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 inquiry, then, into the proof itself I consider due not only to myself and my readers, but to a cause, which requires the utmost attention as being of the highest importance, and the source of the deepest dissensions; for it is not too much to say that the origin of all those divisions which we see and lament in the Christian name may be referred to the reception or the denial of this doctrine concerning the Primacy.

Now we shall best reach the subject by first considering the inherent force of the proof in itself, and absolutely, and then comparatively with those arguments to which the most distinguished Protestant sects ascribe a full and complete demonstrative power.

I. First, then, as to the force of proof absolutely. We must reflect that two conditions complete a proof derived from documents; first, the authenticity of the document; secondly, either the immediate and unquestionable evidence of the testimonies quoted from it, or their meaning being rendered certain by argument. If these two conspire, nothing is wanting to produce assurance. Now, as to the documents, whence our proof is derived, no Christian doubts their authenticity; and as to the testimonies drawn from them, part' belong to a class of such evidence as to admit of no doubt; and part, being equally clear and marked in themselves,

3 The texts relating to the Primacy, the Evangelists' mode of writing, that of S. Luke in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, and that of S. Paul.

The Apostles' contest about "the greater," the distinction between the founder, and the visible head of the Church, and for false

have had to be defended from false interpretations. Accordingly, our proof is peremptory in both particulars.

Moreover, our proof was not restricted to one or two passages of holy Scripture, but extended over a great series, all tending to support and consolidate the argument. We have set forth, not a naked institution of the Primacy, but multifold foreshadowings and promises of it, its daily operation and notoriety. From its first anticipation we went on to its progressively clearer expression, its promise, its institution, its exercise, and the everywhere diffused knowledge of it in the primitive Church. So far, then, as I see, nothing more can, with reason, be asked, to remove all doubt as to Peter's prerogative of Primacy; for, when the bestowal of certain privileges can be proved by documents, all question as to their existence is terminated. But here we find in documents, not their bestowal merely, but antecedents and consequences, a beginning, a progress, and a manifold explanation, which stand to the Primacy as signs to the thing signified.

Accordingly, the demonstration which we have given of the Primacy, considered in itself, and absolutely, needs nothing to challenge assent.

For, suppose it disputed whether 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;

interpretations, the primacy of mere precedency, the perversion of John xxi. 15-20, the assertion of Apostolic equality, and Gal. i. 18—

20.

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 Scripture the steps by which he rose to the Primacy, the time when he received it, how he exercised it, and the lucid testimonies to it which he received from Christ, the Evangelists, the Apostolic Church, and Paul. Accordingly, his Primacy and supreme authority among the Apostles rests on a proof which gives complete assurance, and challenges assent. It is a consequence deduced, not from a single, but from manifold inference; not merely drawn from results, but foreseen in its causes; declared not merely in the words of institution, but in the very acts of its exercise; supported not only by sundry texts, but by a cloud of conspiring witnesses; proved by an interpretation, not obscure, and far-fetched, but clear and obvious. A thing of such a nature it is folly to deny and temerity to doubt.

But, further, reflect on the other arguments which come in collaterally to support that from the Holy Scriptures. Then it will be found that our proof consists in the harmonious concurrence of these four sources, 1. the authentic scriptural documents distinctly setting forth the promises, the bestowal, the exercise, and the everywhere diffused knowledge of the Primacy: 2. witnesses the most ancient, well nigh coeval with the Apostles, of great number, renowned for their

holiness, or their martyrdom, excellent in learning, far removed from each other in situation, faithful maintainers of the Apostolic teaching, who, with one mouth, acknowledge the Primacy: 3. the analogy of doctrines, for the Church, which we profess to be one, and Catholic, can neither exist, nor even be conceived as such, without the Primacy: 4. the facts of Christian history, which are so entwined with the institution of the Primacy, that they cannot be even contemplated without it. For there are no less than fourteen distinct classes of facts in Christian history, all of which bear witness to the Primacy, and which cannot be studied without coming across that power. Such are, 1. the history of heresies, where, in ancient times alone, consider the acts and statutes of Pope Dionysius, in the causes of Paul of Samosata, and Dionysius of Alexandria; of Popes Sylvester and Julius, in the cause of Arius; of Pope Damasus, in that of Apollinarius; of Popes Innocent and Zosimus, in that of Pelagius; of Pope Celestine, in that of Nestorius; and of Pope Leo, in that of Eutyches; so that Ferrandus 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,

Interroga igitur, si quid veritatis cupis audire, principaliter sedis Apostolicæ antistitem, cujus sana doctrina constat judicio veritatis, et fulcitur munimine auctoritatis. Ferrandus in Epist. ad Severum.

"All believers in the world understand, that whoso-
ever, 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, that an ecclesias-
tical Canon had always been in force, "that the
Churches should not pass Canons contrary to the de-
cision of the bishop of Rome," which Pope Pelagius
in the sixth century thus expressed, "the right of call-
ing 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 con-
firmed 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." 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.,

• Socrates, Hist. 1. 2, c. 8-17. Sozomen, Hist. 1. 3, c. 10.
7 In Fragm. Epist. apud Baluzium, Miscell. lib. 5,
p. 467.

8 Ferrandus in Litteris ad Pelagium.