[111] 22nd Canon of Codex Africa.n.u.s.

[112] The Nestorian profession of faith, in fifth act of Council of Ephesus.

[113] Pacian, Ep. 1.

[114] Cyril, Catech. 18.

[115] Aug. de vera relig. c .6, de utilit. credendi, c. 7.

[116] Pacian, Ep. 3, "The Church is a full and solid body, diffused already through the whole world. As a city, I say, whose parts are in unity. Not as you Novatians, an insolent particle, or a gathered wen, separated from the rest of the body."

[117] Such as are grammata koinonika, Euseb. H. E. lib. 7, c. 30.

epistolai koinonikai, Basil. Ep. 190, or kanonikai, Ep. 224, letters of peace commendatory, ecclesiastical, &c.

[118] See especially Chrys. Hom. 30 on 1 Cor.

[119] Irenaeus, Lib. 3, c. 3.

[120] Compare Jerome's often-quoted pa.s.sage, Ep. 15, to Pope Damasus, "Whoso gathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, whoso is not of Christ is of antichrist."

[121] For the meaning of "come together," see farther on, c. 40.

"G.o.d hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Doctors, and all the rest of the operation of the Spirit, of which all those are not partakers who do not _run together to the Church_, but defraud themselves of life by an evil intention and a very bad conduct. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit; and where is the Spirit of G.o.d, there is the Church and all grace."

[122] See S. Cyprian's letters, 69, 55, 45, 70, 73. 40. Consider the force of the words, "Peter, upon whom the Church had been built by the Lord, speaking one for all, and _answering with the voice of the Church_, says, Lord, to whom shall we go?" Ep. 55, on which Fenelon (de sum. Pontif. auct. c. 12) remarks, "What wonder, then, if Pope Hormisdas and other ancient fathers says, "the Roman, that is, the Catholic Church," since Peter was wont to answer _with the voice of the Church_? What wonder if the body of the Church speaks by mouth of its head?"

[123] De Pudicitia, c. 21.

[124] This Montanist corruption (into which Ambrose on Ps. 38, n.

37, and Pacian in his three letters to Semp.r.o.nian, state that the Novatians also fell,) induced some fathers, and especially Augustine, (Enarrat. on Ps. 108. n. 1, Tract 118 on John, n. 4, and last Tract n. 7) to teach that the keys were bestowed on Peter so far forth as he represented the person of the Church in right of his Primacy. By which mode of speaking they meant this one thing, that the power of the keys, as being necessary to the Church, and inst.i.tuted for her good, began indeed in Peter, and was communicated to him in a peculiar manner but by no means dropt, or could possibly drop, with him.

[125] Tertull. De Praesc. c. 32.

[126] Pacian, ad Semp.r.o.nium, Epis. 3, -- 11.

[127] Ambrose, de Poenit. Lib. 1, c. 7, n. 33.

[128] Synodical Epistle, among the letters of Ambrose.

[129] Optatus, de Schism. Donat. Lib. 2, c. 2, and Lib. 7, c. 3.

[130] Gregory, de vita sua, Tom. 2, p. 9.

[131] Jerome, adv. Jovin. Lib. 1, n. 14.

[132] Augustine, in Ps. Cont. partem Donati, cont. Epist. Fundam. c.

4, de utilitate credendi, c. 17, and Epist. 43.

[133] Gelasius, Epis. 14.

[134] Hormisdas, Mansi, Tom. 8, 451, in the conditions on which he readmitted the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern bishops to communion.

[135] Agatho, in a letter to the sixth council, read and accepted at its fourth sitting.

[136] Maximus, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 11, p. 76.

[137] Leo, Epist. 10, c. 1.

[138] Ep. 358, to Pope Celestine.

[139] The above chapter is translated from Pa.s.saglia, Pp. 298-336.

CHAPTER IX.

THE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.

[1]As the natural end of all proof is to give a.s.surance, 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 _doc.u.ments_. But if we consider their persuasive force, they may be conveniently ranged under the two cla.s.ses 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 _princ.i.p.al_ and prevailing proof, and this in form is inartificial, theological, and drawn from the inspired doc.u.ments; and the proofs _occasionally inserted_ and confirmatory of the princ.i.p.al: these, it will be evident, are sometimes artificial and internal, such as those drawn from a.n.a.logy, and the harmonious coherence of doctrines, from the unity and Catholicity of the Church, and the inst.i.tution 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 doc.u.ments, but on witnesses. Now two things follow from this mixed and manifold character of our proof, of too great importance to be pa.s.sed 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 ma.s.s 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 inst.i.tution of the Primacy is necessary to supply a sufficient cause for these results, so long the force of our proof remains untouched, and the inst.i.tution 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 doc.u.ments 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 inst.i.tution 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 doc.u.ments 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 cert.i.tude, 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 a.s.surance. 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 doc.u.ments; _first_, the authenticity of the doc.u.ment; _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 a.s.surance. Now, as to the doc.u.ments, whence our proof is derived, no Christian doubts their authenticity; and as to the testimonies drawn from them, part[3] belong to a cla.s.s 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 pa.s.sages of holy Scripture, but extended over a great series, all tending to support and consolidate the argument. We have set forth, not a naked inst.i.tution of the Primacy, but multifold foreshadowings and promises of it, its daily operation and notoriety. From its first antic.i.p.ation we went on to its progressively clearer expression, its promise, its inst.i.tution, 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 doc.u.ments, all question as to their existence is terminated. But here we find in doc.u.ments, 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 a.s.sent.

For, suppose it disputed whether Caesar surpa.s.sed 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 t.i.tle 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, subst.i.tute 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 a.s.surance, and challenges a.s.sent. 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 inst.i.tution, 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 doc.u.ments_ 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 a.n.a.logy 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 inst.i.tution of the Primacy, that they cannot be even contemplated without it. For there are no less than fourteen distinct cla.s.ses 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 pa.s.s 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 a.s.sembled 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 G.o.d, 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, p.r.o.nouncing on the appeal of our own S. Wilfrid, of York, the contemporary of Bede, A.D. 688, declares that "Wilfrid the bishop, beloved of G.o.d, 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 doc.u.ments, 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 Ammia.n.u.s 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 const.i.tution 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 inst.i.tution of the Primacy belongs to that cla.s.s 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 inst.i.tuted? 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 a.s.semblage 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.