A

kings and nations; must possess the power of absolving subjects from their allegiance; and must be the autocrat of all Christian nations. Minimism endeavours to nullify these conclusions practically by giving individual judgment freedom to disobey the Papal commands; but this is merely a mode of denying the principle of the supremacy. Gallicanism, again, raises a counteracting power, but in so doing it nullifies the same principle after admitting it.

These great contradictions lead necessarily to inquiry into the subject matter of these controversies-the supremacy itself. Can it be in any way misstated?

We are by no means about to question the Primacy itself; for there is nothing as yet in any degree to warrant any such course. The natural inference from the ассерtance of the tenet by so many different parties would rather lead us to assume its truth. Still the subject is so perplexed, that it becomes a matter of necessity to endeavour to fathom its difficulties.

All the four theologies, then, are agreed that the Pope is the head of the Church by Divine appointment, and that out of his communion no one can be saved. If so, we have, as I have before observed, a grand vital article of the Catholic faith, to which everything else is accessory, as De Maistre has observed-that which, being removed, Christianity perishes. Is it not, then, a strange mystery that God should have permitted such strong diversities of opinion to arise with regard to an authority which He had

If He

constituted the very keystone of His religion? has constituted and appointed a Vicar on earth for the express purpose of maintaining unity of faith in His Church, why is it that this Vicar has not been able to ensure unity of belief as to his own power? And, what is still more mysterious and difficult to comprehend is this, Why has all mention of this grand and essential article of revelation been avoided in the Christian creeds? If we look at the confession of faith of the ancient Churches of Rome and Italy (the Apostles' Creed); at the confession of the Oriental Churches, drawn up by the sacred Ecumenical synods of Nicæa and Constantinople, and approved by all subsequent synods; at the grand western confession of the Catholic faith, usually styled the Athanasian, we find no mention whatever there of the fundamental doctrine of the Papal supremacy, that doctrine on which we are told everything depends-and which it is as important for Christians to know as to know that Christ died for their redemption. Whence can arise this astonishing silence? That which renders it still more marvellous is the fact that these creeds by no means omit the subject of the Church. On that subject they are perfectly explicit. They profess belief in 'the holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints,' in 'one holy Catholic Apostolic Church.' Why did they not substitute for this and in one Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, Vicar of Christ, and head of the Church?' Nothing would have been easier than this, and certainly nothing could have been more necessary.

6

There are great numbers of creeds extant, being the ancient creeds of churches and provinces throughout the East and West; from Assyria to the Pillars of Hercules, from Mauritania and Ethiopia to Britain and the Euxine. They are equally silent as to this fundamental article of Christianity. If we look at the ancient baptismal professions in the early Roman sacramentaries of Gelasius, Leo, and Gregory, we find there other doctrines of Christianity, but not the Papal supremacy. How are we to account for this omission?

Again, how strange and mysterious is the fact, that throughout the Scriptures there is no occurrence of such all-important expressions as 'the Bishop of Rome,' the 'Successor of St. Peter,' the Vicar of Christ?' If privileges and promises were given to St. Peter which were to descend to successors, why was that fact unmentioned by the Divine donor? He knew that there would be endless divisions and disputes on the point whether He had intended St. Peter to have a line of successors, and yet He does not add the few words which would at once have established the authority which he was instituting as the main foundation of His religion. How difficult is it to comprehend this silence.

Again, the Oriental Churches are, as we know, the lineal descendants of those founded by the Apostles and evangelists in Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Asia Minor, and Greece-Churches for many ages as numerous and widely extended as those of Latin Christendom.

In them are the inheritance of the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Cæsarea, Galatia, Pontus, Asia, Crete, Ephesus, Smyrna, Philippi, Corinth, Thessalonica, Athens, and so many others which meet us in the New Testament. Ultramontanes of course treat these Churches with contempt. Nevertheless they are Churches which are remarkable for their adherence to ancient traditions. They are Churches to whose tradition Roman Catholic controversialists are only too happy to appeal, when the antiquity of their own tenets or practices is called in question by Protestants.

Well, these ancient Churches, representing a moiety of early Christendom--What is their tradition on the subject of the Papal supremacy? These Churches admit the primacy of the Pope: they have always admitted it. They acknowledge the Roman Pontiff to be the first bishop, the leading patriarch in Christendom; but they adhere to the doctrine taught by six hundred and thirty bishops in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451, which in its 28th Canon declared that Rome had acquired its primacy on account of its being the Imperial capital; and not consequently from any Divine institution; not in virtue of representing St. Peter; not as the centre of Catholic unity; not as the Divinely appointed head of Christendom. The same doctrine was taught by the 3rd Canon of the Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 381.

There is a singular coincidence between the doctrine

thus authoritatively taught and that of several very distinguished writers of the Latin Communion, whose zeal on behalf of the Papacy is beyond question.

The celebrated Moehler, one of the ablest defenders of the Roman system, in a work which is of the highest reputation even amongst the Roman Jesuits (such as Perrone), has these observations:

I was for a very long time in doubt whether the Primacy is of the essence of the Catholic Church: I was even disposed to deny it; for the organic union of all the parts in one whole, which the idea of the Catholic Church absolutely requires, and which she herself is, appeared completely attained by the unity of the Episcopate such as we have explained it. On the other side it is evident, that the history of the three first centuries is not rich enough in materials to dissipate all our doubts on this point.'

In other words there is no sufficient historical evidence of the existence of the Papal primacy during the first three centuries. What there is leaves us in a state of doubt on the question. Moehler, however, argued further, that without the Papal supremacy 'the development of the unity of the Church would not be complete.' This supremacy he viewed as 'a personified reflection of the unity of the whole Church,' 2 but since this unity could not be reflected before it had penetrated all the members of the Church, the inference is, that the Papacy could not have been developed till the age of Cyprian, when the principle of ecclesiastical unity was fully established.3

1 Moehler, De l'Unité de l'Église, p. 221. 2 Ibid., p. 222.

3 Ibid., p. 224.