Those who desire to have undeniable proofs in favour of the Primacy before that epoch . . . should know that they ask for what is unfitting, because it is not possible, accordantly with the laws of a true development. It may be said of those who imagine that they have found it established before that epoch, that the trouble which they have given themselves has been fruitless, and that their pretensions are untenable.'

We hence learn that the Papal supremacy could not possibly have been established before the middle of the third century, and therefore that it is in vain to look for its exercise in Scripture or in the early history of the Church. This view as regards Scripture harmonises very well with the admission of Count de Maistre, the most ardent advocate of Papal supremacy:

Had St. Peter a distinct knowledge of the extent of his own prerogative, and of the questions which it would produce hereafter? I know not. . . . The monarchical supremacy of the Roman Pontiff was not in its origin, doubtless, what it was some centuries afterwards.2

That is to say, it is as well not to look too closely to Scripture or the early Church for evidences of its exercise.

We may also gather something from the language of Father Newman, the chosen champion of Roman Catholic principles. This distinguished writer, in speaking of 'the evidence which is adducible, in the first three centuries, on behalf of the supremacy of the Holy See,' intimates (without any dissent from the notion) that it is considered by Protestants to be characterised by 'dimness and indis1 Moehler, De l'Unité de l'Église, p. 224.

2 See De Maistre, Du Pape, p. 31, 89, 233.

tinctness' as regards its Ante-Nicene portion. He conceives that it did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs,' but that the 'events of the fourth century' led to its development. Previously to this, 'Christians being of one heart and one soul,' it remained suspended-sleeping, 'not as an obsolete—for it had never been operative-but as a mysterious privilege which was not understood."'

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave rise to bishops, and next œcumenical disturbances gave rise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity, would not, and could not be debated, till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred.'

Now we must of course admit that there are Roman Catholic controversialists who take a very different view, and see Papal supremacy established, and in full exercise during the lifetime of our Lord Himself, and so continually onwards. The statements however, of writers like those whom I have cited, are deserving of more credit, because they are not such as the writers would have made except under the compulsion of irresistible necessity.

What do their statements amount to? That the Papal supremacy was, as a matter of fact, not understood, not exercised, not known amongst Christians till the fourth century.

Does not this serve to explain and to account for what is otherwise perfectly inexplicable; namely, the omission

1 Newman, Essay on Development, p. 165.

of all notice of the doctrine in the early creeds and confessions of faith? Of course, if the supremacy was not in operation, and not known, we see at once why the Christians did not include it in their professions of faith. The same fact also completely explains the attitude of the Eastern Church: it has never known or received this article of faith: it has never been developed there. has been developed only in Latin Christianity.

6

The doctrine then of the Papal supremacy is, if this be so, not one of those that was handed down by universal tradition from the apostles as part of the depositum fidei; it was a development,' and a western development. In order that a thing should be developed, however, it is necessary that there should be something from which it is developed, and one would suppose that in the case of a dogma of such importance it would be understood at least what the germ really was. Strange to say, this is a point on which the ablest Roman Catholic writers are entirely at variance. Moehler says that the Papal supremacy was the personified reflection of Catholic unity, and therefore, that it could not possibly exist until that unity became established in the time of St. Cyprian.' Newman, on the other hand, maintains that the Papal supremacy was developed from the schisms of the Church, and could not have been developed until there were œcumenical disturbances in the fourth century. These views are diametri

1 De l'Unité de l'Église, p. 252.

cally contradictory. Which are we to believe? The natural inference is, that both writers are theorising, and are probably in error, and that the Papal supremacy may have sprung from wholly different causes; so that the belief of the 630 fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, that it sprang from the temporal dignity of Rome, assumes additional weight.

If, as this œcumenical synod declared above fourteen hundred years since, the power in question did not spring from Divine institution, but more naturally and intelligibly from causes permitted by Divine Providence, we may, without much difficulty, see our way to account for the present differences of theology in the Roman Communion. If any institution which was merely permitted by Divine Providence, should be assumed to have been directly instituted by God, the gravest results must necessarily follow. While the Papal Primacy in the Church was understood to be one of custom, of fitness, of propriety, of ancient use, it could not produce any serious results: the Papacy might possess great influence, but it could not be a formidable and tremendous power. But as soon as the Papacy itself and a great body of adherents put forward the assertion that it was the Divinely instituted head of Christianity, that it was the Divinely appointed centre of unity; the essential channel of salvation; the foundation stone of Christianity; the representative of Deity; then the position became completely changed. It became at once the duty of the Papacy to aim at universal do

minion, and it became the duty of all believers adhering to it to join in that work. And hence legitimately and necessarily sprang the unbounded power of the Popes both in spirituals and temporals: in short, Ultramontanism was developed.

When Ultramontanism had attained its full strength of influence, it plunged the Papacy into a violent struggle with the civil power for universal dominion, which has continued ever since. If the Papacy is ever inclined to adopt moderation, it is prevented by the principles which it teaches. Christianity under it is forced to assume the shape of a widespread organisation against the civil powers, in the extravagant attempt to force on society a rule which, if it could succeed in finally establishing itself, would produce an explosion that would annihilate Christianity itself.

It was felt by society and by Christianity that it was necessary to revolt against a system so dangerous and so intolerable. So Gallicanism, at the end of the thirteenth century, began the combat. The civil power felt itself on the verge of extinction; determined resistance was the only remedy remaining. It called in the aid of the Christian Divine; the Church felt its duty towards civil government; it was protected by society against the terrible autocracy of Rome. The struggle went on, and the monarchs of Europe gradually learned how in some degree to protect themselves. Two centuries passed, and another reaction took place. The enormous corruptions