By whatsoever appellation we may designate the constitution of the Church, our attachment to our country and its institutions will not be affected by it, since there is an immense difference between things human and divine. As we must not suffer our political predilections to prejudice us against the form of government which Christ our Lord has established in his Church, so we need not seek to assimilate eivil to ecclesiastical polity. It has been well observed by Ranke, that "this religious system has no inherent or necessary affinity to one form of government more than to another."*"The Christian religion," says Count de St. Priest, “which has existed for near two thousand years, is not indissolubly attached to any political form. Under the shadow of absolute thrones or of limited monarchies on the borders of the republican lake of William Tell-in America, which is still more republican, it flourishes as an imperishable plant, nourished by the juices of earth, and refreshed by the waters of heaven. It is not a local, but a universal religion." So far back as the fifth century, ST. AUGUSTIN declared the support which the Church lends to every lawful authority: "This heavenly society," he says, "does not hesitate to obey the laws of the temporal powers which regulate the things appertaining to our mortal life. . . . . Whilst sojourning on earth, the Church gathers her citizens from all nations, and forms her pilgrim host of men of every tongue. She cares not for the diversity of laws and usages which are directed to the attainment or maintenance of peace: she annuls or destroys none of them, but, on the contrary, she adopts and observes them; since although they differ in various nations, they are all directed to one and the same end, namely, public order and tranquillity; provided they do not clash with religion, which teaches us to worship the one supreme and true God."‡

The alleged or real abuses of papal power form no just ground of objection to its admission, since every divine institution is liable to be abused by human frailty. The inquirer after truth should not allow his mind to be pre-occupied with frightful images of excesses committed by popes, either in their public administration or in their private conduct: he should first of all examine, whether their authority is from Christ. On calm investigation, he will find that the grossest exaggerations have been indulged in by their traducers, whilst the benefits which they bestowed on the Christian world have been kept out of view. The contributions, which under the name of Peter's pence, or on any other score, were made for the support of the pontifical government, have been designated extortions, without any regard to their justice and necessity; whilst the unbounded charities of the popes, and their immense expenditures for the general interests of Christendom, are forgotten. The civil commotions and wars, which some

* History of the Popes, vol. i. 1. vi. i. p. 407.

† Histoire de la Royauté par le Cte Alexis de Saint Priest, 1. ii. p. 92.
De Civ. Dei, 1. xix. c. xvii.

times followed the exercise of papal power, are represented as its necessary results; whilst the enormity of the evils, which the pontiffs sought to remedy, is lost sight of, and the criminality of the immediate actors who provoked this severity is apparently unnoticed. In investigating the fact, whether Christ has left in His stead a ruler of His Church on earth, we should confine ourselves to scriptural testimonies, and to the monuments of Christian antiquity. Let these be consulted, and there can be no doubt that the result will be entire conviction of the divine institution of the primacy. The importance of the investigation is deeply felt at this day by the many estimable individuals, who, with anxious minds, are struggling to disenthral themselves from error and schism. Mr. Allies rightly said: The whole question now "turns upon the papal supremacy, as at present claimed, being of divine right or not. If it be, then have we nothing else to do, on peril of our salvation, but submit ourselves to the authority of Rome."*

* The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism. Advertisement.

CHAPTER II.

Promise of the Primacy.

OUR Divine Redeemer was wont to prepare men for His chief institutions by a previous declaration of His intentions. Before He made a formal promise to bestow the power of governing His Church, He changed the name of the disciple, who was to exercise it; and He subsequently declared the import of the name, and the authority of the office. When Simon was presented to him by his brother Andrew, He called him CEPHAS,* a Syrochaldaic term, equivalent to the Greek Пlerpos, that is, Peter, which signifies ROCK. Andrew "brought him to Jesus, and Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas: which is interpreted Peter." It does not appear that our Lord at that time declared the reason why He so called him: which, however, He afterwards most emphatically signified. Although Andrew had the happiness of discovering Christ before him, Peter soon enjoyed a marked precedency, so as to be designated THE FIRST by the evangelist St. Matthew, in the enumeration of the apostles. "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: THE FIRST Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother."‡ Then follow the names of the others, with their commission to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not by mere accident that Peter is here placed first, since he occupies the same place in all the lists given by the sacred writers: which is the more remarkable inasmuch as the order of the names of the other apostles varies, with the exception of Judas, who, on account of his perfidy, is always placed last. St. Matthew, moreover, expressly designates him the first: npwtos, which plainly marks him as leader and chief.

We cannot suppose that Peter is put first on account of the excellence of his personal qualities, when we remember his weakness in the hour of temptation. Whilst our Lord was on earth, He alone was head of His Church, and Peter, although he was leader, had not authority over his brethren. At that time his precedency was rather of order, or rank, than of jurisdiction and government; but it was wisely so ordained, that he might be thus prepared for the high office to which he was to be elevated. In this sense the observation of Barrow may be admitted: "Constantly in all the catalogues of the apostles, St. Peter's name is set in the front; and when

* It is pronounced in Syriac Kipha, or Kipho: in Chaldaic ', in Hebrew 2.

actions are reported in which he was concerned jointly with others, he is usually mentioned first, which seemeth not done without careful design, or special reason. Upon such grounds it may be reasonable to allow St. Peter a primacy of order."* I cannot, however, agree with him, that this primacy was "such a one as the ringleader hath in a dance!" Neither can I admit that primatial authority was not afterwards conferred on him; since this is affirmed, not on the mere ground of this order of names, which, however, furnishes no slight presumptive evidence, but on strong and positive testimonies of Scripture.

In the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, we learn that "Jesus came into the confines of Cesarea Philippi: and He asked His disciples saying: Who do men say that the Son of Man is? And they said: Some John the Baptist, and others Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Our Lord's interrogation was not an idle inquiry, proceeding from curiosity to ascertain the current opinions of men, for Jesus "knew all men," and "He needed not that any man should give testimony of man: for He knew what was in man."† He asks, in order to afford an opportunity to Simon to state the various human conjectures, that were prevalent concerning His person, and to declare aloud his own faith.

On the question being put as to the belief of the apostles themselves, concerning him, Peter answered without hesitation: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." This explicit declaration of the divinity of Jesus, was followed by a confirmation, on His part, of the name previously given to Simon, and by the exposition of its mysterious meaning, and of the high office with which it was connected: "Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."‡ Never was the language of Christ more clear and emphatic. Simon confessed Him to be the Son of God, not in the general sense of this appellation, as given to every just man, for this would have called forth no extraordinary praise, but as the natural and true Son of His Eternal Father, by a communication to Him of the Divine Nature, by an ineffable generation. Jesus declares Simon blessed for this profession of faith in His divinity, since mortal man could not have suggested it, but God alone. Thus endowed by the Father with divine faith in the incarnate Son of God, Simon becomes a fit instrument in His hands for the building of His Church, a secure foundation whereon it may rest. His name is confirmed: "I say to thee, that thou art Peter." As Jacob was

A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, by Isaac Barrow, D. D., Supposition 1, n. 5. † John ii. 24. Matt. xvi. 15-20.

called Israel, because in the mysterious conflict he prevailed over the angel of God;-as Abram was called Abraham, because chosen to be the father of a countless multitude;-so Simon is called Cephas, or Peter, because made, by divine grace, a ROCK of faith. Nor is the firmness of his faith a mere personal endowment; he is to become the foundation-stone of the Church of Christ: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church" that is: THOU ART A ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.* The strength of this rock-its immovable firmness -is declared by the impregnable character of the Church which is to be built on it: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Because Christ builds on a rock, the powers of darkness cannot overcome His Church. He is the wise man, who chooses a solid foundation for His building. "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock.Ӡ The strength of the building is ascribed to the solidity of the foundation. Christ in choosing Simon for the foundation of His Church, gives him strength and firmness, by which the building itself is made secure. Peter becomes the support of the Church, which, like a strong fortress, is in vain assailed by adverse powers. Such is the import of the name given by Christ to Simon; such is the close and necessary relation of Peter to the Church.

Some who seek to elude the obvious force of the language of our Saviour, contend that Peter is called a rock for the firmness of his personal faith, and is spoken of as the foundation of the Church, because he was the first to profess the divinity of Christ, and because all who thenceforward acknowledged the same truth, were added to and built on him as a foundation. This, however, by no means corresponds with the words of our Redeemer. Peter is called a rock, not as a professor of the faith, but to reward its profession. Because he has made this divinely inspired profession, Christ declares that he is a rock, on which He will build His Church. It is fair to give to a figurative expression the force which its use by the same writer, or speaker, authorizes. Our Lord having used the similitude of a house built on a rock, to illustrate the wisdom of the man who builds his hopes of salvation on the practice of the divine lessons, as on a solid foundation, we must regard the rock as the image of the solidity and strength of the foundation, rather than as expressive of a mere commencement. The unfailing support of the building is the idea which the rock suggests.

This observation equally shows the futility of the attempt to explain this figure as employed merely to mark the instrumentality of Peter in admitting Jews and Gentiles to the Church, by proclaiming the resurrec

In English, the force of the allusion is not perceived, but in French it is preserved: "Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon église." The Greek, Latin, Italian, and Spanish, imperfectly exhibit it. The German, as well as the English, conceals it. † Matt. vii. 25.