derived from the grandeur of the principal city? This idea is not even implied in the text. The rule of construction is utterly opposed to such an interpretation; and no one but a bigoted partizan could have so interpreted it. Now let the reader ask himself what S. Cyprian understood when he used the words "Principal Church?" He will observe that immediately before these words are the following: "the Chair of Peter,” and immediately after, "whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise." What, then, was the foundation of the Principality of the Roman Church? Was it the city? or was it "the Chair of Peter?" Assuming for a moment it was the city, did "the unity of the Priesthood take its rise from the Imperial city, or if not the city, from the civico-ecclesiastical Supremacy arising from the fact that this Church was the Church of Imperial Rome?" Will any man who pretends to be a critic maintain that this was S. Cyprian's meaning, that the "Principal Church" was simply a Church which happened to be located in the Imperial city, and that therefore it became the source "whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise;" and that "the Chair of Peter" (for this must be included) obtained Supreme authority, because the ground on which it stood was that of the sevenhilled city? The very absurdity of the argument is its best refutation. It is impossible to put any other construction on this passage of S. Cyprian, than that when he used the words "Principal Church" he meant that the Roman Church was the "Principal Church" inasmuch as "the Chair of Peter" was there established, "whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise." That Dr. Barrow was well aware of the true scope of the passage he has so grossly mutilated, is evident from what he says further on: "S. Cyprian did call the Roman see the chair of St. Peter, and the principal Church; yet he disclaimed any authority of the Roman Bishop above his brethren." (Ib. 235.) In all sincerity, I ask the most ultra-Protestant, whether such handling of any author can be regarded as honest and straightforward? Certain it is, if the works of S. Cyprian had been those of a secular, and Dr. Barrow a layman, such kind of criticism would have been condemned by every honest man; and yet the work of this man is regarded by the authorities of the Oxford University Press as a standard one, worthy of the careful study of its alumni! A more dishonest and disreputable book has never issued from the press of this or of any other country.

But to proceed in respect of the interpretation he has put upon the words, "Principal Church," he adds the following: "Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case, 'Because, saith he, Rome for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage?" Supp. p. 231. To understand S. Cyprian's meaning let us supply the context the learned Doctor has so conveniently suppressed: "It is the same Novatus, who amongst us scattered the first flames of discord and schism, who separated some of the brethren here from their Bishop, who, amid the very persecution, was to ours, as another persecution, in overthrowing the minds of the brethren. He it is who without my permission or knowledge, of his own factiousness and ambition, made Felicissimus his follower, deacon, and . . . . . . sailing to Rome also, to overthrow the Church, he there contrived similar and like plots, rending a

portion of the laity from the clergy, cleaving asunder the concord of the Brotherhood, who were closely knit together and mutually loved each other. In short, as Rome from her greatness ought to have precedency of Carthage, there he committed greater and more grievous crimes. He who here made a deacon against the Church, there made a Bishop." Ep. xlix. ad. Cornel.

Now what is the drift of the passage in S. Cyprian here referred to? It is simply this, Novatus, the African schismatic, after doing much mischief in the province of Carthage, resolved to go to Rome, where he and his companions, in concert with Novatian, the Anti-Pope, as S. Cyprian says in another epistle, attempted to set up a Chair for themselves, and to assume the Primacy, and to claim the right of baptizing and of offering. (Ep. lxxvi. ad Magnum, p. 154.) Hence S. Cyprian's observations, "In short, as Rome from her greatness ought to have precedency over Carthage, there he committed greater and more grievous crimes: who here made a deacon against the Church, there made a Bishop." Now, looking fairly at the passage, let the reader ask himself, when S. Cyprian used these words, was he regarding Rome and Carthage in their imperial and secular character, or in their ecclesiastical and spiritual aspect? The context plainly shows that he meant the latter. Novatus sailed to Rome for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Church, even that "Chief Church whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise." Hence it is that S. Cyprian's thought, when he penned the passage quoted by Dr. Barrow, was ecclesiastical Rome and ecclesiastical Carthage, and not these cities in their secular and metropolitical character. Who is there that does not know that persons in general converse and write under the influence of the thought naturally uppermost? When politicians speak of Canterbury, London, or York, unless the context fixes a different meaning, they usually refer to them as merely cities of the kingdom. When military men, in time of war, in like manner converse, their thoughts are more upon their positions as strategical points than considered as political municipalities; so also ecclesiastics, when dilating on ecclesiastical subjects, in their allusions to various cities, describing them simply by name : obviously, their uppermost thought is not the secular, but the ecclesiastical character of such cities. In Dr. Barrow's reference to S. Cyprian, it is clear from the subject-matter of his epistle, sufficiently detailed in the context, that he was not thinking of Imperial Rome, but of Rome, as that Chief Church, which Novatus conspired to overthrow. So far, then, from S. Cyprian supporting Dr. Barrow, his writings witness most mercilessly against him. The reader will not forget all that this Saint has said respecting the position and dignity of S. Peter; how that on him the Lord "built his Church," on whom "He laid and founded the Church;" "having founded” it “first and alone upon him, "for an original and principle of unity;" "from whom He appointed, and showed that unity should spring," so much so, "that that same unity" begins from one " (Peter); to whom Christ delivered the keys, "that that should be loosed in heaven which (Peter) should have loosed on earth,” and “to whom the Lord commended His sheep to be fed and guarded." And it will not have slipped the reader's memory

S

66

that S. Cyprian had declared as plainly as language can express, that "the Chair is one," "for," said he, "God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair one, founded by the Lord's Word upon a Rock," which Rock is S. Peter, for he again says, "herself (the Mother Church) having been founded first and alone by the voice of the Lord upon Peter." The reader will further call to mind that S. Cyprian, in consequence of S. Peter having come to Rome, and erected there his Chair-that one Chair" just alluded to-speaks of Rome as "the Place of Peter," where is the Chair of Peter to which is attached "the rank or grade of the sacerdotal Chair." Will any one, then, in the face of this language, presume to say that the "Principal Church" derived its dignity from Imperial Rome, and not from the "Chair of Peter," from the "Rank or Grade" of him who sat in "the Apostolic Chair," and from Rome, as the conquered city of S. Peter, who made it his "Place," and raised it to a far higher rank, position, and power than it ever had before; viz., as the Capital and the Metropolis of the Universal Empire of the great King of kings and Lord of lords?

2. The next authority Dr. Barrow advances is that of S. Irenæus. Thus he quotes and comments upon him : "To this Church, it is necessary that every Church (that is, the faithful who are all about) should resort, because of its more powerful principality; what is meant by that resort, will be easy to him who considereth how men here are wont to go up to London, drawn thither by interests of trade, law, &c. What he did understand by more powerful principality, the words themselves do signify, which exactly do agree to the power and grandeur of the imperial city, but do not well suit to the authority of a church; especially then when no church did appear to have either principality or puissance. And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context, wherein it doth appear, that S. Irenæus doth not allege the judicial authority of the Roman Church, but its credible testimony, which thereby became more considerable, because Christians commonly had occasions of recourse to it." (Supp., p. 231.) In order to perceive S. Irenæus's meaning, let us have before us the whole passage, "But as it would be a very long task to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who . . . . assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say) by indicating the tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; and also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession of the Bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree (or assemble) with this (the Roman) Church on account of its Pre-eminent Authority (or, its more Powerful or Superior Principality); that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the Apo stolical tradition has been preserved by those who exist everywhere." Now after forcing the above passage to the utmost, how can it be said that the words, "a more Powerful Principality," "exactly do agree to the power and grandeur of the imperial city?" On what grounds does Dr. Barrow say, that they “do not well suit to the authority of a church; especially

then when no church did appear to have either principality or puissance?" But surely Dr. Barrow has got himself here into a net from which he cannot disentangle himself. If the Church in the time of S. Irenæus had no "principality for puissance" (he using these words according to their political significance), how can these words, "more Powerful Principality," "exactly agree to the power and grandeur of the Imperial city?" It is not to be supposed that Dr. Barrow understood S. Irenæus to be counselling an appeal to pagan Rome, and yet if the Roman Church was not a Principality at all, then the Principality alluded to must be that of the city itself, that is, Pagan Rome.

The truth is, that Dr. Barrow's whole idea of a principality is that of a mere earthly power. The habit of his mind is to regard a Church in no other light than an Established Church, like that of England, whose only principality consists of the grandeur and position accorded to it by the Crown and State. Consequently, he conceives that when the Fathers use the word "Principality," in reference to the Roman Church, they mean the mere political or secular position of that Church, as the established Church of the Imperial city. He does not seem to notice the fact that there are Principalities and Powers which are not of this earth; that there are some in the heavenly places, composed of the Angelic Hierarchy, and some in the infernal regions, consisting of devils and evil spirits. He seems to have forgotten, so Establishmentarian are his ideas, that Christ our Lord, in total disregard of the Emperor of Rome, founded on earth one great Universal Spiritual Empire, which he divided into Twelve Princedoms, giving to each of the twelve Apostles a Throne, from which they were to judge the twelve portions of the Spiritual Israel. These Principalities owed their existence to no imperial edict; though on the earth, they were not of the earth; they formed together the Kingdom of God among men. They may, indeed, resemble, by their power and grandeur, earthly powers, but in truth they are the similitudes of the celestial powers, whom earthly empires and kingdoms strive to copy and emulate. Now Dr. Barrow is quite right when he asserts that in the time of S. Irenæus "no Church did appear to have either principality or puissance," i.e. a “principality or puissance" similar to the power and grandeur of the Imperial city. But according to S. Irenæus, the Church of Rome was a Principality, and that a Superior or more Powerful one. If it was not a secular principality, what was it? Assuredly a purely spiritual one, derived from no earthly source whatever. What, then, was its source? S. Irenæus informs us, viz., "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul;" and then, after a few words, he adds, "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree (or assemble) with this Church, on account of its Pre-eminent authority (or its more Powerful or superior Principality)." Where, then, is the true source of the greatness of the Principality of the Roman Church? Is it Imperial Rome? Certainly not. Where then? In her foundation by S. Peter and S. Paul, the former being the Head of the Brotherhood, the Source of unity and communion; and the latter the Apostle of the Uncircumcision: who together, united all their authorities, and made the

66

Roman Church a more Powerful Principality," by the tradition of which heresies may be refuted, heretics exposed, schismatic assemblies denounced, and the faithful everywhere protected.

3. The learned Doctor next appeals to the Council of Chalcedon : he says, "This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all ancient synods, that of Chalcedon, did affirm the Papal eminency to be founded; for, To the throne, say they, of ancient Rome, because that was the royal city, the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges; the fountain of papal eminence was in their judgment not any divine institution, not the authority of St. Peter deriving itself to his successors; but the concession of the Fathers, who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the imperial city.” (Supp., p. 232.) I have already shown, under the Section "Testimony of Councils," the distinction between the dignity of the Pope as the Successor of S. Peter and the privileges granted him by reason of his being the Prelate of the Imperial City. The reader is referred to my observations on this point (see supra, pp. 197-202). What I am now more concerned with is the flagrant dishonesty of this appeal to the Council of Chalcedon, the testimony of which, in favour of the Supremacy of the Holy See, by virtue of its having been the See of Peter, is overwhelming and exhaustive. Let the reader re-peruse the extracts taken from the acts of that Council, and then ask himself whether Dr. Barrow is correct when he says, "that the fountain of Papal eminency was, in their judgment not any Divine institution, not the authority of St. Peter deriving itself to his successors, but the concession of the Fathers, who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the imperial city?” Why did not Dr. Barrow put before his innocent readers the Synodical Epistle of that Council requesting the Pope to confirm not only the decrees, but this very canon he has referred to? Why did he not at least give them the following extracts from this Synodical Epistle: "Which (ie. the Divine doctrine) like to a golden chain, coming even unto us by the precept of the Lawgiver, thou (Leo) hast preserved, being the constituted Interpreter to all of the voice of the blessed Peter." "Over and above these outrages, he (Dioscorus) extended his madness against him (Leo) to whom the care of the Vineyard has been committed by the Saviour, that is, against your Apostolic Holiness." . . . Over whom (ie. the Synod) thou didst Preside, as the Head over the members." "We confirmed, then, the canon of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople, which ordained that the Bishop of that city should have privileges of honour after your most holy and Apostolic Chair, in the conviction that, as you dispose of your favours without any invidious feeling towards your brethren, so you would extend your wonted care to the Church of Constantinople, and enlighten it with your Apostolic ray. Deign, therefore, most holy and blessed Father, to allow our decision. Honour thou, we pray you, our judgment with your Decree, that as we have been united to our Head in agreeing upon what was right, so the Head, too, may confirm the becoming act of the children. So will our pious Princes be pleased, who have ratified as a law whatever your Holiness has determined." See Labbé. S. Concil. T. iv. col. 1774-79. In face, then, of this Synodical Epistle, what becomes of the force of this

66