[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 areinternalandartificial, othersexternalandinartificial; some belong to the philosopher, others to the theologian, the former having their source in nature, the latter in revelation; another sort, again, rests onwitnesses, and another ondocuments. But if we consider their persuasive force, they may be conveniently ranged under the two classes ofprobable, andcertainordemonstrative.
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 theprincipaland prevailing proof, and this in form is inartificial, theological, and drawn from the inspired documents; and the proofsoccasionally insertedand 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 maydeem 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 beto 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 thatunlessit be deceptive, the institution of the Primacy is demonstrated to be not onlytrue, but alsorevealed, not onlytenable, but matter offaith. For although we have interwoven testimonies andartificial arguments, this was to confirm what was already demonstrated, and to shed fresh light on what was already clear; but thepropersource 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 offaith.
These two points are clear, but a third may be somewhat less so. Many will ask, whatisthe 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 bereferred 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 proofin itself, andabsolutely, and thencomparativelywith those arguments to which the most distinguished Protestant sects ascribe a full and complete demonstrative power.
I. First, then, as to the force of proofabsolutely. 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 everywherediffused 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, consideredin itself, andabsolutely, needs nothing to challenge assent.
For, suppose it disputed whether Cæsar 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 Cæsar, 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 Cæsar, to square exactly with Peter. For we learn from Scripturethe stepsby which he rose to the Primacy,the timewhen he received it,howhe 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, butfrom 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 documentsdistinctly setting forth the promises, the bestowal, the exercise, and the everywhere diffused knowledge of the Primacy: 2.witnessesthe 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 ofArius; 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 historyof thesummoning, theholding, and theconfirming 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, inmatters 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 notcontumaciously 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 wedischarge, should determine."[12]9.The history of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,[13]and of therights 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 archæology,[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, thepeace 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 thewill, but can neither be passed by, nor refuted, by a judgment of thereason.
And[18]having on the one hand this vast amount ofpositiveproof, 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 ofpositiveon 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, whatcounter systemhave 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 absolutelynegative, 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 simplydestructives; 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 isnotS. 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 isnotthe 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 isnotthe 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, andits most consoling promises utterly evacuated. Choose, upon this, betweenwithinandwithout.
II. But such being the argument for the Primacyof itselfandabsolutely, look at it now in acomparativepoint 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 aremoretestimonies 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 thenumber 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 whichthey 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, andall 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, yetwhereare 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, Rosenmüller, 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 amatter 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 hadthese 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.
Butfifthly, 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 Anomæans, 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 areimmediateandinternal, the thirdinternal, 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 isverbal, and belongs to the words and phrases of which the text consists; the otherreal, and regards the meaning of the sentence. Indeed, no other sources of obscurity or of clearness can be imagined than either thewordswhich express thematter, or thematterintended by thewords. 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 withwords, I shall not be severe, butallow 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 asrock,building,keys,binding,loosing,lambs,sheep,feeding? Undoubtedly some are such, yet not that words used in theirpropersense are wanting, as when Peter is calledthe first,the greater, thesuperior; also when he is chargedto 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 inproperwords 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 thatmetaphoricalcan be considered equivalent toobscure, for obscurity ismost 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, whosemetaphoricalis not much more copious than itspropervocabulary.
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 thefoundationof the metaphor is clear, and the series of the discourse indicatesthe point of likeness, and usage of speech unfoldsthe forceof 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 offoundation,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.Verbalperspicuity is followed byreal, or that which concerns thesubject 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 exceedingthe natural power of reason, as to admit of the mind's conceiving it by analogy, but not by adistinctandproperknowledge. 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 beingrational, somebeyondreason, and someabovereason, the proper character of those which are calledbeyondreason is, that,ifrevealed, they are cognizable by reason. Now to such an order of truths the institution of the Primacy belongs. Thus itsrealevidence, that namely which concerns itssubject 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 ofrealevidence 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 couldonly 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 creedoneChurch, 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 CatholicChurch, to commit its government to an universal superior, or that reason does notequallyrequire, 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 theCatholicChurch, 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 morerequires the institution of auniversalsuperior, 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 thesubject matteris 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 ofverbalandrealevidence 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 calldirect. Butboth 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, asrevealed, 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 ofChrist, 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 thethirdcriterion, which increases not a little the evidence from revelation for the Primacy. For Catholics and Protestants are agreed in consideringanalogyas 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 notto 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, forthe parts, but none, by the institution of a supreme pastor, forthe 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 textsconsidered in themselvescontradict it, that, on the contrary, theyimmediatelyexpress itof 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 thefourth or externalcriterion, 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 archæology, 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 andfalse 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, Irenæus,[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 mostpowerfully 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]