1

over the entire Church, so as to constitute its visible head, and the vice-gerent of Christ upon earth. The idea of this Supremacy, involves two distinct, but closely allied, prerogatives; the first is, that the Holy See is the centre of unity; the second, cond, that it is the fountain of authority. By the first is signified that all the faithful must be in communion with it, through their respective pastors, who form an unbroken chain of connexion from the lowliest member of the flock, to him who has been constituted its universal shepherd. To violate this union and communion constitutes the grievous crime of schism, and destroys an essential constitutive principle of Christ's religion.

We likewise hold the Pope to be the source of authority; as all the subordinate rulers in the Church are subject to him,' and receive directly, or indirectly, their jurisdiction from and by him. Thus the executive power is vested in his hands for all spiritual purposes within her; to him is given the charge of confirming his brethren in the faith; his office it is to watch over the correction of abuses, and the maintenance of discipline throughout the Church; in case of error springing up in any part, he must make the necessary investigations to discover it and condemn it; and either bring the refractory to submission, or separate them, as withered branches, from the vine. In cases of great and influential disorder in faith or practice, he convenes a general council of the pastors of the Church; presides over it in person, or by his legates; and sanctions, by his approbation, its canons or decrees.

That, with such a belief concerning the high prerogatives of the sovereign Pontiff, the greatest veneration should be felt towards him by every Catholic, cannot be matter of surprise. It would, on the contrary, be unnatural to suppose that a respect commensurate with his high office could be refused, When Paul had severely reproved Ananias, for ordering him to be most unjustly smitten on the mouth, and they that stood by, said, "Dost thou revile the high priest of God, Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is

written, thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people."* From which words it is plain that a respect and honour is due to any one constituted in such a dignity, independent of his personal virtues or qualifications. It follows no less, that such high dignity may be awarded without reference to the exemption of its holder from sin and crime. It is a misrepresentation often repeated, that Catholics imagine the supreme Pontiff to be free from all liability to moral transgression, as though they believed that no action which he commits could be sinful. It can hardly be necessary for me to deny so gross and so absurd an imputation. Not only do we know him, however exalted, to be as much under the curse of Adam as the meanest of his subjects, but we hold him to be exposed to even greater dangers from his very elevation-we believe him to be subject to every usual cause of offence, and obliged to have recourse to the same precautions, and the same remedies, as other frail men.

The supremacy which I have described, is of a character purely spiritual, and has no connexion with the possession of any temporal jurisdiction. The sovereignty of the Pope over his own dominions, is no essential portion of his dignity; his supremacy was not the less before it was acquired, and should the unsearchable decrees of Providence, in the lapse of ages, deprive the Holy See of its temporal sovereignty, as happened to the seventh Pius, through the usurpation of a conqueror, its dominion over the Church, and over the consciences of the faithful would not be thereby impaired.

Nor has this spiritual supremacy any relation to the wider sway once held by the pontiffs over the destinies of Europe. That the headship of the Church won naturally the highest weight and authority in a social and political state, grounded on Catholic principles, we cannot wonder. That power arose and disappeared with the institutions which produced or supported it, and forms no part of the doctrine held by the Church

*Acts xxiii. 4-5.

regarding the papal supremacy. But on this, and other similar subjects of too ordinary prejudice, I may add some farther remarks, should time permit, at the conclusion of this evening's discourse.

As the pre-eminence claimed by the Catholic Church for the Bishop of Rome, is based upon the circumstance of his being the successor of St. Peter, it follows that the right whereby that claim is supported, must naturally depend upon the demonstration that the apostle was possessed of such a superior authority and jurisdiction. The subject of this evening's disquisition thus becomes two-fold; for, first, we must examine whether St. Peter was invested by our Saviour, with a superiority, not merely of dignity, but of jurisdiction also, over the rest of the apostles; and if so, we must farther determine, whether this was merely a personal prerogative, or such as was necessarily transmitted to his successors, until the end of time.

I. It was a usual practice among the Jewish teachers, to impose a new name upon their disciples, on occasion of some distinguished display of excellence; it had been the means occasionally used by the Almighty, of denoting an important event in the lives of his servants, when he rewarded them for past fidelity, by bestowing upon them some signal preeminence. It was thus that he altered the names of Abraham and Sara,* when he made with the former the covenant of circumcision; promised to the latter a son in her old age; and blessed both, that from them might spring "nations and kings of people." It was thus that Jacob received from him the name of Israel, when, after wrestling with an angel, assurance was given him that he should ever be able to prevail against men. It is singular, that the moment Simon was introduced to our blessed Redeemer, he received a promise that a similar distinction should be given to him. "Thou art Simon, the

son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted 驴 radt @ijsd) of 101795′

Peter."*1

It was on occasion of his confessing the divine mission of the Son of God, that the promise was fulfilled. At the commencement of our Saviour's reply, he still calls him by his former appellation. "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven." He then proceeds to the inauguration of his new name. "And I say to thee that thou art Peter." According to the analogy of the instances above given, we must expect some allusion in the name, to the reward and distinction with which it was accompanied. And such is really the case. The name Peter signifies a rock; for in the language spoken upon this occasion by our Saviour, not the slightest difference exists, even at this day, between the name whereby this apostle, or any one bearing his name, is known, and the most ordinary word which indicates a rock or stone. Thus the phrase of our Redeemer would sound as follows, to the ears of his audience. "And I say to thee that thou art a rock." Now see how the remaining part of the sentence would run in connexion with the preamble: "and/ upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Such is the first prerogative bestowed upon Peter; he is declared to be the rock whereon the impregnable Church is to be founded.

"And I will give thee and whatsoever, thou also in Heaven; and

2dly. Our Saviour goes on to say, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; shalt bind upon earth shall be bound whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven." The second prerogative is the holding of the keys, and the power of making decrees, which shall be necessarily ratified in Heaven.

3. To the two ample powers given here, we must add a third distinguished commission, conferred upon him after the resur

rection, when Jesus three times asked him for a pledge of a love superior to that of the other Apostles, and three times gave him a charge to feed his entire flock, his lambs and his sheep.

On the strength of these passages, principally, the Catholic Church has ever maintained, that St. Peter received a spiritual pre-eminence and supremacy. And, indeed, if in these various commissions a power and jurisdiction was given to Peter, which was proper to him alone, and superior to that conferred upon all the other Apostles, it will be readily acknowledged, that such supremacy as we believe was really bestowed upon him by God.

Now, his being constituted the foundation of the Church, implies such jurisdiction. For what is the first idea which this figure suggests, except that the whole edifice grows up in unity, and receives solidity from its being morticed and rivetted into this common base? But, what can be simply effected in a material edifice, by the weight or tenacity of its component parts, can only be permanently secured in a moral body, by a compressive influence, or by the exercise of authority and power. We style the laws the basis of social order, because it is their office to secure, by their administration, the just rights of all, to punish transgressors, to arbitrate differences, to ensure uniformity of conduct, in all their subjects. We call our triple legislative authority, the foundation of the British constitution; because from it emanate all the powers which regulate the subordinate parts of the body politic, and on it repose the government, the modification, the reformation of the whole.

And observe, I pray you, that this reasoning excludes the possibility, not only of a superior, but even of an equal and coordinate authority. For, if the laws are not supreme, but there exist a rule of equal force, and not subject to their control, yet moving in the same sphere, and acting upon the same objects, you will own that they are no longer the basis of an order which they cannot guarantee and preserve. If a new

*Jo. xxi. 15-18.