THE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER'S
PRIMACY.
[1]As the natural end of all proof is to give assurance, every kind
of it must be considered a mean to persuade and determine the mind.
Not but that there are different kinds, and that in great variety. If
we refer these to their respective topics, some are _internal_ and
_artificial_, others _external_ and _inartificial_; some belong to
the philosopher, others to the theologian, the former having their
source in nature, the latter in revelation; another sort, again, rests
on _witnesses_, and another on _documents_. But if we consider
their persuasive force, they may be conveniently ranged under the
two classes of _probable_, and _certain_ or _demonstrative_.
But if it be asked what sort of proof we have hitherto used, and
drawn out to the best of our ability, we must distinguish between
the _principal_ and prevailing proof, and this in form is
inartificial, theological, and drawn from the inspired documents;
and the proofs _occasionally inserted_ and confirmatory of the
principal: these, it will be evident, are sometimes artificial and
internal, such as those drawn from analogy, and the harmonious
coherence of doctrines, from the unity and Catholicity of the
Church, and the institution of bishops to rule particular flocks;
and sometimes derived from witnesses, for such we may deem the
ancient Fathers, whose importance and force, as testimonies, no
prudent mind will reject. To embrace, then, the full extent of our
proof, it ranges over all forms and modes, is artificial and
inartificial, and rests not only on documents, but on witnesses. Now
two things follow from this mixed and manifold character of our
proof, of too great importance to be passed over in silence.
The first of these is, the standard and criterion of resistance
which our proof presents to opponents. For consisting, as it does,
of so many elements, confirmed, as it is, by the absolute harmony of
so many various parts, that only can be a satisfactory answer, which
meets at once every particular proof, and the whole sum of it. For
it would be to small purpose to give another sense, with some
speciousness, to one or two points, if the great mass of matter and
argument remain untouched. The only valid answer would be _to reject
and deny the Primacy of supreme authority, presenting at the same
time a sufficient cause for all those results of which the proof
consists_. For so long as the institution of the Primacy is
necessary to supply a sufficient cause for these results, so long
the force of our proof remains untouched, and the institution of the
Primacy unquestionable. We can therefore demand of our opponents
this alternative, either to acquiesce in our proof, or, rejecting
the Primacy, to find, and when they have found to establish, an
hypothesis equal to the explanation of all that is contained in our
arguments artificial and inartificial, in our documents and our
witnesses.
The second point is one which all will admit. The proof we have
given is such that _unless_ it be deceptive, the institution of the
Primacy is demonstrated to be not only _true_, but also _revealed_,
not only _tenable_, but matter of _faith_. For although we have
interwoven testimonies and artificial arguments, this was to
confirm what was already demonstrated, and to shed fresh light on
what was already clear; but the _proper_ source from which we have
drawn our proofs, was the documents of the Holy Scriptures
themselves. Now what is thence drawn is [2]revealed, and enters into
the number of things which, being revealed, are matter of _faith_.
These two points are clear, but a third may be somewhat less so.
Many will ask, what _is_ the force of the proof, its power to
persuade, and whether it carry complete certitude, or be defective.
Now to this we shall reply, that the proof which we have presented
is not only probable, but altogether decisive. It wants nothing to
produce the fullest assurance. This is a subject which I have judged
fit for special and separate investigation, as due both to myself,
my readers, and the cause which I am defending. For it is not a
happiness of our nature to catch the whole and the pure truth at a
single glance. This requires repeated acts of the mind; we have to
make the effort again and again, and only terminate our examination
when we have submitted our supposed discovery to reiterated
reflection. Thus it is that truth comes out in full light,
imposition is detected, the line drawn between doubt and certainty,
and every point located in its due place. This enquiry, then, into
the proof itself I consider due not only to myself and my readers,
but to a cause, which requires the utmost attention as being of the
highest importance, and the source of the deepest dissensions; for
it is not too much to say that the origin of all those divisions
which we see and lament in the Christian name, may be referred to
the reception or the denial of this doctrine concerning the Primacy.
Now we shall best reach the subject by first considering the
inherent force of the proof _in itself_, and _absolutely_, and then
_comparatively_ with those arguments to which the most distinguished
Protestant sects ascribe a full and complete demonstrative power.
I. First, then, as to the force of proof _absolutely_. We must
reflect that two conditions complete a proof derived from documents;
_first_, the authenticity of the document; _secondly_, either the
immediate and unquestionable evidence of the testimonies quoted from
it, or their meaning being rendered certain by argument. If these
two conspire, nothing is wanting to produce assurance. Now, as to
the documents, whence our proof is derived, no Christian doubts
their authenticity; and as to the testimonies drawn from them,
part[3] belong to a class of such evidence as to admit of no doubt;
and part,[4] being equally clear, and marked in themselves, have had
to be defended from false interpretations. Accordingly, our proof is
peremptory in both particulars.
Moreover, our proof was not restricted to one or two passages of
holy Scripture, but extended over a great series, all tending to
support and consolidate the argument. We have set forth, not a naked
institution of the Primacy, but multifold foreshadowings and
promises of it, its daily operation and notoriety. From its first
anticipation we went on to its progressively clearer expression, its
promise, its institution, its exercise, and the everywhere diffused
knowledge of it in the primitive Church. So far, then, as I see,
nothing more can, with reason, be asked, to remove all doubt as to
Peter's prerogative of Primacy; for, when the bestowal of certain
privileges can be proved by documents, all question as to their
existence is terminated. But here we find in documents, not their
bestowal merely, but antecedents and consequences, a beginning, a
progress, and a manifold explanation, which stand to the Primacy as
signs to the thing signified.
Accordingly, the demonstration which we have given of the Primacy,
considered _in itself_, and _absolutely_, needs nothing to challenge
assent.
For, suppose it disputed whether Caesar surpassed the other Roman
Senators in honour and power. Could it be proved by undoubted
records, that he so conducted himself as gradually to smooth his
path to the supreme power; that he next gained from the senate and
Roman people, the title of Emperor and Prince; that he exercised
these powers at home and abroad, and received universal testimony to
the dignity he had acquired; in such case the judgment would be
unanimous that he was emperor, and head of the Roman Senators. Now,
substitute Peter for Caesar, the Apostles for the Senators; Christ,
the Evangelists, Luke and Paul, for the senate and people; and you
will see all the proofs enumerated for Caesar, to square exactly with
Peter. For we learn from Scripture _the steps_ by which he rose to
the Primacy, _the time_ when he received it, _how_ he exercised it,
and the lucid testimonies to it which he received from Christ, the
Evangelists, the Apostolic Church, and Paul. Accordingly, his
Primacy and supreme authority among the Apostles rests on a proof
which gives complete assurance, and challenges assent. It is a
consequence deduced, not from a single, but from manifold
inference; not merely drawn from results, but foreseen in its
causes; declared not merely in the words of institution, but in the
very acts of its exercise; supported not only by sundry texts, but
by a cloud of conspiring witnesses; proved by an interpretation, not
obscure, and far-fetched, but clear and obvious. A thing of such a
nature it is folly to deny and temerity to doubt.
But, further, reflect on the other arguments which come in
collaterally to support that from the Holy Scriptures. Then it will
be found that our proof consists in the harmonious concurrence of
these four sources, 1. _the authentic scriptural documents_
distinctly setting forth the promises, the bestowal, the exercise,
and the everywhere diffused knowledge of the Primacy: 2. _witnesses_
the most ancient, well nigh coeval with the Apostles, of great
number, renowned for their holiness, or their martyrdom, excellent
in learning, far removed from each other in situation, faithful
maintainers of the Apostolic teaching, who, with one mouth,
acknowledge the Primacy: 3. _the analogy of doctrines_, for the
Church, which we profess to be one, and Catholic, can neither exist,
nor even be conceived as such, without the Primacy: 4. _the facts of
Christian history_, which are so entwined with the institution of
the Primacy, that they cannot be even contemplated without it. For
there are no less than fourteen distinct classes of facts in
Christian history, all of which bear witness to the Primacy, and
which cannot be studied without coming across that power. Such are,
1. _the history of heresies_, where, in ancient times alone,
consider the acts and statutes of Pope Dionysius, in the causes of
Paul of Samosata, and Dionysius of Alexandria; of Popes Sylvester
and Julius, in the cause of Arius; of Pope Damasus in that of
Apollinarius; of Popes Innocent and Zosimus in that of Pelagius; of
Pope Celestine in that of Nestorius; and of Pope Leo in that of
Eutyches; so that Ferrandus[5] of Carthage wrote in the sixth
century, "If you desire to hear aught of truth, ask in the first
place the prelate of the Apostolic See, whose sound doctrine is
known by the judgment of truth, and grounded on the weight of
authority." 2. _The history of schisms_, which have arisen in the
Church, when we consider the unquestionable facts about Novatian,
Fortunatus and Felicissimus, the Donatists, and Acacius of
Constantinople, so that Bede, in our own country, wrote in the
seventh century, commenting on Matt. xvi. 10, "All believers in the
world understand, that whosoever, in any way separate themselves
from the unity of the faith, or from the society of Peter, such can
neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins, nor enter the
threshold of the heavenly kingdom." 3. _The history of the liturgy_,
as the contests about the paschal time, and what Eusebius, in the
fifth book of his history, c. 22-5, says about Pope Victor. 4. _The
history_ of the _summoning_, the _holding_, and the _confirming
general councils_, wherein the Acts of Synods, the letters of the
supreme Pontiffs, and the writings of the Fathers, show the entire
truth of what is stated by the ancient Greek historians, Socrates
and Sozomen,[6] that an ecclesiastical Canon had always been in
force, "that the Churches should not pass Canons contrary to the
decision of the bishop of Rome," which Pope Pelagius,[7] in the
sixth century thus expressed, "the right of calling councils is
entrusted by a special power to the Apostolic See, nor do we read
that a general council has been valid, which was not assembled or
supported by its authority. This is attested by the authority of
canons, corroborated by ecclesiastical history, and confirmed by the
holy Fathers." And Ferrandus says, "Universal councils, more
especially those to which the authority of the Roman Church has been
given, hold the place of second authority after the canonical
books."[8] 5. _The history of ecclesiastical laws_, for the
regulation of discipline, a summary of which, enacted by the
successors of Peter from Victor I. to Gregory II., may be found in
Zaccaria's Antifebronius, Tom. ii., p. 425, and his Antifebronius
Vindicatus, Diss. vi., c. 1. 6. _The history of judgments_,
specially the most remarkable in the Church, of which, if we are to
believe history, we can only repeat what Pope Gelasius wrote at the
end of the fifth century, to the Bishops of Dardania, "We must not
omit that the Apostolic See has frequently, to use our Roman phrase,
more majorum, even without any council preceding, had the power to
absolve those whom a council had unjustly condemned, or to condemn,
without any council, those who required condemnation:" and as he
wrote to the Greek emperor, Anastasius, "that the authority of the
Apostolic See has in all Christian ages been set over the Church
universal, is established by the series of the canons of the
Fathers, and by manifold tradition."[9] 7. _The history of
references_, which were wont to be made to the chair of Peter, in
the greater causes of faith, and in those respecting Catholic unity.
Thus, Avitus, bishop of Vienne, A.D. 500, said, "It is a rule of
synodical laws, that, in matters relating to the state of the
Church, if any doubt arises, we, as obedient members, recur to the
priest of the Roman Church, who is the greatest, as to our
head."[10] To the same effect is the letter of Pope Innocent I., to
S. Victrice, of Rouen, at the beginning of the fifth century, and
again, the African Fathers to Pope Theodore; or again, S. Bernard,
writing to Pope Innocent II., against the errors of Abelard, "All
dangers and scandals emerging in the kingdom of God, specially those
which concern faith, must be referred to your Apostolate: for I
esteem it fitting that the injuries done to faith should be repaired
there in particular, where faith cannot fail. That is the
prerogative of this See." 8. _The history of appeals_, of which a
vast number of remarkable instances exist. Take, as the key, the
words of Pope Gelasius once more: "It is the canons themselves which
have ordered the appeals of the whole Church to be carried to the
examination of this See. But from it they have allowed of no appeal
in any case; and, therefore, they enjoin that it should judge of the
whole Church, but go itself before the judgment of none: nor do they
allow of appeal from its sentence, but rather require obedience to
its decrees."[11] And Pope Agatho, in the Roman Council, pronouncing
on the appeal of our own S. Wilfrid, of York, the contemporary of
Bede, A.D. 688, declares that "Wilfrid the bishop, beloved of God,
knowing himself unjustly deposed from his bishopric, did not
_contumaciously resist by means of the secular power_, but with
humility of mind sought the canonical aid of our founder, blessed
Peter, prince of the Apostles, and declared in his supplication that
he would accept what by our mouth, blessed Peter, our founder, whose
office we discharge, should determine."[12] 9. _The history of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy_,[13] and of the _rights possessed by
certain episcopal Sees over others_, of which we may take an
instance in the grants of Pope Gregory the Great, and his
successors, to the See of Canterbury, which alone made it a Primacy.
For the bishops of Canterbury had no power whatever over the other
bishops of this country, save what they derived from S. Peter's See.
And the documents, and original letters conferring these powers
still exist, giving the fullest proof that Pope Pius only did in
1850, what Pope Gregory did in 596. 10. _The history of the
universal propagation of the Christian religion._[14] 11. _The
history of those tokens and pledges_,[15] such as letters of
communion, whereby Catholic unity was exhibited and maintained. 12.
_The history of Christian archaeology_,[16] inscriptions, paintings,
and other monuments of this kind. 13. _The history of the emperors_,
as, for instance, what Ammianus Marcellinus[17] says of Constantius;
the letter of the Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo, entreating him to
confirm the council of Chalcedon; that of Galla Placidia, the 130th
novel of Justinian, and the remarkable constitution of Valentinian
III., A.D. 445. "Since the merit of S. Peter, who is the chief of
the episcopal coronet, and the dignity of the Roman city, moreover,
the authority of a sacred synod" (that of Sardica, A.D. 347) "have
confirmed the Primacy of the Apostolic See, let presumption not
endeavour to attempt anything unlawful, contrary to the authority of
that See: for, then, at length, the peace of the Church will
everywhere be preserved, if the whole (universitas) acknowledge its
ruler." And, 14. lastly, _the history of codes_, in which is
contained the legislation of Christian kingdoms, wherein we may
refer to the capitulars of the Franks, and the laws of the Lombards.
Now from these concordant proofs thus slightly sketched, it follows
that the institution of the Primacy belongs to that class of facts
which is most certain, and which is absolutely demonstrated. For
would it be possible to find a concurrence of proofs so various in
case it had never been instituted? Is it possible to imagine so many
various results of a cause which never existed? So many various
tokens of reality in a fiction? What are the chances for letters
thrown at random forming themselves into an eloquent speech? Or a
beautiful portrait coming out from a mere assemblage of colours? Or
a whole discourse in an unknown tongue being elegantly rendered by a
guess? If these be sheer absurdities, although a few letters have
sometimes tumbled at random into a word, or a single clause been
decyphered, though in ignorance of the alphabet, then we may be sure
that the Primacy, attested by so vast a variety of convergent
results, can no more be untrue, than effects can exist without a
cause, splendour without light, or vocal harmony without sound.
Accordingly an institution established by such a union of proof,
carries prisoner the assent. It may indeed be disregarded by a
resolution of the _will_, but can neither be passed by, nor refuted,
by a judgment of the _reason_.
And[18] having on the one hand this vast amount of _positive_
proof, from sources so various, in its behalf, so that without it
the whole Christian history of eighteen centuries, in all its
manifold blendings with secular history, becomes unintelligible, a
snarl which it is impossible to arrange, when we come on the other
hand to consider what its opponents allege of _positive_ on their
own side, we find nothing. They content themselves with objections
to this or that detached point, with historical difficulties, and
obscurations of the full proof, such, for instance, as the conduct
of S. Cyprian in one controversy, the occasional resistance of a
metropolitan, the secular instinct of an imperial government
stirring up eastern bishops to revolt, and fostering an Erastian
spirit in the Church, the ambition of thoroughly bad men, such as
Acacius or Photius, and the like. But what we may fairly ask of
opponents, and what we never find the most distant approach to in
them is, if, as they say, S. Peter's Primacy be not legitimate, and
instituted by Christ for the government of the Church, what _counter
system_ have they, which they can prove by ancient documents, and
whereby they can solve the manifold facts of history? In all their
arguments against the Primacy they are so absolutely _negative_,
that the grand result, if they were successful, would be to reduce
the Church to a heap of ruins, to show that she, who is entrusted
with the authoritative teaching of the world, has no internal
coherence either of government or doctrine, in fact, no message from
God to deliver, and no power to enforce it when delivered. In the
arguments of Greeks and Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists, and all
the Protestant sects, the gates of hell have long ago prevailed
against the Church, and the devil has built up at his ease a city of
confusion on the rock which Christ chose for her foundation. If we
listen to them, never has victory been more complete than that of
the evil one over the Son of God: the promised unity he has
scattered to the winds: the doctrine of truth he has utterly
corrupted: the charity wherewith Christians loved one another he has
turned into gall and wormwood. That is, the opponents of S. Peter's
Primacy are one and all simply _destructives_; they inspire despair,
and are the pioneers of infidelity, but are utterly powerless to
build up. Ask the Anglican what is the source of spiritual
jurisdiction, and the bond of the episcopate which he affects to
defend? _He makes no reply._ All he can say is, it is _not_ S.
Peter. Ask the Greek, if bishops and patriarch disagree, and come to
opposite judgments on the faith, or to schisms in communion, which
party make the Church? _He has no solution to offer_, save that it
is _not_ the party which sides with S. Peter's successor. Ask the
pure Protestant, who maintains the sole authority of the written
word, if you disagree about the meaning of Scripture in points which
you admit to touch salvation, who is to determine what is the true
meaning of the word of God? _He has nothing to reply_, save that he
is sure it is _not_ the Pope. Contrast, then, on the one side, a
complete coherent system, fully delineated and set forth in the
Bible, attested by the Fathers, corroborated by analogy, and
harmonising the history of eighteen hundred years in its infinitely
numerous relations, with, on the other side, a mere heap of
objections and denials, with shreds of truths held without cohesion,
with analogy violated, history thrown into hopeless confusion, and
to crown the whole, Holy Scripture incessantly appealed to, yet its
plainest declarations recklessly disregarded, and its most
consoling promises utterly evacuated. Choose, upon this, between
_within_ and _without_.
II. But such being the argument for the Primacy _of itself_ and
_absolutely_, look at it now in a _comparative_ point of view with
other doctrines. Let us ask Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists,
respectively, to compare it in order with the proofs with which
they, each in behalf of his own sect, defend either the authority of
bishops, and their distinction from presbyters, as instituted by
Christ, or the real presence of the Lord's body in the Eucharist, or
the divine nature of Christ, and His consubstantiality with the
Father. Can they state, upon a comparison of these, that there are
_more_ testimonies of Holy Scripture in behalf of these latter
doctrines than for the Primacy of Peter? As for the articles of the
real presence, and the superiority of bishops, this cannot be
asserted with any show of truth, since in behalf of both there are
undoubtedly fewer. Certainly there are a great number for the
divinity of Christ, yet not much less are those which the same
Scriptures contain in support of Peter's Primacy. So that if the
force of proof is to be judged of by the _number of texts_, that in
behalf of the Primacy will either be preferred to the rest, or at
least yield to none.
But I anticipate the answer that it is not the number of texts which
will decide the question, but their perspicuity and evidence, which
constitute their force. To meet which objection I shall merely set
these several parties against each other. What, then, do Lutherans
think of the perspicuity of those texts by which Anglicans maintain
the superiority of bishops over presbyters? They are unanimous in
thinking them not merely most obscure, but absolutely foreign to the
purpose for which they are cited. Just the same is the Calvinist
opinion of the Lutheran proofs for the real presence, and the
Socinian view of the texts alleged by Calvinists in behalf of
Christ's divinity. Both obstinately refuse to admit that their
opponents urge anything decisive. It would be easy to quote
instances of this, if it was not notorious. It is, then, no unfair
inference that Protestants have no particular reason to boast
triumphantly of the perspicuity and evidence of the texts on which
they severally rely.
But who, they retort, cannot see that the cause of the Primacy,
which we defend, is far inferior? For our exposition is opposed not
by one or two parties, but by them all in a mass, Anglicans,
Lutherans, Calvinists, and _all who are not Catholics_. The addition
is significant, _all who are not Catholics_, for indeed all these,
and these alone, are our opponents. Yet their very name creates the
gravest prejudice against them, and shows them to be unworthy of
attention. As S. Augustine said, "The Catholic Church is one, to
which different heresies give various names, they themselves each
possessing their own name, which they dare not refuse. Whence judges
unaffected by partiality can form an opinion to whom the name of
Catholic, which all aim at, ought to be given."[19] If, then, the
name of Catholic is a note of truth, the negation of that name is a
test of error and heresy. But no one will imagine that heretics,
that is, the enemies of Christ and the Apostles, have a right to be
followed in what concerns the doctrine of Christ, and the Apostolic
institutions. Thus what Tertullian said is to the point, "Though we
had to search still and for ever, yet _where_ are we to search? Is
it among heretics, where all is foreign and opposed to our own
truth, whom we are not allowed to approach?[20] What servant expects
food from a stranger, not to say an enemy of his lord? What soldier
takes donative or pay from confederate, not to say from hostile
kings, except he be an open deserter and rebel? Even the woman in
the Gospel searched for her piece of silver within her own house.
Even he who knocked, struck the door of a friend.[21] Even the widow
solicited a judge, who was hard indeed, but not her enemy. No one
can be built up by the person who destroys him. No one be
enlightened by one who shuts him up in darkness. Let us search then
in our own, and from our own, and about our own, and only that which
can be questioned without harm to the rule of faith."[22]
But if we look closer into the matter, we shall find that even in
the interpretation of our texts Protestants are not so agreed with
each other as uniformly to oppose us. Some of the greatest names
amongst them, such as Camero, Grotius, Hammond, Leclerc, Dodwell,
Michaelis, Rosenmueller, and Kuinoel, differ from the rest and agree
with us in interpreting, "upon this rock I will build My Church,"
words of great importance in the controversy about the Primacy. So
that we were not wrong in stating that Protestants do not entirely
agree among each other in their interpretation, nor disagree with
ours.
But grant that they were one and all opposed to it, it would not
prove much. For, _first_, it could hardly happen otherwise, since
the whole Protestant cause is so contained in this matter of the
Primacy, that, were they to confess themselves wrong in it, they
would pronounce themselves guilty of the most groundless schism.
Therefore it is a matter of life and death with them to resist us.
_Secondly_, as they dissent from us, so do they desert that doctrine
which the whole Christian body solemnly professed and defined before
the sixteenth century in ecumenical councils, that of Florence held
in 1439, the second of Lyons in 1274, and the fourth Lateran in
1215. We, then, follow antiquity, and they take up novelty. And so
it follows that while we have Protestants against us, we have the
earlier Christians for us, whilst Protestants are opposed not only
to the present race of Catholics, but to those whose children these
are, and whose doctrines they have preserved. For as to the ancient
interpretation of these texts take the following proof, contained in
a letter of Pope Agatho to the Greek emperor Heraclius, read and
approved in the sixth general council, A.D. 680. "The true
confession of Peter was revealed by the Father from heaven, for
which Peter was pronounced to be blessed by the Lord of all, who
likewise by a triple commendation was entrusted with the feeding of
the spiritual sheep of the Church by the Redeemer of all Himself; in
virtue of whose assistance this his apostolical church hath never
turned aside from the path of truth to any error whatsoever; whose
authority, as of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic
Church at all times and the universal councils faithfully embracing,
have in all respects followed, and all the venerable Fathers have
entertained its apostolic doctrine; through which there have shone
the most approved lights of the Church; which while the holy
orthodox Fathers have venerated and followed, _heretics have pursued
with false accusations, and calumnies inspired by hatred. This is
the living tradition of Christ's Apostles, which His Church
everywhere holds._"[23] We might imagine that Sir Thomas More had
these words before his eyes when he answered Luther, "not only all
that learned and holy men have collected to the point moves me to
give willing obedience to that See, but especially what we have so
often witnessed, that not only there never was an enemy to the
Christian faith who did not at the same time declare war against
that See, but also that there never has been one who professed
himself an enemy of that See without shortly after declaring himself
signally a capital foe and traitor of Christ and our religion.
Another thing, too, has great weight with me, that if, in this
manner, the faults of individuals are laid to the charge of their
office, all authority will collapse, and the people will be without
ruler, law, or order. And if this ever happens, as it seems likely
to happen in parts of Germany, at length they will learn to their
cost how much more it is to the interest of society to have even bad
rulers rather than none."[24]
Protestants, then, have many more opponents than we; to which we may
add, _thirdly_, that we assert and maintain a doctrine which for
several ages had no opponents worth mentioning, and which received a
general belief and assent. Protestants, on the contrary, no sooner
brought their doctrine to light than they roused the whole Catholic
Church against them; that very Church, _fourthly_, from which they
had rebelled, in which they had been washed in the laver of
regeneration, whose motherly care had enrolled them as Christians,
from which they had received the Bible and all other Christian
blessings, which, before that fatal schism, alone presented the
appearance of the true Church, and was invested with attributes
which inspired belief and fostered obedience. For such were
antiquity, the hierarchy, unity, the agreement of its members,
universality; such, again, the splendour of sanctity and learning;
zeal in the guardianship of primeval tradition, hatred of profane
novelties; and, lastly, the renown of those heavenly gifts, which
cannot fail the true Church of Christ, and were ascribed to no other
body.
But _fifthly_, it would be very apposite to compare the Catholic
Church with herself, and contrast her state and condition in the
nineteenth century with that same state and condition in the fourth,
the fifth, and the sixth. Now who, in the fourth century, professed
the consubstantiality of the Trinity? Well nigh Catholics alone,
while innumerable sects of heretics opposed this doctrine. War to
the knife was waged against it by Praxeans, Noetians, Sabellians,
Paulianists, Arians, and their worst portion, the Anomaeans,
Macedonians, and those who then made their appearance, Tritheists.
Again, in the fifth and the sixth centuries, who were they who
retained the true faith in Christ the God-Man, and His dispensation
in taking flesh? Once more the true faith was hardly found outside
the Catholics, while the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
Diodorus of Tarsus, Nestorius and the Nestorians, Eutyches, and the
Eutychean sects at daggers drawn with each other, and in fine, the
Monothelites and their sects, who hated one another and the
Catholics with equal bitterness, clubbed all their forces together
to oppose it. Now do any Protestants venture to infer that in the
fourth and following centuries the cause of the Catholic Church was
less certain, on account of this mob of hostile sects? I should
consider such an insinuation an insult to them. They must
accordingly allow my parallel inference, that it is fair to pass the
same judgment on the cause of the Primacy now for some centuries
defended by the Catholics against the Protestants.
_Lastly_, to address specially Lutherans and Anglicans. They are
well aware that almost all sects are not more opposed to the
supremacy of Peter than to the superiority of bishops, and the
verity of the Lord's body in the Eucharist. But are they therefore
deterred by the number of their enemies, or do they distrust the
goodness of their cause, or doubt the perspicuity of those documents
on which they rely for the victory? They can afford to disdain the
tricks of their opponents, as well as repulse their attacks. They
must, accordingly, agree with us that the assertions or denials of
contesting parties ought not to be, and cannot be, the test of a
cause's goodness, and of documentary evidence.
But, then, by what standard are we to go? I reply, by those criteria
which are not subject to just exception, and which must be approved
by all who seek the truth, and obey the dictate of reason. Now four
such criteria in chief I think may be assigned, the two former of
which are _immediate_ and _internal_, the third _internal_, but
somewhat more remote; the fourth, _external_, but of great weight,
and not to be overlooked. To speak of the former first; one of these
is _verbal_, and belongs to the words and phrases of which the text
consists; the other _real_, and regards the meaning of the sentence.
Indeed, no other sources of obscurity or of clearness can be
imagined than either the _words_ which express the _matter_, or the
_matter_ intended by the _words_. If both words and matter are
plain, and perspicuous, the discourse will be clear, and the
language distinct; but if either the matter exceed the power of
reason, or the words do not run clear, or both these conspire, the
evidence of the meaning will be more or less impaired.
I. Now, to begin with _words_, I shall not be severe, but allow to
Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that the texts alleged by each
of them in behalf of his own cause consist of words which are either
immediately perspicuous, or become mediately clear upon definite
principles. But in turn I should ask them repeatedly to consider
whether such a perspicuity can be denied to the words of which the
texts cited for the Primacy of Peter consist. These words are in
general and vulgar use, continually repeated in the Bible, but so
connected together that their certain meaning is either immediately
evident, or fixed with very little trouble. But are not most of them
metaphorical, such as _rock_, _building_, _keys_, _binding_,
_loosing_, _lambs_, _sheep_, _feeding_? Undoubtedly some are such,
yet not that words used in their _proper_ sense are wanting, as when
Peter is called _the first_, _the greater_, the _superior_; also
when he is charged _to confirm his brethren_; and what we collect
from the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, and the
evangelists' mode of writing. Not, _secondly_, that it is not
evident, from the connection of the discourse, what fixed and
established meaning must be given to those metaphorical expressions.
Not, thirdly, that the meaning of those formulas is not shown by the
exercise of the powers conferred in them. Not, fourthly, that there
is any inability, if you remove the metaphor, to express in _proper_
words what the metaphor shadows out. Not, fifthly, as if the literal
and immediate sense were therefore wanting; for it is very plain
that the metaphorical[25] sense likewise is literal and immediate.
And sixthly, not that _metaphorical_ can be considered equivalent to
_obscure_, for obscurity is most opposed to the very genius of
metaphor, and such a canon would destroy the perspicuity of human
language. For there is no language, ancient or modern, rude or
polished, semitic, chamitic, or japhetic, whose _metaphorical_ is
not much more copious than its _proper_ vocabulary.
Metaphor, then, and obscurity are very far removed from each other,
and there is nothing to prevent a metaphorical expression bearing
the plainest sense. For such the sense will be, whenever what is
called the _foundation_ of the metaphor is clear, and the series of
the discourse indicates _the point of likeness_, and usage of speech
unfolds _the force_ of the metaphor. Now all these conditions, which
ensure perspicuity in the metaphor, are found in interpreting the
metaphors which contain the singular prerogatives of Peter. For as
it is perfectly plain whence the metaphors of _foundation_,
_building_, _keys_, _binding_, _loosing_, _sheep_, _lambs_,
_shepherd_, are drawn, so the context defines the point of
similitude, and usage of speech does not allow ignorance of the
force of such metaphors. And thus the texts on Peter's Primacy have
a verbal perspicuity which will bear a favourable comparison with
those texts, on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists rely. For
indeed all the difficulties, in the invention of which Protestants
have shown their ingenuity, are introduced, put upon the words, not
drawn from them. So on the contrary, the haters of the Primacy
evidently wince at their clearness.
2. _Verbal_ perspicuity is followed by _real_, or that which concerns
the _subject matter_. And this, I assert, is far inferior, far more
slender, in the above named Protestant controversies, than in this
of the Catholics. Indeed, both the controversies, on the real
presence and on the divinity of Christ, have a super-intelligible
object, so far exceeding the natural power of reason, as to admit
of the mind's conceiving it by analogy, but not by a _distinct_ and
_proper_ knowledge. For this is the nature of mysteries, whence it
follows in them that neither single words have distinct notions,
nor a whole proposition distinct sense. Whereas in the controversy
about the Primacy, there is nothing which is not commensurate with
reason, and which has not the advantage of proper and distinct
notions. For, of revealed truths, some being _rational_, some
_beyond_ reason, and some _above_ reason, the proper character of
those which are called _beyond_ reason is, that, _if_ revealed, they
are cognizable by reason. Now to such an order of truths the
institution of the Primacy belongs. Thus its _real_ evidence, that
namely which concerns its _subject matter_, is much superior to that
which the others admit of. But should we grant as much to the
controversy in which Anglicans defend the superiority of bishops
over presbyters? Grant this, yet still it remains that in this
species of _real_ evidence the cause of the Primacy is far superior
to that of the real presence, or that of the divinity of Christ.
But, in truth, the Anglican doctrine on bishops may be considered
from two points of view, either as severed from the Catholic dogma
on Peter's Primacy, or as in connexion and coherence with it. From
the latter point of view I should admit it to be so agreeable to
reason, that this power calls for it, and rests in it, when once
illuminated by faith, so as to know, that is, the purpose of Christ
that each particular Church should present the aspect of an united
family. But sever this superiority of bishops over presbyters from
the dogma of the Primacy, and inveigh as keenly against Peter's
supremacy as you defend their presidency, which is what Anglicans
do, and then I could only conclude that this doctrine is plainly
contrary to reason instead of agreeing with it.
For whence do Anglicans deduce its agreement with reason? Hammond,
Pearson, Beveridge, Bingham, and their other greater theologians,
tell us that it follows very plainly, because we know that Christ
carefully provided for the unity of particular Churches, which, they
say, it seems impossible to obtain without the superior power of
bishops. It is a good inference; but did Christ show less care for
the unity of the whole Church than for that of particular Churches?
Who can seriously maintain this? For what is the unity recommended
by Christ and so earnestly urged by the Apostles, save that of the
whole Church? And when we acknowledge in the creed _one_ Church, do
we mean a particular or the universal Church? We mean that which we
also acknowledge to be Catholic, and therefore the unity is that of
the Catholic Church. And therefore it was Christ's intention, and
His certain will, that not only particular Churches, but the
universal body of the Church, should possess the test and the dower
of unity. And this Anglican notion, which denies of the universal
Church, what it affirms of particular Churches, may suit very well
an island, holding itself aloof from the rest of the world, but it
is quite incompatible with the radical idea of the kingdom of
Christ.
Moreover, if it was necessary for the production and maintenance of
unity in particular Churches to set bishops over them, with
authority superior to that of presbyters; if reason demands that it
being Christ's will for particular Churches to live in unity, He
should likewise have instituted the power which distinguishes
bishops from presbyters; can we suppose either that it was not
necessary for the production and maintenance of unity in the
Catholic Church, to commit its government to an universal superior,
or that reason does not _equally_ require, that Christ, who enjoined
the Catholic Church to maintain unity, should have instituted the
universal Pastor? Nay, as the necessity is not equal on the two
sides, but so much stronger on the side of unity in the _Catholic_
Church, as it is more difficult to hold together in one an
innumerable than a limited number, men scattered over the globe than
men within a narrow region, nations differing in genius, habits, and
laws, than those who resemble each other in these; so reason, which
for particular Churches requires their respective bishops, _much
more_ requires the institution of a _universal_ superior, lest the
end should appear to have been devised without the means, and the
divine work of Christ be deficient in wisdom. What, then, are
Anglicans about in dividing these two doctrines, and contending for
the institution of bishops, while they obstinately deny the
institution of the Primacy? They strip of its authority the very
truth which they defend, and by severing doctrines which derive
their consistency from their cohesion, put weapons in the hands of
presbyterians to assault and even overthrow the very dogma from
which they take their name of episcopalians. Accordingly the
evidence derived from the _subject matter_ is much clearer in those
texts which are alleged for Peter's Primacy, than in those by which
the superiority of bishops over presbyters, the real presence, and
the divine person of Christ, are proved.
Now the force of demonstration derived from documents corresponds to
the sum of _verbal_ and _real_ evidence in the texts, being greater
or less as this is stronger or weaker. In other words, the force of
demonstration belongs to that class of evidence which mathematicians
call _direct_. But both these sorts of evidence exist in the same,
or even in a fuller degree, in those texts which concern the
Primacy, and set forth its divine institution. Accordingly the force
of demonstration for the Primacy is equal or superior to that
belonging to the arguments which prove the superiority of bishops,
the real presence, and Christ's divine person. Yet these arguments
have such force, that the articles which they prove cannot, in the
opinion of Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, be questioned
without incurring the deepest guilt of heresy. We have, then, the
same or even a stronger reason to affirm that the Primacy of Peter,
resting on the same, or even a stronger, evidence, as _revealed_,
cannot be denied without heresy.
And this is a corollary which I would entreat Anglicans, Lutherans,
and Calvinists, carefully to consider, and then say whether they are
consistent; for then I feel assured they would become discontented
with themselves, by reflecting that, in the choice of the articles
which they hold, they are not following the clearness of revelation,
but party spirit and factious prejudices. What satisfactory answer
can they ever return to the Catholic who asks why they, who on equal
or less evidence defend the superiority of bishops, deny the Primacy
which rests on similar or greater proof? Or why they attack the
Primacy, while they defend the real presence, or the divinity of
Christ, which are supported by no more evident arguments? And how
will they satisfy their own conscience, should this thought ever
cross them, "Why do I at one time obey, at another time resist, the
same evidence of revelation?" That same faith with which they
severally believe the divine appointment of bishops, the real
presence, and the consubstantiality of Christ, compels them, if
they would maintain consistency, and not repel conviction, to
confess the Primacy of Peter.
And this argument might be carried much further, if they would
reflect how great is the brilliancy of evidence in behalf of the
Primacy, compared with sundry other capital Christian doctrines,
some or all of which they hold without question: such are the
consubstantiality of the Trinity, the unity of Christ's Person, the
propagation of original sin, the eternity of punishment,
regeneration in baptism, and gratuitous justification. They will
find, on reflection, that they hold these doctrines not because they
are proved by stronger scriptural evidence than the Primacy, for
quite the reverse is the truth, nor because they are encompassed
with less obscurity in their own character, for the subject matter
of the Primacy is clear and distinct in comparison with them all,
but because the doctrines do not oppose the particular tradition
which they have received, and so their minds are not set against
them. Let them once come to compare the whole evidence for the
Primacy, scriptural, traditional, analogical, and historical, which
last alone comprehends the fourteen heads above enumerated, with the
same evidence in behalf of any or all of those, and they cannot but
admit its great superiority.
3. But we must proceed to the _third_ criterion, which increases not
a little the evidence from revelation for the Primacy. For Catholics
and Protestants are agreed in considering _analogy_ as one of the
best helps in interpretation, and in assigning to it the force of a
real parallelism, a proceeding which rests on the necessity of the
Scripture presenting one whole and harmonious body of doctrine in
its several parts. And in order not to deprive this help of its
efficacy, both parties give two conditions for its exercise, the
first, _that no sense be put upon passages of Scripture contrary to
analogy_; the second, _that no violence be used to the language of
Scripture to conform it with analogy, which would be imposing on
holy writ the sense wanted from it_. These two faults carefully
avoided, analogy is of great service, and throws much light upon
interpretation.
But, now, is there such a sum of doctrine, so remarkable, and so
diffused through all the books of the New Testament, that the texts
expressing the gifts and prerogatives of Peter, can be tried by the
touchstone of this analogy? Such, indeed, there is, very remarkable,
and threefold in character. The first point is found in the
texts[26] which regard the divine institution of bishops: the other
two in those which show the unity,[27] and the Catholicity[28] of
the Church. For what can stand in closer connection with these
articles of doctrine, than the appointment of a supreme ruler to
discharge over the universal Church the office which every bishop
exercises over his own particular Church, and his own portion of the
flock? What, again, can be more opposed to them, than the
supposition that provision was made, by the institution of bishops,
for _the parts_, but none, by the institution of a supreme pastor,
for _the whole body_, which is to be one and Catholic? Therefore,
that exposition of the texts concerning Peter, which exhibits him as
ruler of the Church universal, and as made to be the visible cause
of that same Catholic unity, so admirably agrees with analogy, that
it must be considered unquestionable, unless texts contradictory to
it can be produced. But so far is it from the case that texts
_considered in themselves_ contradict it, that, on the contrary,
they _immediately_ express it _of themselves_, and can be distorted
from it only by violating all the laws of interpretation. Accordingly,
that view of the texts about Peter, which establishes his Primacy,
is wonderfully confirmed by analogy, and by its harmony with what
the Scriptures tell us of the Church, as instituted by Christ.
4. And nothing will be wanting to give full assurance to this
confirmation, if we add the _fourth or external_ criterion, that
derived from consent of witnesses. I am not going to urge here the
divine force and infallible authority of Christian tradition: I
shall merely allege what no person of discretion can deny or
question. The first point is, that in the actual controversy the
testimony of the most ancient witnesses cannot be disregarded: and
the second, that it carries the very strongest prejudice in favour
of whichever interpretation it supports.
Now here we have to do first, with the interpretation of a series of
dogmatic texts; and, secondly, with a point of doctrine, which,
being of the utmost moment, could not be unknown to any one. But are
these matters on which ancient witnesses, such as the Christian
Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers, can be safely past by unheard?
If it were a matter of geography, chronology, or archaeology, one
might allow it, though with regret: but this is out of the question,
in a matter of dogmatic texts, and those relating to a most
important doctrine. For notorious is the zeal with which the ancient
Fathers laboured to preserve and interpret the dogmatic texts of
Scripture. We know their care to prevent the introduction of new and
false interpretations, and new and false doctrines thence arising.
And we know that, together with the Scriptures, they received from
the Apostolic teaching the kindred power of interpreting them. For,
as Origen remarked, "Since there are many who think that they
believe what is of Christ, and some of them believe what is
different from those before them, yet, since the preaching of the
Church is preserved, as handed down by the order of succession from
the Apostles, and to the present day abiding in the Church, that
verity alone is to be believed, which in nothing is discordant from
the ecclesiastical and Apostolical tradition."[29]
Moreover, can it seem safe to enter upon a track most divergent from
that which the Apostles marked out, and the Christian people
constantly followed? S. Paul[30] taught us to listen to witnesses,
and Christendom, whether assembled in council, or everywhere
diffused, was content to depend on them. Most clear is what is said
on this point about the Fathers at Nicea[31] and Ephesus,[32] and no
less so the words of Leontius[33] of Byzantium, John Cassian,[34]
Theodoret,[35] Augustine,[36] Jerome,[37] Epiphanius,[38] Basil,[39]
Origen,[40] Tertullian,[41] Clement[42] of Alexandria, and the
oldest of all, Irenaeus,[43] who says, "The true knowledge is
the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the Church
in the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ,
according to the succession of bishops, by which they handed down
the Church, which is in every place, which hath reached even to us,
being guarded without fiction, _with a most full interpretation of
the Scriptures_, admitting neither addition nor subtraction, and the
reading without falsification, and legitimate and diligent
exposition according to the Scriptures, without danger, and without
blasphemy, and the chief gift of charity, which is more precious
than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, more eminent than all
graces." For, as he says elsewhere, "We ought to learn the truth,
where the gifts of the Lord are placed; among whom is that
succession of the Church, which is from the Apostles, sound and
irreproachable conversation, and discourse unadulterated and
incorrupt. For these maintain that faith of ours in one God, who
made all things: these increase that love towards the Son of God,
who has made for our sake so great dispositions: _these explain to
us the Scriptures without peril_."
And, besides, where is the Protestant who does not praise the Hebrew
illustrations of Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Meuschen? or who does
not at least make much of the commentaries of Aben Ezra, Kimchi,
Jarchi, and others, in the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures?
They all see the advantage of approaching such sources of
information, and using them for their own purpose. But are we to
refuse to the Fathers, and ancient doctors of the Church the
deference which we allow to Rabbins and Thalmudists? This is at
least a reason for hearing the testimony of the Fathers.
And if it be concordant, constant, and universal, it most
powerfully recommends that scriptural interpretation, which agrees
with it. In this, all Catholics without exception, and the most
judicious and learned Protestants, are agreed. In good truth, it
would be incredible that an interpretation could be false, which was
adopted unanimously by the Fathers of every age and country. And it
ought to be as incredible to find any one so conceited, as not to be
greatly moved by the witness and consent of Christian antiquity.
One point of enquiry remains, whether the Fathers have given their
opinion, and that unanimously, on Peter and the texts, which relate
to him. But their words[44] inserted in the foregoing pages entirely
terminate this controversy, and show that they were all of the mind
expressed by Gregory the Great, in these words, which, it is well to
remember, were directed to the supreme civil authority of those
days, for he tells the emperor:
"To all who know the Gospel, it is manifest that the charge of the
whole Church was entrusted by the voice of the Lord to the holy
Apostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said,
'Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' To him is said, 'Behold,
Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee,
Peter, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, one day, in turn,
confirm thy brethren.' To him is said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build My Church,' &c. Lo, he hath received the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is given
to him, the care and the chiefship of the whole Church is committed
to him."[45]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The following chapter is translated from Passaglia, Pp. 339-360.
[2] This is not said as _limiting_ revelation to such points, but to
exhibit the scope of the present work, which uses testimony merely
as a human, though very important, support of the cause.
[3] The texts relating to the primacy, the Evangelists' mode of
writing, that of S. Luke in the first twelve chapters of the Acts,
and that of S. Paul.
[4] The Apostles' contest about "the greater," the distinction
between the founder, and the visible head of the Church, and for
false interpretations, the primacy of mere precedency, the
perversion of John xxi. 15-20, the assertion of Apostolic equality,
and Gal. i 18-20.
[5] Interroga igitur, si quid veritatis cupis audire, principaliter
sedis Apostolicae antistitem, cujus sana doctrina constat judicio
veritatis, et fulcitur munimine auctoritatis. Ferrandus in Epist. ad
Severum.
[6] Socrates, Hist. L. 2, c. 8-17. Sozomen, hist. L. 3, c. 10.
[7] In fragm. epist. apud Baluzium, Miscell. Lib. 5, p. 467.
[8] Ferrandus in litteris ad Pelagium.
[9] Mansi. Tom. 8, 54, 34.
[10] Avitus, Epist. 36.
[11] Gelasius, Epist. 4, ad Faustum. Mansi. 8, 17.
[12] Mansi. Tom. xi. 184.
[13] See Peter Ballerini, de potestate ecclesiastica, cap. 1, Sec. 1-6.
[14] See Mamachi, origines et antiquitates Christianae, Tom 2.
[15] See Muzzarelli, de auctoritate Rom. Pontificis in Conciliis
generalibus, c. v. Sec. 9.
[16] See Mamachi, as above, Tom. v part. 1, c. 2.
[17] Amm. Marcellinus, Lib. 15, c. 7.
[18] The following paragraph, down to "within and without," I have
introduced here. It is not in F. Passaglia.
[19] Aug. de utilitate credendi, c. 7, n. 19.
[20] Tit. iii. 10.
[21] Luke xv. 9; xi. 5; xviii. 2.
[22] Tertullian, de Praesc. c. 21.
[23] Mansi, concilia, Tom. 11, 239.
[24] Responsis ad Lutheram, c. x.
[25] Sense, says John, is the connection or mutual relation of
notions intended by the author in his words, or, according to
others, which is the same thing, the conception of the mind which
the author has expressed in words, and wishes to raise in his
readers. This sense, whether it springs from the proper or whether
from the improper and metaphorical meaning of words, or from
allegorical language, is immediate, grammatical, and literal.
[26] Acts xiv. 22; xx. 28; 1 Tim. v. 19-22; 2 Tim. iv. 2-5; Tit. i.
5; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3.
[27] Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 18; John x. 16; Eph. v. 25; 1 Cor. xii;
John xvii. 20-26.
[28] Luke xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8; ix. 15; Coloss. i. 8.; 1 Cor. i. 23;
ix. 20; Rom. x. 18.
[29] Origen. preface kezi azchon, n. 2.
[30] 2 Tim. ii. 2.
[31] See Athanas. de decritis Nic. Synodi, and also Hist. tripartit.
Lib. 2, 2-3.
[32] See Vincent of Lerins. Commonit. c. 32, 3.
[33] Leontius, Contr. Nestorium. Lib. 1.
[34] Cassian, De Incarn. Lib. 1.
[35] Theodoret, in the three dialogues.
[36] Augustine, cont. Cresconium, 1, c. 32-3.
[37] Jerome, Ep. 126, and dialog. adv. Luciferianos.
[38] Epiphanius. baeres. 61, 75, 78.
[39] Basil, cont. Eunomium, Lib. 1; de Spiritu S. c. 29.
[40] Origen in Matt. Tract. 29.
[41] Tertullian, throughout the book De Prescriptionibus.
[42] Clement, Stromatum, Lib. 7.
[43] Irenaeus, Lib. 4, c. 63 and 45.
[44] It may be allowable also to refer to the fifth section of the
work mentioned in the preface, "The See of S. Peter," &c.
[45] S. Greg. Ep. Lib. 5, 20.
INDEX.
A.
_Abraham_, parallel between, and Peter, 17-25, 206, 213-4
_Acts_, division of, 114
state the accomplishment of Christ's promises, 114, 116
history of the mystical body, as the Gospels of the Head, 115
elucidate the institution of the Primacy by showing its
execution, 116 and following.
_Africa_, Church of, its terms addressing Pope Theodore, 110, 254.
_Agatho_, Pope, A.D., 678-682, referred to, 254
states his Primacy in the case of S. Wilfrid, 254
to the Emperor Heraclius and the 6th Council 262.
_Alexander_, of Alexandria, referred to, 238.
_Ambrose_, St., interprets the name of Peter, 10
terms Peter "the Rock of the Church," 15
"the Apostle in whom is the Church's support," 15
affirms and describes his Primacy, 60
declares, "where Peter is, there is the Church," 62
interprets John xxi. 15-17, of Peter's Primacy, 79
says, "the rights of venerable communion flow from St. Peter's chair
as from a fountain head," 216
describes schism as rendering Christ's passion of no effect, 231
and as the unforgiven sin, 231
mentions a Novatian error of restricting the keys to Peter
personally, 241, n.
assigns the origin of unity to Peter, 242.
_Ambrosiaster_,
makes Paul's visit an acknowledgment of Peter's Primacy, 164
ranges James and John under Peter, as Barnabas under Paul, 167
sees in Paul's censure of Peter a proof of Peter's Primacy, 171.
_Ammianus Marcellinus_, referred to, 255.
_Analogy_, between universal and particular churches and the
Primate and all bishops, 217
of the body, house, kingdom, city, and fold, with the Church, 2-5, 217
its force as a proof for the Primacy. 251
as a criterion of interpretation, 272.
_Anglicanism_, the peculiar inconsistency of, 222-5.
_Anglicans_, _Lutherans_, and _Calvinists_,
comparative proof for their doctrines and for the Primacy, 259, 274.
_Apostles_, their relation to Peter, 28, 70, 75-7, 97-9, 102, 104, 108
their commission as given in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 68
exercise of their powers, 69, 149
how they _sent_ Peter and John, 137
are teachers and judges in controversy, 149
the spirit of truth promised to them and to their successors, 184-189
inequality in the college of, 200
twelve proofs of it, 204-9.
_Aquileia_, Fathers of, ascribe the origin of unity to Peter, 242.
_Archimandrites of Syria_,
call Pope Hormisdas das "Patriarch of the whole world," 216.
_Arnobius_, calls Peter, the Bishop of Bishops, 146, 216.
_Athanasius St._, states the object of the Incarnation, 27, 180
referred to, on behalf of the principle of tradition, 275.
_Augustine St._, terms Peter
"the rock which the proud gates of hell prevail not against," 15
"the figure of the Church," 61
"made another self by Christ, and one with Himself," 110
states the object of the Incarnation, 27, 179
explains the banquet in John, ch. xxi, 72
says the order in which the Apostles were called is uncertain, 88
mentions Peter's holy humility in being censured by Paul, 176
says there is no remission of sins outside the Church, 231
that those who are out of the Church have not charity, 231
terms schism a horrible crime and sacrilege, 231
distinguishes the Church as Catholic, 236
referred to as explaining the term Catholic, 237, 238
and quoted, 260
why he teaches that the keys were bestowed on Peter
as representing the person of the Church, 241, n. 124
referred to, 242
and on tradition, 295.
_Avitus, St._, attests the Popes Primacy, 253.
B.
_Ballerini_, Peter, his works referred to, 255.
_Baronius_, explains St. Peter being sent to the circumcision, 167
remarks on the distortion of Paul's censure against Peter, 172.
_Basil St._ calls Peter underlying the building of the Church, 15
interprets John, xxi. 15-17, as a grant of all pastoral authority to
the Church in the person of Peter her shepherd, 81
referred to, on principle of tradition, 275.
_Bede St._, interprets, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat," 140
condemns all separation from the society of Peter, 252.
_Bernard St._
appeals to Pope Innocent II, as holding the Primacy of faith, 60, 254
calls the Pope universal Bishop, 216
referred to, as explaining the term Catholic, 237
speaks of the solicitude of all churches resting on the
Apostolic See 244.
_Bhoskein_, its meaning, contrasted with _poimahinein_, 103 note.
_Bishops_, divine institution, of texts for, 273, n. 26
proof for, compared with that for the Primacy, 268, 270.
_Bossuet_,
explains the relation between Peter and the Apostles, 75, 78, 103
his writings against Jurien referred to, 233.
C.
_Coelestinus_, referred to, 238.
_Calvinists_, their proofs for the divinity of Christ compared with
those of Catholics for the Primacy, 259.
_Canons_, the 22nd of the Apostolic, quoted, 136.
_Cartwright_, the Puritan, observes the inconsistency of
Anglicanism, 225, n. 59.
_Casaubon_, referred to, 232.
_Cassian John_,
states the Primacy of St. Peter as continuing in the Church, 111
referred to 275.
_Catholicity_, texts on the Church's referred to, 220, 273, n. 28
in what it consists, material and formal parts, 236
the formal part as negative and as affirmative, 237-241.
_Cesar_, Julius, parallel between proof for his having been emperor,
and for Peter's Primacy, 250.
_Christ_, at His passion commends the Church as His "finished work"
to God the Father, 1
stands in two relations to the Church while on earth, as Founder
and as Ruler, 6, 43
selects from His disciples first twelve and then one 7, 89
explains the name of Peter, 12
communicates to Peter the gift of being the Foundation, 24
educates him for the office of chief ruler, 29
associates him in a peculiar manner with Himself, 35
designates a chief ruler in His Church, 38, 43
and that one to be Peter, 48
makes a further disposition of power after His resurrection, 65
makes Peter the one Shepherd over his fold, 72, 83
fulfils His promises to the Twelve, 68
and to Peter, 70
foretels Peter's crucifixion, 82
paraphrase of His promises to Peter in Matt. xvi, 17-20, 95
the mystical Head of the Church, 157
the incarnate Word the principle of Unity and Headship in
the Church, 178-182
His headship does not dispense with a visible hierarchy, 185
and cannot be expressed by the unity of a college, 193
bestows all spiritual gift, 186, 188.
_Chrysostome_, St., interprets the name Peter, 9, 27
terms Peter "the support of the faith," 15
"the mouth-piece of the Apostles and teacher of the world," 61, 119
the Teacher, 143, 145
the Father, 152
the greater and elder, 163
interprets "the keys" to mean power over all things in heaven, 14
interprets, "give it to them for me and for thee," 36, 37
interprets John xxi, 15-17, as the charge of the whole
Church given to Peter, 79, 80
witnesses to St. Peter's Primacy, 86, 93, 124, 126, 127
describes the subject of the Acts, 114
says that in Christ the race God and man is become one, 115
describes Peter as the first on every occasion, 121
says the Acts are those of St. Peter and St. Paul, 121
interprets "confirm thy brethren" of St. Peter's supreme authority. 124
makes St. John subordinate to St. Peter, 128
interprets Acts x, 47, 141
likens Peter to the commander of an army, 147
says that he anticipates St. Paul's doctrine to the Romans, 148
makes St. Paul prefer Peter to himself, 161
and to the other Apostles, 162
considers St. Paul's visit to him a proof of his Primacy, 164
explains Gal. ii. 7-9, 166
speaks of the dignity of St. Peter's person, 171
denies it to have been St. Peter who censured by St. Paul, 174
remarks on St. Paul's prudence in the manner of giving this
censure, 177
his remark on the Incarnation, 180
describes the unity of the Church all over the world, 218
distinguishes the Church as Catholic, 236
referred to on necessity of communion between the Church's
members, 239.
_Church_, establishment of,
the "finished work" of God the Word incarnate, 1, 4
unity and visibility part of its primary idea, 3
and a visible headship, 5
unchangeable, like her Lord, 44
had one ruler from the beginning, 45
unity or, fourfold, 182
of mystical influx, 182
of charity, 183
of faith, 183-189
of visible headship, 190-196
its identity, 220
its unity, and texts proving it, 220
its Catholicity, 236
these three viewed as reasons for the Primacy, 236-241
means the whole society of believers, 223
texts which so define it, 223, n. 46
as set forth in Scripture, 230.
_Claude_, the Calvinist, referred to, 232.
_Clement_ of Alexandria referred to
as defining the Church, 223
on the term Catholic, 237
on the principle of tradition, 275.
_Clement_, the Pseudo, his epistle St. James quoted, 137.
_Confirming_, meaning of the term in Luke xxii. 32, 53.
_Cornelius_, conversion of, 138.
_Council_ of Nicea, referred to, 238, 275.
---- of Sardica, referred to, 238.
---- of Ephesus, referred to, 238.
---- of Chalcedon, terms Peter, "the rock and foundation of the
Catholic Church, and the basis of the orthodox faith," 16.
---- third of Carthage, referred to, 224, 238.
---- second of Constantinople, referred to, 224.
---- of Laodicea, referred to, 224.
---- second Nicene, referred to, 224.
_Creed_, how it contains St. Peter's Primacy, 243.
_Criteria_ of interpretation, four chief ones, 265
verbal, 266
real, 267
analogical, 271
consent of witnesses, 274.
_Cyprian_ St.,
terms Peter the Rock of the Church that was to be built, 15
quotes the confessors out of Novatian's schism, 45
says that perfidy cannot approach the Roman faith, 55
says that the Church is built on Peter, 62, 175
says that the Apostles, as such, are equal, 69
but adds the Primacy of St. Peter, 81
solution of his phrase, "the episcopate is one, of which apart is
held by each without division of the whole," 100
how his statements on the unity of the Catholic episcopate cohere
with the Primacy, 240
makes St. Peter's See the fountain in the Church, 110
says the Church is in the bishop, 135
compares the unity in the Church to that of the Holy Trinity, 196
defines a particular church as a people united to its priest,
and a flock adhering to its pastor, 218
describes the one Church and its prerogatives, 228
distinguishes it by the name Catholic, 236.
_Cyril_, St., of Alexandria, says the Church is founded on Peter, 9
describes the presence of the Holy Spirit in Christians, 115
remarks on the Incarnation, 180.
_Cyril_, St., of Jerusalem, affirms St. Peter's Primacy, 61
calls the Church Catholic, 236
explains the term, 237.
D.
_Dante_, his words on fortune, 199.
_Dionysius_, the so-called Areopagite, states that the office of the
Holy Spirit is the deification of man, 115.
E.
_Ephrem_, of Antioch, on the unity produced by the Incarnation, 181.
_Ephrem_, St. Syrus, calls Peter the candle and tongue of the
disciples and the voice of preachers, 61.
_Epiphanius_, St. terms Peter the immovable rock of the Church, 15
and says that the charge of bringing the Gentiles into the Church
is laid on him, 141
referred to, on tradition. 275.
_Eucherius_, St., of Lyons, calls Peter the Pastor of pastors, 216.
_Eusebius_, states that St. John visited the Churches of Asia, 146
calls the Church by the name of Catholic, 236
referred to, 252.
_Euthalius_, his summary of the Acts, 120.
_Evidence_, moral, how far intended to be convincing, 89.
F.
_Faith_, how called by the Fathers, 234 note.
_Fathers_, the Greek, on Gal. ii. 11
unanimously set forth St. Peter's Primacy, 174-5.
_Ferrandus_, refers enquirers to the Apostolic See, 252
states the authority of Councils confirmed by it, 253.
_First_, force of the term, 87.
_Fructuosus_, St., the church in his Acts called Catholic, 236.
G.
_Gelasius_, Pope, A.D., 492-6, referred to, 242
states the power of the Apostolic See, 253, 254.
_Gnostics_ and Marcionites, distort Paul's censure of Peter, 171.
_Gregory_, Thaumaturgus, St. his remark on the Incarnation, 179.
_Gregory_, Nazianzene, St., terms Peter the rock of the Church, 15
remarks on the Incarnation, 180
calls the Church the tunic without seam, &c., 218,
referred to, 242.
_Gregory_, of Nyssa, St., his remark on the unity produced by
the Incarnation, 181.
_Gregory_, the Great, St. A.D., 590-603,
remarks Peter's humility in defending himself, 143
founds the Primacy on the three great texts, 277.
_Gregory_ II, Pope, A.D., 715-731, describes the reverence felt to
Peter in the eighth century, 113.
H.
_Heresy_, why it has lost its foulness in the minds of Protestants, 234.
_Hierarchy_, the visible, why constituted, 185-190
a head of it necessary, 190-6.
_Hilary_, of Poitiers, St. terms Peter the rock of the Church, 15
his remarks on the effect of the Incarnation, 180
speaks of the unity produced by the Incarnation and the Eucharist, 181
sets forth the Church's unity, 220 note
referred to as defining the Church, 223.
_Hippolytus_, St., his remark on the fruit of the Incarnation, 179.
_History_, Christian, fourteen distinct classes of facts in it
attest the Primacy, 251-6.
_Hormisdas_, Pope, A.D. 514-523
referred to, 242.
I.
_Ignatius_, St., uses the word Catholic of the Church, 236.
_Incarnation_, the order and gifts of,
lost sight of by those without the Church, 27
the object of, 27, 178-181.
_Innocent_ I., Pope, A.D., 401-417
makes the Apostolic See the fountain in the Church, 110
his letters to S. Victrice, 254.
_Irenaeus_, St., his remarks on the Incarnation, 179
referred to as defining the Church, 223
describes the Church's unity, 224
and terms it Catholic, 236
and explains the term, 237
sets forth tradition and the chiefship of the Roman Church, 239
states the principle of tradition as guarding the faith, 276.
_Isidore_, St., declares that whoever does not obey Peter is a
schismatic, 113.
J.
_James_, St., the martyrdom of, how mentioned by S. Luke, 151.
_Jerome_, St., puts the safety of the Church in the bishop, 45
makes the Primacy to be instituted against schism, 78
says, it is not a church which has no priest, 135
ascribes the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to St. Peter, 150
and makes St. Paul's visit to Peter a token of his
Primacy, 165, 171
gives the reasons of those who denied it to be St. Peter who was
censured, 173
describes the necessity of adhering to Peter's See, 218, 239, note 120
referred to as defining the Church, 223
distinguishes it as Catholic, 236
referred to, 242
referred to on principle of tradition, 275.
_John_, St., his sphere distinguished from that of Peter, 91
how often mentioned in the New Testament. 93
with his brother called Boanerges, 8, note, 86
makes himself subordinate to Peter, 128, 135, 137.
_Judah_, among his brethren,
a type of Peter among the Apostles, 206, 214-5.
_Julian_, the apostate, distorts Paul's censure of Peter, 172.
_Jurisdiction_, spiritual, derived from the person of Christ to
St. Peter, 99, 107, 109
creation of, precedes the formation of the Church, 105, 107.
_Jurien_, referred to, 232.
_Justinian_, the Emperor, referred to, 238.
K.
_King_, on the Creed, referred to, 236.
L.
_Lactantius_, describes necessity of belonging to the Church, 231.
_Leander_, referred to, 238.
_Leo St._, Pope 440-461
paraphrases the name of Peter, 11
states his Primacy and association with Christ, 14
explains why our Lord prays specially for Peter, 50
says that Peter, rules all by immediate commission, 80, 168
that Christ gave to the rest through Peter, 100
that he assumed Peter into the participation of His indivisible
unity, 110
remarks on the unity produced by the Incarnation, 180
describes the unity of the Catholic Episcopate as knitted up
in the See of St. Peter, 242.
_Leontius_, referred to, 275.
_Luke_, St., his purpose in writing the Acts, 114
part which he assigns to Peter, in general, 117-122
in particulars, 122-153
slightly mentions the other Apostles, 120
exhibits Peter's miracles as John does those of Christ, 131
makes him the main figure in the Apostolic college, 133.
_Lutherans_, their proofs for the real presence compared with those
of Catholics for the Primacy, 259.
M.
_Mamachi_, his works referred to, 255.
_Maximus_, St., of Turin,
says that Christ gave to Peter His own title, the Rock, 15
sets forth Peter's Primacy, 112.
_Maximus_, martyr, referred to, 242.
_Marius Victorinus_, makes Paul's visit an acknowledgment of
Peter's Primacy, 164.
_Mastrezat_, referred to, 232.
_Metaphor_, tests of clearness in, 267.
_More_, Sir Thomas, his statement to Luther of reasons for maintaining
the Primacy, 263.
_Mosheim_, his admission that the early Fathers set forth a unity which
terminates in the Papal See, as the hand does in the fingers, 197-8, note.
_Muzzarelli_, his works referred to, 255.
N.
_Names_, classes of, given in Scripture, 16.
_Nicole_, referred to, 232.
O.
_Oecumenius_, on the fruit of the Incarnation, 179.
_Optatus_, St., calls St. Peter's the single chair in which unity
was to be observed by all, 110
calls schism the greatest of evils, 231
referred to, as explaining the term Catholic, 237
ascribes the origin and maintenance of unity to Peter, 242.
_Origen_, says that Peter is so called from Christ the Rock, 10
calls Peter the great foundation of the Church, 15
describes the great honour given by Christ to Peter in the matter
of the didrachmna, 36
makes Peter the first, as Judas the last, of the Apostles, 89
referred to, as defining the Church, 223
distinguishes the Church as Catholic, 236
states the principle of tradition, 275
referred to, on same, 275.
P.
_Pacian_, St., calls the Church Catholic, 236
explains the term, 237, 238
describes the Church's unity, 239, note
ascribes the origin of unity to Peter, 242.
_Paul_, St., distinguishes St. Peter among the Apostles, 67
why so much said of him in the Acts, 121
his visitatorial power contrasted with St. Peter's, 146
his epistles incidentally confirm St. Peter's Primacy, 160
recognises St. Peter's Primacy, 161
by going to visit him, 162-165
and in his second visit, 166-169
what is involved in his censure of St. Peter, 169-171
its real amount, 177
force of his terming the Church "one body," 193
how emphatic he is in setting forth visible unity, 197.
_Pelagius_ II., Pope, 578-590
states privileges of the Apostolic See, 253.
_Petavius_, shows that spiritual jurisdiction springs from the direct
gift of Christ, 107.
_Peter_, St., first mention of him in the Gospel, 8
meaning of his name, 9
a special title of our Lord, 9
name first promised, 8
conferred, 11
explained and promises attached, 12, 97-99
titles of, betokening his association with Christ, 15
parallel between, and Abraham, 17-25, 206, 213-4
his name explained by St. Chrysostome, 27
his relation to the Apostles, 28, 98-9, 102, 104, 108
his instruction in the theology and economy, 30
witness of the transfiguration, 30
of the Lord's prayer in His agony, 32
of raising the daughter of Jairus, 33
associated with Christ in paying of the didrachma, 34
designated to be chief ruler of the Church, 48
charged to confirm his brethren, 49-63
is distinguished in having the resurrection proved to him, 66
all our Lord's promises fulfilled to him, 70, and following
mentioned by the Evangelists differently from the other Apostles., 84
named first in every catalogue, 86
his sphere distinguished from that of John, 91
his predominance in the sacred history, 92
how often mentioned in the Gospels, 93
and in the Acts, 118
the type, the origin, and the efficient cause of unity, 100, 108
looked up to, as a God upon earth, by the West, 113
prominence given to him in the Acts 116-122
directs the election of a new Apostle, 122
defends the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, 125
speaks for them the third and fourth time, 128
proves his supreme authority by special miracles, 129
cures Oeneas and raises Dorcas, 132
heals with his shadow, 133
receives the Samaritans into the Church, 133-7
and the Gentiles, 138-42
exercises supreme judicial power, 144
visits all churches, 145
is the first to pronounce decision in the council of Jerusalem, 147-151
his imprisonment and that of St. James and St. Paul, 151
summary of his conduct in the Acts, 153-6
his visible headship quite other than the headship of mystical
influx, 157
set with James and John parallel to Paul with Barnabas and Titus, 166
the head, centre, fountain, root, and principle of unity, 195
is in the episcopate what God the Father is in the divine monarchy, 195
his office in the Church acknowledged by friend and foe, 198
typified in Judith, 206, 214-5.
_Peter_, St. Chrysologus,
says of Peter that he founds the Church by his firmness, 15
advises Eutyches to obey the Pope, 61.
_Philip_, St., perhaps the first-called Apostle, 88
_Pionius_, St., his acts call the Church Catholic, 236.
_Polycarp_, St., the epistle on his death calls the Church Catholic, 236.
_Porphyry_, distorts Paul's censure of Peter, 171.
_Primacy_, the nature of, defined in the three palmary texts, 104-110
shown to consist in superiority of jurisdiction, 209-212
compared to the law of gravitation, 109, 209
institution and exercise of, compared, 155
the controversy on, reduced to one point, 205
summary of, as set forth in the Acts, 153
and generally, 200-203
the end and purpose of, 212
to which end three classes of reasons guide us,
i. the typical, 213
ii. the analogical, 217
iii. the real, 219
bound up in the visibility and unity of the Church, 235
what is required of those who deny it, 247
its denial the origin of all actual divisions among Christians, 248
its proof as considered _absolutely_, 249
_comparatively_ with that for the divine institution of bishops, the
real presence, and the divinity of Christ, 259-274
multiplicity of proof for it, 251-6
the opposition of Greeks, Anglicans, and Protestants to it, merely
negative, 257
parallel between the opposition to it by sects now, and that to the
doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation in the fourth, fifth,
and sixth centuries, 264.
_Primacy_ and _Apostolate_,
their relation to each other, 78, 98-9, 102, 104.
_Proclus_, Patriarch of Constantinople,
calls Peter first prelate of the Apostles, 216.
_Proofs_, the different sort of, and their whole sum, to be considered, 8
different sorts of, and the principal here used, 246
multiplicity of, for the Primacy, 247
as considered _absolutely_, 249
_comparatively_, 259
concurrence of four great proofs for the Primacy, 250.
_Prudentius_, calls Peter the first disciple of God, 61.
R.
_Reformers_, distort Paul's censure of Peter, 172
opposition between them and the Fathers as to Peter's Primacy, 176
as to Church principles 227, note
denied the visibility of the Church, 222, note.
S.
_Sacraments_ and _Symbols_ lead from the visible to the invisible, 192.
_Sense_, in writing, definition of, 266, note.
_Socrates_ and _Sozomen_, their canon respecting the bishop of Rome, 252.
_Stephen_, bishop of Dora, describes Peter's Primacy, 56, 83.
_Stephen_, bishop of Larissa,
makes all the Churches of the world to rest in Peter's confession, 62.
_Symmachus_, Pope A.D. 498-514
likens the unity of the Apostolic See to that of the Trinity, 196.
T.
_Tertullian_,
why our Lord gave Peter a name drawn from figures of Himself, 11
says the Church is built on Peter, 15
expresses Peter's supreme power, and distinguishes his sphere from
that of John, 91
ascribes the decision in the council of Jerusalem to St. Peter, 150, 164
referred to, as defining the Church, 223
and as explaining the term Catholic, 237, 238
sets forth Church unity, 224
denies that Peter's doctrine was censured, 175
calls the Catholic Church _near to Peter_, 241
says the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, 241
his rule not to search for the truth among heretics, 261
referred to, on the principle of tradition, 275.
_Theodore_, Abbot of the Stadium at Constantinople, addresses Pope
Pascal I. as Peter, and beseeches him to exert his Primacy, 56
calls Pope Leo III. father of fathers, &c., 216.
_Theodoret_, says _stone_ a title of our Lord, 10
terms Peter the most solid rock, 15
ascribes the decision in the Council of
Jerusalem to St. Peter, 151
recognises Peter's Primacy, 161 and 163.
_Theophylact_, says that Peter confirms not only the Apostles, but
all the faithful to the end of the world, 52
interprets John xxi. 15-17, of supreme power over the Church given
to Peter, 80.
_Thomas_, St., of Canterbury, sees in Paul's visit to Peter a proof
of his Primacy, 165.
U.
_Unity_,
that of the Father and the Son the archetype of the Church's unity, 195
fourfold in the Church, of mystical influx, charity, faith,
visible headship, 181-196
texts on the Church's unity, referred to 220, 273, n. 27
Protestant notions of the Church's unity, 222
that of Anglicans, 222
that of distinguishing between internal and external unity, 225
that of agreement in fundamentals, 232.
V.
_Valentinian_ III., his constitution on the Primacy quoted, 255.
_Vincent_ of Lerins, referred to, on principle of tradition, 275.
_Vitringa_, sets forth a Protestant notion of unity, 225-8.
_Voss_, on the Creed, referred to, 236.
W.
_Walemburg_, the brothers, referred to, 233.
Z.
_Zaccharia_, his works, referred to, 253.
_Zeno_, St., quoted, 15.
INDEX OF TEXTS.
THE NUMBER INDICATES THE PAGE.
GENESIS.
PAGE
v. 29 17
x. 25 16
xii. 1 18
-- 4 18
xvii. 5 18
-- 15 17
-- 19 16
xviii. 17 21
xxii. 1 19
-- 10 19
xxv. 25 16
-- 26 16
-- 30 16
xxvii. 36 16
xxx. 18 16
xxxii. 28 17
xl. 51-2 16
xlix. 10 215
EXODUS.
ii. 10 16
NUMBERS.
ii. 3-9 215
x. 14 215
xii. 2 156
xiii. 17 17
xvi. 3 155
JUDGES.
i. 1-3 215
xx. 18 215
1 PARALIP.
xxvii. 33 87
2 PARALIP.
xxvi. 20 87
NEHEMIAH.
xii. 45 87
PSALMS.
ii. 9 75
xlvii. 2 3
lxix. 26 123
lxxxii. 6 25
cviii. 8 123
cxvii. 22 9
cxxxi. 13, 14 4
WISDOM.
viii. 1 136
ISAIAH.
vii. 3 16
ix. 6 103
xxviii. 16 9, 24
xl. 9-11 72
EZECHIEL.
xxiv. 33 72
DANIEL.
ii. 35 9
ix. 26 5
OSEA.
i. 4-6-9 16
MICAH.
v. 2 42, 72
ZACHARIAH.
iii. 9 9
MALACHI.
l. 11 138
1. MACC.
ii. 2-4 16
MATTHEW.
i. 1 23
ii. 6 42
iii. 1 17
v. 14 3, 230
x. 1 11, 65
-- 2 87, 89
-- 5 134
-- 7 130
xii. 3 84, 90
xv. 24 134
-- 30 133
xvi. 13-19 12
-- 15 19, 93
-- 16 19, 64, 93, 94, 112
-- 17-20 95
-- 18 2, 94, 98, 103, 139, 163, 219, 221
-- 19 102, 103
xvii. 1 87
-- 23 34
-- 24 34, 90
-- 27 35, 90
xviii. 1 100
-- 2 38
-- 17 221
-- 18 65, 102, 221
-- 21 92
xix. 23 93
-- 27 93
-- 28 215
xx. 20 100
-- 27 87
xxiii. 8 44
-- 9 26
xxvi. 36 34
-- 40 90
-- 69 85
xxviii. 18 68, 102
-- 19 74
-- 19, 20 3, 221
MARK.
i. 16 70
-- 16, 17 18, 28
-- 18 18
-- 36 85, 90
ii. 25 84, 90
iii. 11 84
-- 13 5, 65
-- 14 11
-- 17 16
-- 16-19 86
iv. 38 71
v. 35 33
-- 37 87
xiii. 3 87
xiv. 33 87
xvi. 6 66
-- 7 85
-- 10 84, 90
-- 15 68, 74, 102, 138
-- 15-17 130
LUKE.
iv. 40, 41 133
v. 3 71
-- 10 18
vi. 4 84
-- 12, 13 65
-- 14 11
-- 14-17 86
viii. 24 71
-- 45 85, 90
-- 51 88
ix. 32 85, 90
xi. 5 261
xii. 41, 42 93
xv. 9 261
-- 22 87
xviii. 2 261
-- 34 38
xx. 20-23 40
xxii. 8 88
-- 22 57
-- 24 100
-- 24-30 39, 41, 57, 58, 59
-- 26 6, 141, 193, 194, 206, 210, 219, 221
-- 29 215
-- 32 21, 49, 51, 54, 55, 101, 104, 141, 219, 221
xxiv. 29 68, 102
JOHN.
i. 14 178
-- 35-42 8
-- 42 18
-- 43 89, 94
-- 44 88
iv. 23 138
v. 5-9 131
vi. 21 71
-- 67, 68 93
x. 11-14-16 72
-- 11-16 4
-- 16 104, 139
-- 34 25
xi. 16 92
-- 52 191
xiii. 6 92
-- 13 43
-- 34-36 183
xiv. 8 92
-- 12 26
-- 16 26, 188
-- 16-18 183
-- 16, 26 184, 230
-- 20 182
-- 26 184
xv. 1-2, 5-7 182
-- 9, 15 26
-- 12, 13, 17 183
-- 22-24 129
-- 26 221
-- 27 126
xvi. 7, 13-15 184
-- 13 43
xvii. 1
-- 11, 21 195
-- 12, 13 57, 65, 190, 194
-- 17 221
-- 21 129, 180, 221
xx. 21 122, 139
-- 21-23 102
-- 23 26
xxi. 1-14 71
-- 2 88
-- 15 19, 73, 104, 139, 219, 221
-- 16, 22 157, 158
-- 18 82
-- 21-22 91
ACTS.
i. 4-8 69, 102, 221
-- 8 126
-- 15 119
-- 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 123
ii. 13 119
-- 14 85
-- 13-16 125
-- 14, 27 119
-- 32 126
-- 36 126
-- 37 85
-- 37, 38 119
-- 37, 38, 40, 41 127
-- 44 129
iii. 2-8 131
-- 4 119
-- 11, 12 119
iv. 3 85
-- 4 128
-- 7, 8 128
-- 32 129
v. 2 145
-- 8, 3, 9 144
-- 12-14 133
-- 15-16 133
-- 29 85, 119
viii. 14 137
-- 14-22 135
ix. 32 138, 168
-- 31-32 145
-- 39-41 132
x. 1-6 138
x. 10 21
-- 10-16 139
-- 19 141
-- 28 140
-- 33, 43-47 141
xi. 1-4 142
-- 3, 17, 18 173
-- 18 156
xii. 1-5 152
xv. 6-11 69, 147
-- 7 21
-- 12 148
-- 28 149
-- 36 146
xvi. 4 69, 149
xvii. 28 115
xx. 28 69, 74, 75
ROMANS.
i. 11 54
-- 25 221
v. 5 183
viii. 15 26
-- 17 26
ix. 4-5 167
xii. 5 178
xv. 8 167
-- 9 168
xvi. 7 161
-- 25 51
1 CORINTHIANS.
i. 7 51
-- 12 160, 161
iii. 11 25
-- 22 160, 161
v. 1-5 69
ix. 5 160, 161
x. 4 112
-- 17 192
-- 18 214
xii. 7-13 186
-- 11 185, 188
-- 12 191, 194
-- 13 192
-- 27 115
xiii. 12 26
xiv. 33 221
xv. 1-9 67
-- 5 160
2 CORINTHIANS.
i. 21 51
iv. 17 230
viii. 23 161
x. 6 70
GALATIANS.
i. 16-19 162
-- 18 171, 174
ii. 1-2 165, 171
-- 7-9 166, 168
-- 8-9 168
-- 11-14 169
iii. 7 22
-- 16 23
v. 19, 20 221
vi. 16 214
EPHESIANS.
i. 9, 22 178
-- 10 29
-- 22 157, 197
ii. 20 9
-- 21 24
iii. 5 137
-- 6 51
-- 10 198
iv. 4 194, 197, 221
-- 7-16 186
-- 8, 11 197
-- 11 59, 105, 188, 193
-- 12 187, 193
-- 12-13 106
-- 13 185, 187
-- 14 187
-- 15 157, 230
-- 25 181
v. 23 191, 197, 230
-- 23, 27 157
-- 27 221
-- 30, 32 4
COLOSSIANS.
i. 17 104
-- 18 157, 194
ii. 6 51
-- 9 188
2 THESSALONIANS.
ii. 16 51
1 TIMOTHY.
i. 15 87
iii. 15 4, 221
2 TIMOTHY.
ii. 2 275
TITUS.
i. 5 146
ii. 11 221
-- 14 221
iii. 10 261
HEBREWS.
i. 3 104
xiii. 8 44
-- 20 104
1 PETER.
ii. 25 221
v. 3 153
-- 10 51, 53, 74, 75
2 PETER.
i. 4 197
-- 14 31
iii. 2, 3 230
-- 16 171
JAMES.
i. 17 204
1 JOHN.
i. 1 6
v. 6, 7 32
JUDE.
18 230
APOCALYPSE.
ii. 27 76
iii. 2 53, 54
-- 7 13, 103
vii. 9 140
xvii. 14 103
xix. 15 76
xxii. 16 13
LONDON:
RICHARDSON AND SON, 172, FLEET STREET;
9, CAPEL ST., DUBLIN; AND DERBY.
* * * * *
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
Archaic spelling has been retained.
Punctuation errors corrected without comment.
Footnote markers in original book are inconsistent. Some come before
the reference cited, some after, some in the middle.
oe ligature not in latin-1 character set, replaced with oe
Apparent typesetting errors corrected as noted below:
Pg 18 begun changed to began (in the last days He began)
Pg 43 ensample changed to example (given you an example)