THE PRIMACY.

CHAPTER I.

Nature of the Primacy.

THE first question which presents itself to the mind in reference to the important subject of the Church, is, whether Christ our Lord formed the multitude of His followers into a society, and appointed officers to govern them. There are many at the present day, who confidently answer in the negative, contending that He left it entirely optional with believers in His doctrine, to associate under whatsoever form they pleased for the furtherance of the great objects of His divine mission.* It may appear strange, that this can be maintained by any who admit the Scriptures, which testify, so clearly, the appointment by Christ of teachers and rulers, with a perpetual commission: but it is scarcely so surprising as that some should hold that Christ did organize His Church, and yet deny the main principle of her organization, which is unity, by the government of one man, as the Scriptures no less clearly attest. The fact that Christ appeared on earth as Supreme Teacher, invested with all power and authority, should prepare us for a state of Christian society, in which ONE should hold His place, exercising, by delegation, those powers which He inherently possessed. That such a social form is best adapted to the great ends of revelation, reason itself must convince us, since in order to diffuse and preserve the revealed doctrines, it must be of the highest importance to have a chief depositary and supreme guardian, from whose chair of instruction the voice of truth may issue to the farthest extremities of the earth. The union of believers can best be promoted by a central authority divinely established and protected; and the perpetuity of the Church, which without unity is impossible, can thus be secured. In every form of civil government, however limited may be its sphere of action, unity is necessarily sought by means of a supreme magistrate, with such limitations of his power as the genius of the people may require. The existence of such an officer in the Church is the more necessary, inasmuch as she is composed of an endless variety of nations, who could not unite in one society, unless by means : f

See "The Church Member's Manual," by William Crowell. Boston, 1852.

a general head.* She has been often styled "a masterpiece of human policy," because she is so constituted as to resist the many assaults made on her from without, and to be uninjured by the conflict of internal elements. Her strength and power must be ascribed to her unity, which conservative and vital principle of her organization she owes to her Divine Founder. In leaving her a visible head to govern in His Name, He left her the pledge of His own perpetual presence, in virtue of which she repels every attack, and remains secure of victory over all her foes. No greater evidence of His divinity is needed to confound the unbeliever, than the fact that He so framed His Church as to ensure her perpetual duration, whilst every human institution, howsoever wisely planned and powerfully sustained, after temporary prosperity, more or less rapidly dissolves. Apart from positive evidence, we may infer the divine institution of the primacy, from the fact that it effectually tends to unite the followers of Christ in an unbroken and invincible phalanx. That which makes the Church one, and renders her superior to all the efforts of her enemies, is surely not a device of human policy, but the institution of Divine Wisdom.

I would not, however, confine the investigation of the primacy to abstract reasoning. It is a matter of fact, and therefore to be established by positive evidence. The New Testament, as far as it is a record of the institutions of Christ, and of their practical development, presents historical proof to all who regard it as a purely human composition, and divine testimony to such as recognise its inspiration. In an inquiry like the present, the obvious meaning of the words, as gathered from the context, and illustrated by parallel passages, may be fairly urged in proof; and where discrepancy of sentiment exists in regard to the interpretation, the unbiassed judgment of the ancient Christian writers may be justly appealed to. The monuments of antiquity, which attest the actual government of the Church in the early ages, should be examined, in order to ascertain what was believed and acknowledged to be the authority left by Christ for that purpose: since the ancient general and constant persuasion of all Christians, on a matter of public polity, and daily practice, must be held sacred, according to the celebrated axiom of Vincent of Lerins, which is consonant with common sense: Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.

Whosoever assails the actual government of the Church must be prepared to prove that it is essentially different from the original design, as delineated by its Divine Founder.† The presumption is in favor of that

The reader will find this, and other arguments, ably presented by the Bishop of Louisville, in his admirable "Lectures on the General Evidences of Catholicity." Lecture x.

For the full development of the presumptive argument, and the complete exposure of the fallacies of Anglican and Episcopalian theories on this point, I beg to refer to "Reasons for Acknowledging the Authority of the Holy Roman See, by Henry Major, late a Clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church." Philadelphia, 1846.

which is established, because it is reasonable to suppose that its claims had been thoroughly examined before they were acknowledged. If the opponent himself had previously recognised the authority, he is still more evidently bound to show cause, why he now seeks to discard it, his arguments being unworthy of attention until all suspicion of improper motives is removed. Luther, after loud protestations of unreserved submission, rose in revolt against the Papal power, when his resentment had been provoked by the condemnation of his errors. Henry VIII. shook off the Papal yoke, when it galled him; the Pontiff refusing to minister to his passions, by divorcing his lawful queen, that he might take an adulteress to his bed. Long before the appearance of the apostate monk, or of the licentious despot, Photius, in the ninth century, assailed the Roman primacy; but only after the Pontiff had resisted his usurpation of the patriarchal chair, to the injury of the rightful occupant, Ignatius. The motives of these opponents of Rome were unquestionably suspicious. Hence the arguments, by which they attempted to disprove the divine origin of the primacy, were to be received with caution and distrust. It should be presumed that an authority which existed in the ninth, as well as in the sixteenth century, and which was opposed by men under the influence of passion, was still more ancient, nay, coeval with Christianity itself. If, as we go back to the earliest times, we meet instances of its exercise in every age, the presumption is strong that it existed then, substantially the same as when it was afterward assailed by ambitious, restless, or licentious men. In the scarcity of ancient documents, and in the obscurity in which the persecutions of the early ages necessarily involved the constitution and internal administration of the Church, it is unreasonable to expect the same degree of evidence of the exercise of power by her officers, as in later times, of which fuller records are possessed, and in which her action was less controlled. "So long as the Church," observes Mr. Allies, " was engaged in a fierce and unrelenting conflict with the Paganism and despotism of the empire, she could hardly exhibit to the world her complete outward organization."* It is reasonable to infer that her government was in substance the same previously, as in the fifth and fourth ages, unless there be conclusive evidence to the contrary. Those who deny the primacy to be an original principle of Church organization, in vain object the insufficiency of the proofs of its operation in the early ages. In order to meet the abundant evidence of its powerful activity at a subsequent period, they should show the time in which it was first established, the means used for its introduction, and explain how it happened that it met with no opposition, or that such opposition was unsuccessful.

Some of the Pontifical acts which I shall have occasion to enumerate, might be referred to mere patriarchal jurisdiction; but the attentive reader

"The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism, by Thomas William Allies, Rector of Launton, Oxon.," p. 15.

will perceive, that they all presuppose the divine institution of the primacy, and the authority of the Bishop of Rome as derived from St. Peter. The proofs here furnished cannot then be eluded, merely by saying, that many of them are explicable on the patriarchal theory: for we must examine whether the Pontiffs rested their claims on this ground, or on the divine commission; and whether the bishops submitted to them on principles of ecclesiastical economy, or in obedience to a divine mandate, which they believed to be delivered in the Gospel. To invent a theory, is not sufficient; we must inquire into a fact, whether the power exercised by the Bishop of Rome throughout the Western patriarchate, as well as in the East, was professedly grounded on the commission given to the apostle, whose chair he occupied. If continual reference be made to this commission in all the documents which have come down from those times, it is in vain to say that the same acts might have been performed in virtue of conventional arrangements, since they actually proceeded from a higher

source.

The attempt is vainly made to distinguish the primacy from the supremacy, and by the admission of the former to elude the evidences by which the claims of the Roman Pontiff are supported. Primacy of jurisdiction implies supremacy, since it is a real governing power, extending over the whole Church, as appears from the definition of the Council of Florence: "We define that the holy Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff holds the primacy throughout the entire world, and that the said Roman Pontiff is the successor of the blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in the person of blessed Peter, full power was given by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule and govern the Universal Church, as is also contained in the acts of oecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."*

Those who live under republican institutions are naturally prejudiced against an authority which resembles a monarchy, inasmuch as one man, as vicegerent of Christ, governs the Universal Church. I will not insist here on the fact that he is an elective ruler, chosen from the body of cardinals, whose office is not hereditary, but the reward of distinguished merit; neither will I dwell on the limitations of pontifical power arising from the nature of the doctrines and laws of Christ, of which His earthly representative cannot change an iota; still less will I plead the practical limitations which may arise from canonical enactments, national usages, and established precedents. A power in things spiritual which affects conscience alone, cannot be arbitrary and despotic, being an emanation from the power of Christ, and dependent for its successful exercise on the voluntary submission of those whom it regards. It is necessary, however, to approach the examination of this subject with a mind prepared

*Conc. Flor., collat. xxii., p. 985. V. ix. col. Hard.

to embrace the authority which Christ has established, without regard to our political prejudices, or national predilections. We are not allowed to model His Church according to our views; we must accept her as she was framed by Him, who has done all things well, and whose providence, watches over His institutions, that they may be channels of grace and blessing to mankind. I shall not attempt to present any qualified view of pontifical power calculated to win popular favor, or hesitate to admit the rather invidious terms by which it is commonly designated. Let the constitution of the Church be styled monarchical; provided it be well understood that Christ is the sovereign, whose mild authority must be reflected in the government of His earthly representative. Let her aristocratic character be admitted; but with the just observation, that in her, birth or wealth gives no title of nobility, since her princes are chosen indiscriminately from all classes, wherever virtue finds votaries. Even Voltaire remarks, that "the Roman Church has always enjoyed the advantage of rewarding merit with honors which are elsewhere given to birth."* It would be easy to show what elements of democracy are contained within her: but a divine institution needs not be supported by an appeal to popular prejudice. To borrow the words of James Bernard Clinch, a learned member of the Irish bar in the early part of this century: "Whatever be the authority which exists in the Christian system, that authority, in its application, must be as different from the execution of worldly force as it is superior in its origin. To seek for parallels between the genuine idea of Christian polity, and the several species of human organization of force, I consider to be extreme absurdity. To defend the government of the Church as a pure monarchic, or as an aristocratic, or as a republican system, or as resulting from any temperament of these three forms, must necessarily lead into error; and so far, must estrange the mind from the whole of the salutary and everlasting purposes of the Gospel, which, except in the Catholic Church, are not known, or cannot be realized. If it were lawful to circumscribe the Christian state by any general name, it might more aptly be called a federal system, because its essential compact is unity. There is no monarchy in the Christian Church but that of Christ; there is no aristocracy; there is no power of the commons. There are ministries and offices distinct, and there are subjects amenable to these offices. But the highest magistrate of spiritual things can only be the next representative of Christ for Christians; and Christ has declared that He came not to have servitude performed unto Himself, but to perform it, and to lay down His life as a ransom for multitudes."+

"L'Eglise Romaine a toujours eu cet avantage de pouvoir donner au mérite ce qu'ailleurs on donne à la naissance." Voltaire, Essai sur l'Histoire Generale. Histoire de l'Empereur Henri V.

† Letters on Church Government, by J. B. Clinch, Barrister at Law, Dublin, 1815.