St. Peter, His Name and His Office Part 22

Accordingly an inst.i.tution established by such a union of proof, carries prisoner the a.s.sent. It may indeed be disregarded by a resolution of the _will_, but can neither be pa.s.sed by, nor refuted, by a judgment of the _reason_.

And[18] having on the one hand this vast amount of _positive_ proof, from sources so various, in its behalf, so that without it the whole Christian history of eighteen centuries, in all its manifold blendings with secular history, becomes unintelligible, a snarl which it is impossible to arrange, when we come on the other hand to consider what its opponents allege of _positive_ on their own side, we find nothing. They content themselves with objections to this or that detached point, with historical difficulties, and obscurations of the full proof, such, for instance, as the conduct of S. Cyprian in one controversy, the occasional resistance of a metropolitan, the secular instinct of an imperial government stirring up eastern bishops to revolt, and fostering an Erastian spirit in the Church, the ambition of thoroughly bad men, such as Acacius or Photius, and the like. But what we may fairly ask of opponents, and what we never find the most distant approach to in them is, if, as they say, S. Peter's Primacy be not legitimate, and inst.i.tuted by Christ for the government of the Church, what _counter system_ have they, which they can prove by ancient doc.u.ments, and whereby they can solve the manifold facts of history? In all their arguments against the Primacy they are so absolutely _negative_, that the grand result, if they were successful, would be to reduce the Church to a heap of ruins, to show that she, who is entrusted with the authoritative teaching of the world, has no internal coherence either of government or doctrine, in fact, no message from G.o.d 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 h.e.l.l 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 G.o.d: the promised unity he has scattered to the winds: the doctrine of truth he has utterly corrupted: the charity wherewith Christians loved one another he has turned into gall and wormwood. That is, the opponents of S. Peter's Primacy are one and all simply _destructives_; they inspire despair, and are the pioneers of infidelity, but are utterly powerless to build up. Ask the Anglican what is the source of spiritual jurisdiction, and the bond of the episcopate which he affects to defend? _He makes no reply._ All he can say is, it is _not_ S.

Peter. Ask the Greek, if bishops and patriarch disagree, and come to opposite judgments on the faith, or to schisms in communion, which party make the Church? _He has no solution to offer_, save that it is _not_ the party which sides with S. Peter's successor. Ask the pure Protestant, who maintains the sole authority of the written word, if you disagree about the meaning of Scripture in points which you admit to touch salvation, who is to determine what is the true meaning of the word of G.o.d? _He has nothing to reply_, save that he is sure it is _not_ the Pope. Contrast, then, on the one side, a complete coherent system, fully delineated and set forth in the Bible, attested by the Fathers, corroborated by a.n.a.logy, 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 a.n.a.logy violated, history thrown into hopeless confusion, and to crown the whole, Holy Scripture incessantly appealed to, yet its plainest declarations recklessly disregarded, and its most consoling promises utterly evacuated. Choose, upon this, between _within_ and _without_.

II. But such being the argument for the Primacy _of itself_ and _absolutely_, look at it now in a _comparative_ point of view with other doctrines. Let us ask Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, respectively, to compare it in order with the proofs with which they, each in behalf of his own sect, defend either the authority of bishops, and their distinction from presbyters, as inst.i.tuted by Christ, or the real presence of the Lord's body in the Eucharist, or the divine nature of Christ, and His consubstantiality with the Father. Can they state, upon a comparison of these, that there are _more_ testimonies of Holy Scripture in behalf of these latter doctrines than for the Primacy of Peter? As for the articles of the real presence, and the superiority of bishops, this cannot be a.s.serted with any show of truth, since in behalf of both there are undoubtedly fewer. Certainly there are a great number for the divinity of Christ, yet not much less are those which the same Scriptures contain in support of Peter's Primacy. So that if the force of proof is to be judged of by the _number of texts_, that in behalf of the Primacy will either be preferred to the rest, or at least yield to none.

But I antic.i.p.ate the answer that it is not the number of texts which will decide the question, but their perspicuity and evidence, which const.i.tute their force. To meet which objection I shall merely set these several parties against each other. What, then, do Lutherans think of the perspicuity of those texts by which Anglicans maintain the superiority of bishops over presbyters? They are unanimous in thinking them not merely most obscure, but absolutely foreign to the purpose for which they are cited. Just the same is the Calvinist opinion of the Lutheran proofs for the real presence, and the Socinian view of the texts alleged by Calvinists in behalf of Christ's divinity. Both obstinately refuse to admit that their opponents urge anything decisive. It would be easy to quote instances of this, if it was not notorious. It is, then, no unfair inference that Protestants have no particular reason to boast triumphantly of the perspicuity and evidence of the texts on which they severally rely.

But who, they retort, cannot see that the cause of the Primacy, which we defend, is far inferior? For our exposition is opposed not by one or two parties, but by them all in a ma.s.s, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and _all who are not Catholics_. The addition is significant, _all who are not Catholics_, for indeed all these, and these alone, are our opponents. Yet their very name creates the gravest prejudice against them, and shows them to be unworthy of attention. As S. Augustine said, "The Catholic Church is one, to which different heresies give various names, they themselves each possessing their own name, which they dare not refuse. Whence judges unaffected by partiality can form an opinion to whom the name of Catholic, which all aim at, ought to be given."[19] If, then, the name of Catholic is a note of truth, the negation of that name is a test of error and heresy. But no one will imagine that heretics, that is, the enemies of Christ and the Apostles, have a right to be followed in what concerns the doctrine of Christ, and the Apostolic inst.i.tutions. Thus what Tertullian said is to the point, "Though we had to search still and for ever, yet _where_ are we to search? Is it among heretics, where all is foreign and opposed to our own truth, whom we are not allowed to approach?[20] What servant expects food from a stranger, not to say an enemy of his lord? What soldier takes donative or pay from confederate, not to say from hostile kings, except he be an open deserter and rebel? Even the woman in the Gospel searched for her piece of silver within her own house.

Even he who knocked, struck the door of a friend.[21] Even the widow solicited a judge, who was hard indeed, but not her enemy. No one can be built up by the person who destroys him. No one be enlightened by one who shuts him up in darkness. Let us search then in our own, and from our own, and about our own, and only that which can be questioned without harm to the rule of faith."[22]

But if we look closer into the matter, we shall find that even in the interpretation of our texts Protestants are not so agreed with each other as uniformly to oppose us. Some of the greatest names amongst them, such as Camero, Grotius, Hammond, Leclerc, Dodwell, Michaelis, Rosenmuller, 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 p.r.o.nounce themselves guilty of the most groundless schism.

Therefore it is a matter of life and death with them to resist us.

_Secondly_, as they dissent from us, so do they desert that doctrine which the whole Christian body solemnly professed and defined before the sixteenth century in ec.u.menical 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 a.s.sistance this his apostolical church hath never turned aside from the path of truth to any error whatsoever; whose authority, as of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church at all times and the universal councils faithfully embracing, have in all respects followed, and all the venerable Fathers have entertained its apostolic doctrine; through which there have shone the most approved lights of the Church; which while the holy orthodox Fathers have venerated and followed, _heretics have pursued with false accusations, and calumnies inspired by hatred. This is the living tradition of Christ's Apostles, which His Church everywhere holds._"[23] We might imagine that Sir Thomas More had these words before his eyes when he answered Luther, "not only all that learned and holy men have collected to the point moves me to give willing obedience to that See, but especially what we have so often witnessed, that not only there never was an enemy to the Christian faith who did not at the same time declare war against that See, but also that there never has been one who professed himself an enemy of that See without shortly after declaring himself signally a capital foe and traitor of Christ and our religion.

Another thing, too, has great weight with me, that if, in this manner, the faults of individuals are laid to the charge of their office, all authority will collapse, and the people will be without ruler, law, or order. And if this ever happens, as it seems likely to happen in parts of Germany, at length they will learn to their cost how much more it is to the interest of society to have even bad rulers rather than none."[24]

Protestants, then, have many more opponents than we; to which we may add, _thirdly_, that we a.s.sert and maintain a doctrine which for several ages had no opponents worth mentioning, and which received a general belief and a.s.sent. 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 sanct.i.ty and learning; zeal in the guardianship of primeval tradition, hatred of profane novelties; and, lastly, the renown of those heavenly gifts, which cannot fail the true Church of Christ, and were ascribed to no other body.

But _fifthly_, it would be very apposite to compare the Catholic Church with herself, and contrast her state and condition in the nineteenth century with that same state and condition in the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth. Now who, in the fourth century, professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity? Well nigh Catholics alone, while innumerable sects of heretics opposed this doctrine. War to the knife was waged against it by Praxeans, Noetians, Sabellians, Paulianists, Arians, and their worst portion, the Anomaeans, Macedonians, and those who then made their appearance, Tritheists.

Again, in the fifth and the sixth centuries, who were they who retained the true faith in Christ the G.o.d-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 pa.s.s 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 doc.u.ments 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 a.s.sertions or denials of contesting parties ought not to be, and cannot be, the test of a cause's goodness, and of doc.u.mentary 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 a.s.signed, the two former of which are _immediate_ and _internal_, the third _internal_, but somewhat more remote; the fourth, _external_, but of great weight, and not to be overlooked. To speak of the former first; one of these is _verbal_, and belongs to the words and phrases of which the text consists; the other _real_, and regards the meaning of the sentence.

Indeed, no other sources of obscurity or of clearness can be imagined than either the _words_ which express the _matter_, or the _matter_ intended by the _words_. If both words and matter are plain, and perspicuous, the discourse will be clear, and the language distinct; but if either the matter exceed the power of reason, or the words do not run clear, or both these conspire, the evidence of the meaning will be more or less impaired.

I. Now, to begin with _words_, I shall not be severe, but allow to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that the texts alleged by each of them in behalf of his own cause consist of words which are either immediately perspicuous, or become mediately clear upon definite principles. But in turn I should ask them repeatedly to consider whether such a perspicuity can be denied to the words of which the texts cited for the Primacy of Peter consist. These words are in general and vulgar use, continually repeated in the Bible, but so connected together that their certain meaning is either immediately evident, or fixed with very little trouble. But are not most of them metaphorical, such as _rock_, _building_, _keys_, _binding_, _loosing_, _lambs_, _sheep_, _feeding_? Undoubtedly some are such, yet not that words used in their _proper_ sense are wanting, as when Peter is called _the first_, _the greater_, the _superior_; also when he is charged _to confirm his brethren_; and what we collect from the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, and the evangelists' mode of writing. Not, _secondly_, that it is not evident, from the connection of the discourse, what fixed and established meaning must be given to those metaphorical expressions.

Not, thirdly, that the meaning of those formulas is not shown by the exercise of the powers conferred in them. Not, fourthly, that there is any inability, if you remove the metaphor, to express in _proper_ words what the metaphor shadows out. Not, fifthly, as if the literal and immediate sense were therefore wanting; for it is very plain that the metaphorical[25] sense likewise is literal and immediate.

And sixthly, not that _metaphorical_ can be considered equivalent to _obscure_, for obscurity is most opposed to the very genius of metaphor, and such a canon would destroy the perspicuity of human language. For there is no language, ancient or modern, rude or polished, semitic, chamitic, or j.a.phetic, whose _metaphorical_ is not much more copious than its _proper_ vocabulary.

Metaphor, then, and obscurity are very far removed from each other, and there is nothing to prevent a metaphorical expression bearing the plainest sense. For such the sense will be, whenever what is called the _foundation_ of the metaphor is clear, and the series of the discourse indicates _the point of likeness_, and usage of speech unfolds _the force_ of the metaphor. Now all these conditions, which ensure perspicuity in the metaphor, are found in interpreting the metaphors which contain the singular prerogatives of Peter. For as it is perfectly plain whence the metaphors of _foundation_, _building_, _keys_, _binding_, _loosing_, _sheep_, _lambs_, _shepherd_, are drawn, so the context defines the point of similitude, and usage of speech does not allow ignorance of the force of such metaphors. And thus the texts on Peter's Primacy have a verbal perspicuity which will bear a favourable comparison with those texts, on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists rely. For indeed all the difficulties, in the invention of which Protestants have shown their ingenuity, are introduced, put upon the words, not drawn from them. So on the contrary, the haters of the Primacy evidently wince at their clearness.

2. _Verbal_ perspicuity is followed by _real_, or that which concerns the _subject matter_. And this, I a.s.sert, is far inferior, far more slender, in the above named Protestant controversies, than in this of the Catholics. Indeed, both the controversies, on the real presence and on the divinity of Christ, have a super-intelligible object, so far exceeding the natural power of reason, as to admit of the mind's conceiving it by a.n.a.logy, but not by a _distinct_ and _proper_ knowledge. For this is the nature of mysteries, whence it follows in them that neither single words have distinct notions, nor a whole proposition distinct sense. Whereas in the controversy about the Primacy, there is nothing which is not commensurate with reason, and which has not the advantage of proper and distinct notions. For, of revealed truths, some being _rational_, some _beyond_ reason, and some _above_ reason, the proper character of those which are called _beyond_ reason is, that, _if_ revealed, they are cognizable by reason. Now to such an order of truths the inst.i.tution of the Primacy belongs. Thus its _real_ evidence, that namely which concerns its _subject matter_, is much superior to that which the others admit of. But should we grant as much to the controversy in which Anglicans defend the superiority of bishops over presbyters? Grant this, yet still it remains that in this species of _real_ evidence the cause of the Primacy is far superior to that of the real presence, or that of the divinity of Christ.

But, in truth, the Anglican doctrine on bishops may be considered from two points of view, either as severed from the Catholic dogma on Peter's Primacy, or as in connexion and coherence with it. From the latter point of view I should admit it to be so agreeable to reason, that this power calls for it, and rests in it, when once illuminated by faith, so as to know, that is, the purpose of Christ that each particular Church should present the aspect of an united family. But sever this superiority of bishops over presbyters from the dogma of the Primacy, and inveigh as keenly against Peter's supremacy as you defend their presidency, which is what Anglicans do, and then I could only conclude that this doctrine is plainly contrary to reason instead of agreeing with it.

For whence do Anglicans deduce its agreement with reason? Hammond, Pearson, Beveridge, Bingham, and their other greater theologians, tell us that it follows very plainly, because we know that Christ carefully provided for the unity of particular Churches, which, they say, it seems impossible to obtain without the superior power of bishops. It is a good inference; but did Christ show less care for the unity of the whole Church than for that of particular Churches?

Who can seriously maintain this? For what is the unity recommended by Christ and so earnestly urged by the Apostles, save that of the whole Church? And when we acknowledge in the creed _one_ Church, do we mean a particular or the universal Church? We mean that which we also acknowledge to be Catholic, and therefore the unity is that of the Catholic Church. And therefore it was Christ's intention, and His certain will, that not only particular Churches, but the universal body of the Church, should possess the test and the dower of unity. And this Anglican notion, which denies of the universal Church, what it affirms of particular Churches, may suit very well an island, holding itself aloof from the rest of the world, but it is quite incompatible with the radical idea of the kingdom of Christ.

Moreover, if it was necessary for the production and maintenance of unity in particular Churches to set bishops over them, with authority superior to that of presbyters; if reason demands that it being Christ's will for particular Churches to live in unity, He should likewise have inst.i.tuted the power which distinguishes bishops from presbyters; can we suppose either that it was not necessary for the production and maintenance of unity in the Catholic Church, to commit its government to an universal superior, or that reason does not _equally_ require, that Christ, who enjoined the Catholic Church to maintain unity, should have inst.i.tuted the universal Pastor? Nay, as the necessity is not equal on the two sides, but so much stronger on the side of unity in the _Catholic_ Church, as it is more difficult to hold together in one an innumerable than a limited number, men scattered over the globe than men within a narrow region, nations differing in genius, habits, and laws, than those who resemble each other in these; so reason, which for particular Churches requires their respective bishops, _much more_ requires the inst.i.tution of a _universal_ superior, lest the end should appear to have been devised without the means, and the divine work of Christ be deficient in wisdom. What, then, are Anglicans about in dividing these two doctrines, and contending for the inst.i.tution of bishops, while they obstinately deny the inst.i.tution 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 a.s.sault and even overthrow the very dogma from which they take their name of episcopalians. Accordingly the evidence derived from the _subject matter_ is much clearer in those texts which are alleged for Peter's Primacy, than in those by which the superiority of bishops over presbyters, the real presence, and the divine person of Christ, are proved.

Now the force of demonstration derived from doc.u.ments corresponds to the sum of _verbal_ and _real_ evidence in the texts, being greater or less as this is stronger or weaker. In other words, the force of demonstration belongs to that cla.s.s of evidence which mathematicians call _direct_. But both these sorts of evidence exist in the same, or even in a fuller degree, in those texts which concern the Primacy, and set forth its divine inst.i.tution. Accordingly the force of demonstration for the Primacy is equal or superior to that belonging to the arguments which prove the superiority of bishops, the real presence, and Christ's divine person. Yet these arguments have such force, that the articles which they prove cannot, in the opinion of Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, be questioned without incurring the deepest guilt of heresy. We have, then, the same or even a stronger reason to affirm that the Primacy of Peter, resting on the same, or even a stronger, evidence, as _revealed_, cannot be denied without heresy.

And this is a corollary which I would entreat Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, carefully to consider, and then say whether they are consistent; for then I feel a.s.sured they would become discontented with themselves, by reflecting that, in the choice of the articles which they hold, they are not following the clearness of revelation, but party spirit and factious prejudices. What satisfactory answer can they ever return to the Catholic who asks why they, who on equal or less evidence defend the superiority of bishops, deny the Primacy which rests on similar or greater proof? Or why they attack the Primacy, while they defend the real presence, or the divinity of Christ, which are supported by no more evident arguments? And how will they satisfy their own conscience, should this thought ever cross them, "Why do I at one time obey, at another time resist, the same evidence of revelation?" That same faith with which they severally believe the divine appointment of bishops, the real presence, and the consubstantiality of Christ, compels them, if they would maintain consistency, and not repel conviction, to confess the Primacy of Peter.

And this argument might be carried much further, if they would reflect how great is the brilliancy of evidence in behalf of the Primacy, compared with sundry other capital Christian doctrines, some or all of which they hold without question: such are the consubstantiality of the Trinity, the unity of Christ's Person, the propagation of original sin, the eternity of punishment, regeneration in baptism, and gratuitous justification. They will find, on reflection, that they hold these doctrines not because they are proved by stronger scriptural evidence than the Primacy, for quite the reverse is the truth, nor because they are encompa.s.sed 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, a.n.a.logical, and historical, which last alone comprehends the fourteen heads above enumerated, with the same evidence in behalf of any or all of those, and they cannot but admit its great superiority.

3. But we must proceed to the _third_ criterion, which increases not a little the evidence from revelation for the Primacy. For Catholics and Protestants are agreed in considering _a.n.a.logy_ as one of the best helps in interpretation, and in a.s.signing to it the force of a real parallelism, a proceeding which rests on the necessity of the Scripture presenting one whole and harmonious body of doctrine in its several parts. And in order not to deprive this help of its efficacy, both parties give two conditions for its exercise, the first, _that no sense be put upon pa.s.sages of Scripture contrary to a.n.a.logy_; the second, _that no violence be used to the language of Scripture to conform it with a.n.a.logy, which would be imposing on holy writ the sense wanted from it_. These two faults carefully avoided, a.n.a.logy 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 a.n.a.logy? Such, indeed, there is, very remarkable, and threefold in character. The first point is found in the texts[26] which regard the divine inst.i.tution 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 inst.i.tution of bishops, for _the parts_, but none, by the inst.i.tution of a supreme pastor, for _the whole body_, which is to be one and Catholic? Therefore, that exposition of the texts concerning Peter, which exhibits him as ruler of the Church universal, and as made to be the visible cause of that same Catholic unity, so admirably agrees with a.n.a.logy, that it must be considered unquestionable, unless texts contradictory to it can be produced. But so far is it from the case that texts _considered in themselves_ contradict it, that, on the contrary, they _immediately_ express it _of themselves_, and can be distorted from it only by violating all the laws of interpretation. Accordingly, that view of the texts about Peter, which establishes his Primacy, is wonderfully confirmed by a.n.a.logy, and by its harmony with what the Scriptures tell us of the Church, as inst.i.tuted by Christ.

4. And nothing will be wanting to give full a.s.surance to this confirmation, if we add the _fourth or external_ criterion, that derived from consent of witnesses. I am not going to urge here the divine force and infallible authority of Christian tradition: I shall merely allege what no person of discretion can deny or question. The first point is, that in the actual controversy the testimony of the most ancient witnesses cannot be disregarded: and the second, that it carries the very strongest prejudice in favour of whichever interpretation it supports.

Now here we have to do first, with the interpretation of a series of dogmatic texts; and, secondly, with a point of doctrine, which, being of the utmost moment, could not be unknown to any one. But are these matters on which ancient witnesses, such as the Christian Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers, can be safely past by unheard?

If it were a matter of geography, chronology, or archaeology, one might allow it, though with regret: but this is out of the question, in a matter of dogmatic texts, and those relating to a most important doctrine. For notorious is the zeal with which the ancient Fathers laboured to preserve and interpret the dogmatic texts of Scripture. We know their care to prevent the introduction of new and false interpretations, and new and false doctrines thence arising.

And we know that, together with the Scriptures, they received from the Apostolic teaching the kindred power of interpreting them. For, as Origen remarked, "Since there are many who think that they believe what is of Christ, and some of them believe what is different from those before them, yet, since the preaching of the Church is preserved, as handed down by the order of succession from the Apostles, and to the present day abiding in the Church, that verity alone is to be believed, which in nothing is discordant from the ecclesiastical and Apostolical tradition."[29]

Moreover, can it seem safe to enter upon a track most divergent from that which the Apostles marked out, and the Christian people constantly followed? S. Paul[30] taught us to listen to witnesses, and Christendom, whether a.s.sembled 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 Ca.s.sian,[34]

Theodoret,[35] Augustine,[36] Jerome,[37] Epiphanius,[38] Basil,[39]

Origen,[40] Tertullian,[41] Clement[42] of Alexandria, and the oldest of all, Irenaeus,[43] who says, "The true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the Church in the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ, according to the succession of bishops, by which they handed down the Church, which is in every place, which hath reached even to us, being guarded without fiction, _with a most full interpretation of the Scriptures_, admitting neither addition nor subtraction, and the reading without falsification, and legitimate and diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, without danger, and without blasphemy, and the chief gift of charity, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, more eminent than all graces." For, as he says elsewhere, "We ought to learn the truth, where the gifts of the Lord are placed; among whom is that succession of the Church, which is from the Apostles, sound and irreproachable conversation, and discourse unadulterated and incorrupt. For these maintain that faith of ours in one G.o.d, who made all things: these increase that love towards the Son of G.o.d, 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 ill.u.s.trations of Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Meuschen? or who does not at least make much of the commentaries of Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Jarchi, and others, in the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures?

They all see the advantage of approaching such sources of information, and using them for their own purpose. But are we to refuse to the Fathers, and ancient doctors of the Church the deference which we allow to Rabbins and Thalmudists? This is at least a reason for hearing the testimony of the Fathers.

And if it be concordant, constant, and universal, it most powerfully recommends that scriptural interpretation, which agrees with it. In this, all Catholics without exception, and the most judicious and learned Protestants, are agreed. In good truth, it would be incredible that an interpretation could be false, which was adopted unanimously by the Fathers of every age and country. And it ought to be as incredible to find any one so conceited, as not to be greatly moved by the witness and consent of Christian antiquity.

One point of enquiry remains, whether the Fathers have given their opinion, and that unanimously, on Peter and the texts, which relate to him. But their words[44] inserted in the foregoing pages entirely terminate this controversy, and show that they were all of the mind expressed by Gregory the Great, in these words, which, it is well to remember, were directed to the supreme civil authority of those days, for he tells the emperor:

"To all who know the Gospel, it is manifest that the charge of the whole Church was entrusted by the voice of the Lord to the holy Apostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said, 'Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' To him is said, 'Behold, Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, one day, in turn, confirm thy brethren.' To him is said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,' &c. Lo, he hath received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is given to him, the care and the chiefship of the whole Church is committed to him."[45]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The following chapter is translated from Pa.s.saglia, Pp. 339-360.

[2] This is not said as _limiting_ revelation to such points, but to exhibit the scope of the present work, which uses testimony merely as a human, though very important, support of the cause.

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

[4] The Apostles' contest about "the greater," the distinction between the founder, and the visible head of the Church, and for false interpretations, the primacy of mere precedency, the perversion of John xxi. 15-20, the a.s.sertion of Apostolic equality, and Gal. i 18-20.

[5] Interroga igitur, si quid veritatis cupis audire, princ.i.p.aliter sedis Apostolicae antist.i.tem, cujus sana doctrina constat judicio veritatis, et fulcitur munimine auctoritatis. Ferrandus in Epist. ad Severum.

[6] Socrates, Hist. L. 2, c. 8-17. Sozomen, hist. L. 3, c. 10.

[7] In fragm. epist. apud Baluzium, Miscell. Lib. 5, p. 467.

[8] Ferrandus in litteris ad Pelagium.

[9] Mansi. Tom. 8, 54, 34.

[10] Avitus, Epist. 36.

[11] Gelasius, Epist. 4, ad Faustum. Mansi. 8, 17.

[12] Mansi. Tom. xi. 184.

[13] See Peter Ballerini, de potestate ecclesiastica, cap. 1, -- 1-6.