and Hist. Symb. Apostol. cap. 6. 16.

[93] Pacian, Ep. 1, n. 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 18, n. 23.

Eusebius on Isai. xxxii. 18. Chrysostome on Colos. hom. 1, n. 2, on

1 Cor. hom. 32, n. 1, Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 26.

[94] Augustine on Ps. 41, n. 7; Epist. 49, n. 3-52, n. 1, and

elsewhere.

[95] Council of Antioch, quoted by Euseb. Hist. Lib. 7, c. 30.

Origen on Romans, Lib. 8, n. 1; Cyprian, Epist. 52; Acts of S.

Fructuosus, n. 3, and of S. Pionius. n. 9.

[96] Irenaeus, Lib. 3, c. 17, and Epistle on martyrdom of S.

Polycarp, n. 19.

[97] Epis. to Smyrneans, n. 8.

[98] Augustine, Ep. 52. n. 1, Serm. 238, n. 3.

[99] As Optatus, Lib. 2, Aug. de Unitate Ecc. c. 2. &c.; cont.

Cresconium, L. 2, c. 63, Contr. Petilian. L. 2, c. 12-55-58-73; on

Ps. 21, 47, 147, and on 1 Ep. John, Tract, 1, 2.

[100] Pacian, Ep. 3, Jerome cont. Luciferianos.

[101] Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 18.

[102] Irenaeus, Lib. 1, c. 10; Lib. 4, c. 19, Tertullian adv. Judaeos,

c. 7, Bernard in Cantica, serm. 65.

[103] Clement, Stromat. L. 7, Sec. 15-17.

[104] Tertullian de praesc. c. 30.

[105] Alexander, apud Theodoret. H. E. Lib. 1, c. 4.

[106] Coelestinus, homil. in laud. eccles.

[107] Leander, Cont. Origenistas in Actis Synodi V.

[108] Justinianus, epist. ad Mennam Constantinopolitanum.

[109] Council of Nice, in the Creed, and Canon 8.

[110] Sardica in letter to all bishops, quoted by Athanasius, Apol.

2.

[111] 22nd Canon of Codex Africanus.

[112] The Nestorian profession of faith, in fifth act of Council of

Ephesus.

[113] Pacian, Ep. 1.

[114] Cyril, Catech. 18.

[115] Aug. de vera relig. c .6, de utilit. credendi, c. 7.

[116] Pacian, Ep. 3, "The Church is a full and solid body, diffused

already through the whole world. As a city, I say, whose parts are

in unity. Not as you Novatians, an insolent particle, or a gathered

wen, separated from the rest of the body."

[117] Such as are grammata koinonika, Euseb. H. E. lib. 7, c. 30.

epistolai koinonikai, Basil. Ep. 190, or kanonikai, Ep. 224,

letters of peace commendatory, ecclesiastical, &c.

[118] See especially Chrys. Hom. 30 on 1 Cor.

[119] Irenaeus, Lib. 3, c. 3.

[120] Compare Jerome's often-quoted passage, Ep. 15, to Pope

Damasus, "Whoso gathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, whoso

is not of Christ is of antichrist."

[121] For the meaning of "come together," see farther on, c. 40.

"God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Doctors, and all

the rest of the operation of the Spirit, of which all those are not

partakers who do not _run together to the Church_, but defraud

themselves of life by an evil intention and a very bad conduct. For

where the Church is, there is the Spirit; and where is the Spirit of

God, there is the Church and all grace."

[122] See S. Cyprian's letters, 69, 55, 45, 70, 73. 40. Consider the

force of the words, "Peter, upon whom the Church had been built by

the Lord, speaking one for all, and _answering with the voice of the

Church_, says, Lord, to whom shall we go?" Ep. 55, on which Fenelon

(de sum. Pontif. auct. c. 12) remarks, "What wonder, then, if Pope

Hormisdas and other ancient fathers says, "the Roman, that is, the

Catholic Church," since Peter was wont to answer _with the voice of

the Church_? What wonder if the body of the Church speaks by mouth

of its head?"

[123] De Pudicitia, c. 21.

[124] This Montanist corruption (into which Ambrose on Ps. 38, n.

37, and Pacian in his three letters to Sempronian, state that the

Novatians also fell,) induced some fathers, and especially

Augustine, (Enarrat. on Ps. 108. n. 1, Tract 118 on John, n. 4, and

last Tract n. 7) to teach that the keys were bestowed on Peter so

far forth as he represented the person of the Church in right of his

Primacy. By which mode of speaking they meant this one thing, that

the power of the keys, as being necessary to the Church, and

instituted for her good, began indeed in Peter, and was communicated

to him in a peculiar manner but by no means dropt, or could possibly

drop, with him.

[125] Tertull. De Praesc. c. 32.

[126] Pacian, ad Sempronium, Epis. 3, Sec. 11.

[127] Ambrose, de Poenit. Lib. 1, c. 7, n. 33.

[128] Synodical Epistle, among the letters of Ambrose.

[129] Optatus, de Schism. Donat. Lib. 2, c. 2, and Lib. 7, c. 3.

[130] Gregory, de vita sua, Tom. 2, p. 9.

[131] Jerome, adv. Jovin. Lib. 1, n. 14.

[132] Augustine, in Ps. Cont. partem Donati, cont. Epist. Fundam. c.

4, de utilitate credendi, c. 17, and Epist. 43.

[133] Gelasius, Epis. 14.

[134] Hormisdas, Mansi, Tom. 8, 451, in the conditions on which he

readmitted the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern bishops

to communion.

[135] Agatho, in a letter to the sixth council, read and accepted at

its fourth sitting.

[136] Maximus, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 11, p. 76.

[137] Leo, Epist. 10, c. 1.

[138] Ep. 358, to Pope Celestine.

[139] The above chapter is translated from Passaglia, Pp. 298-336.