J

that he answers in the name of the rest, that he seems as it were to be from the commencement the organ of the church.

But you may ask, perhaps, how does it follow, if this special authority or pre-eminence was given to St. Peter, that it has been continued to the bishops of Rome. It was a special reward given to him for his confession, and consequently, being individually given, what reason is there to suppose that it has been continued? Such, therefore, forms the second portion of our inquiry—to see how the transmission of this authority is to be accounted for, and to be proved.

I need not, I suppose, enter into any argument for the purpose of proving that St. Peter was really the first bishop of the See of Rome. I will not allude merely to local monuments, which attest the fact of his having been at Rome; for there was a time when several writers, led partly by the spirit of paradox, but still more by the idea that by cutting off the tree of succession at the very root, the pretensions of the Church of Rome would be entirely destroyed, went so far as to deny that St. Peter was ever at Rome. They founded their arguments principally upon negative reasoning, such as the silence of St. Paul in his Epistles, the silence of the Acts of the Apostles, and the silence of some among the early fathers. However, this matter may be said now to be so completely decided, the acknowledgments, I may say, are so universal, from members of every communion who have investigated the early history of Christianity, that it cannot be necessary for me to enter into any argument upon that point. I need only mention the names of such men as Cave, Usher, Young, Pearson, Grotius, and Blondel, authors, some of whom have written express treatises to prove that St. Peter was at Rome, and that he was the bishop of that See. St. Irenæus observes, that to Peter succeeded Linus to Linus, Anacletus, to Anacletus, Clement, and so he goes on giving the names of twelve bishops, who he says occupied that See. In the same manner Eusebius traces the succession of Peter, and gives it down to his time. St. Octoganus, and many other writers, have followed up the argument, proving that that church is Apostolical; so that its unity has been preserved, by giving us a list of the bishops of the See of Rome down to their respective ages, so that the succession of bishops may be said to be perfectly established.

This being the case, I should say, in the first place, that it is an admitted maxim in all ecclesiastical jurisprudence, that whatever authority, though even it should be personal, was brought by the first bishop to any See, it was always considered as inherent in that see, and transmissible by entailment to his successors. We find, for instance, that the Church of Alexandrina was in the first place occupied by Mark— he, as being one of the disciples, and particularly the disciple of St. Peter, exercised patriarchial jurisdiction over the regions of Lybia,

Bithynia, and Decapolis, and the consequence is that the same jurisdiction has been preserved in that See till the present day. We find, in like manner, that the Church at Jerusalem was occupied by James, he being the Apostle who exercised jurisdiction over that and the other churches of Palestine; and the See of Jerusalem remains a patriarchial See to this day, and has always been considered so, and as having precisely the same jurisdiction. In like manner the See of Antioch was first founded by Peter, before he proceeded to Rome; and he was succeeded by St. Ignatius. The line of bishops has continued till the present time, not only in one church but in several, inasmuch as the Arminians, Syrians, Latins, and Catholics, have their succession in their Sees severally and co-ordinately in their respective communions-— and yet, in every one of these, the jurisdiction is over a large portion of Asia-in consequence of its having been communicated by him who in the first place occupied the See. This being the case, it would follow that St. Peter had given to him jurisdiction, not merely over the patriarchs of the West, but also the jurisdiction over the churches that became inherent in the See he last founded; and it necessarily went in succession to his successors

It may be objected, perhaps, to this, that we are raising the jurisdiction of the Holy See upon the same grounds as we did those of the patriarchs—that is to say, upon mere ecclesiastical or canonical authority. This, therefore, is not sufficient, because we hold it to be held by divine imprescriptible right. I say, therefore, in the second place, that this jurisdiction or supremacy presides in the Holy See, as a divine and permanent institution in the Church of God. Jesus Christ, my brethren, is the same yesterday and to-day. Whatever he gives as the constitution of his Church, that must be continued as such until the end of time. Whatever form of government he first appointed, we must believe it was his intention that that form of government should continue as long as the church itself was to last. And, if this be not the case, allow me to ask upon what authority did the immediate successors of the Apostles take their place? Why was not episcopacy considered as a special prerogative, individually granted to the Apostles and immediate followers of Christ? Why did those who succeeded them in their respective Sees, at the same time grasp their crosier and maintain that they were possessed of the same authority that they had? Is it not upon this principle-that it was understood, whatever was the original constitution of the Church of Christ, that constitution was to last for ever?

Now we have, therefore, the most essential part of the constitution even here for, in describing a building, assuredly the most necessary and essential portion of it must be its foundation; and, as St. Peter was appointed to this important station, we cannot believe that it was the

intention of our Saviour, at his demise, that the foundation should be broken up, and the stones of the sanctuary dispersed. There are two ideas, as I before remarked, necessarily connected with the notion of a foundation; that of giving unity and stability to the building; for by unity in any edifice we understand expressly that all its parts are co-ordinate to one continued plan or basement, and thereby united together; and accordingly we find, that up to the times of the ancient church, that this object was the great reason why such an appointment was made. "But, of the two," says St. Jerome, "one is chosen, that so, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism might be removed." In like manner St. Cyprian observes, "in order to preserve manifest unity, he authoritatively commanded that unity to spring from one." St. Optatus, in the fourth century, is still stronger, “It is well known that St. Peter established the chair at Rome, and the chair was one, that so all might preserve unity, by union with it; that whosoever should establish another should be considered a schismatic and a transgressor." And it is from this church, which is the Romish church that St. Peter set up, that we gather our idea; and the unity of the church was secured by the appointment of Peter alone to be the foundation.

Now, if our Saviour, constituting his church in unity, thought the establishment of a primacy necessary to its preservation, at a time when the charity of the faithful was still flowing on unimpaired—when all the Apostles lived dispersed over the whole world, each under the more special superintendence and guidance of God, when the number of the faithful was still few, when their recollections of the doctrines taught were still comparatively fresh, when all the believers with few exceptions belonged to one kingdom, so that they spoke but one language, and were not separated by national or political prepossessions— can we suppose that he meant such an institution to fail, precisely when all the human chances, all the moral means for the preservation of such unity, must have been infinitely smaller, while the number of the faithful was greatly increased, when dissensions and coldness had crept into the flock, when the lights of ministers had become comparatively dim, and when men were dispersed over a great portion of the world, where now they had different tongues, different ideas, different races as it were, and consequently had not any of those bonds of human sympathy which the first believers possessed. If, therefore, our Saviour, on the one hand, appointed unity as the essential property of the church, and appointed a primacy as the means of preserving that unity, it follows no less that the primacy must be as permanent, as essential to the existence of the church, as that unity which is to be its special characteristic.

In like manner, it was not merely to preserve unity, but also to give the character of durability: for we have seen that this essentially is

intimated in the words of our Redeemer. If, therefore, Christ has promised that his church shall be unassailable, or at least invincible, in consequence of its union with Peter; if he has appointed-made the durability of the church, in other words-dependant upon connexion with its foundation, it follows that the foundation must be as durable as the building which it has to support. Now, the foundation we have seen to be no other than a jurisdiction, an authority given to him who was the foundation; and therefore the jurisdiction and authority must continue thus durable until the end of time.

In the next place, I say that this is a permanent institution in the Church of Christ, descending from age to age, because it was so understood by the first Christians and those that succeeded them. From the very beginning of the church we find the sovereign pontiffs; or in other words, the successors of St. Peter, in the See of Rome, claimed and exercised, without there being the slightest demur on any hand, a jurisdiction over the most remote churches even of the East; and even over the patriarchal churches, which I before mentioned, as having equally descended in a right line from the Apostles. We find that the third or fourth from St. Peter, St. Clement, examined into the abuses which had crept into the Church at Corinth; and claimed the authority of proposing a necessary remedy. We find, immediately after that, St. Eleutherus interfered with the churches of Asia Minor, with regard to a point of discipline, in which they appealed to the authority of St. John, who had founded them; and it is doubtful, from ecclesiastical history, whether he did go to extremes or not; but we know that the holy pontiff and martyr, Polycarp, the last who had been the personal disciple of John, interceded for them, that he would not proceed to extremities against them. We find St. Stephen, a little later, commanding the churches of Africa, in regard to a controversy which had there sprung up upon the subject of infant baptism, and others of a secondary nature connected with it. We find also, a few years after, St. Dionysius, the pope, summoning before him the Bishop of Alexandria, who had been accused to him by the flock, and the high bishop, or patriarch, obeyed without the slightest demur. We find St. Athanasius appealing to Pope Julius, when driven from his See, begging to be reinstated by him in it; and the same Pope Julius, hearing the cause of the patriarch of Carthage, restored him, when it was found that he was unjustly deprived. We have St. John Chrysostom appealing to the Holy See, and demanding justice—and I will give his words just now— showing evidently that he believed this authority and jurisdiction extended even over his own See. Such are facts and examples of the exercise of authority, without protest being raised against it, over the whole world, by sovereign pontiffs. But we have the express testimonies of the ancient church. In like manner we have one, the very

oldest of the Latin fathers, that is, the fathers of the Latin Church, St. Irenæus, who says, " To this church," speaking of the church which was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome, "To this church, on account of its superior headship, all others must have recourse;" that is to say, all the faithful, all over the world. Then he goes on with the words which I before quoted. In the same century we have Tertullian, giving us a brief and summary way of settling matters of controversy-viz., that persons should appeal at once to the nearest church founded by the Apostles. He says, "If you are in Africa, Rome is near, to which you may appeal." Then he exclaims, “O happy city! which the Apostles thoroughly impregnated with all their doctrines, and their blood." Coming down, we find precisely the same language held. We find Cyprian writing in these terms to the Pope, They have dared," he says "to take the letters written by schismatics and profane men, to the chair of Peter, and the principal church, from whence the sacerdotal unity takes its rise; not reflecting that those in that city are Romans, whose faith the apostle Paul commends, and to whom perfidy can have no access.' So that, not only does he call it the See of Peter, and the principal church from which the sacerdotal unity springs; but he considers it as a church which is secured by divine providence, from any chance of perfidy or deceit. Next we have another very remarkable, and perhaps stronger testimony than this, in the decrees of a council held some years later-the Council of Sardica. This was a council belonging to the Western Church, and was convened especially at the suggestion of St. Athanasius, and there were present three hundred bishops. They wrote to Julius, in which comes this expression" It does seem most fitting, that in all the provinces, the priests of the Lord should refer themselves to the head-that is, to the See of Peter." So that here is a council universally acknowledging that the best method of deciding all controversies, all matters of faith, is to appeal directly at once to the head-that is, to the See of St. Peter, where his successors resided. There is a very strong and remarkable passage also, indeed several, in St. Basil. He writes to Pope Dionysius in a most pressing and pathetic strain. The bishop of Cæsarea alleges, that he is out of the boundaries of what was considered the Western Church. He says, from authentic documents in his possession, "It appears that the Holy Pope Dionysius, who was eminently celebrated for his faith among you, visited this church; that he made a visitation of the Church of Cæsarea, not in person, but by writing, or by legates; and that he afforded important assistance and advice to him that sat in the See." "And if," he says, "you do not succour us now, we shall perish; for we have no one else to look to but you." In one passage, speaking of the conduct of a certain bishop who had been deposed, he says-writing to the Pope at Damascus, and,