THE CHAIR OF PETER.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.

THE Papacy just now, for obvious reasons, absorbs a large amount of public interest, likely to increase with each successive year and certainly there is no subject about which, on calm investigation, there will be found to exist more ignorance and misconception, and prejudice, their necessary result. This latter fact is undeniable. Its cause is evident.

In the Articles of Schmalkalden, drawn up by Luther and his associates, in the year 1537, as an unalterable basis of the creed of the Reformation, they declare:

That the Pope is not of Divine right; that the power usurped by him is full of arrogance and blasphemy; that all which he has done and does, in virtue of that power, is diabolical; . . . and finally that the Pope is the true anti-Christ.

This doctrine has been continuously taught and preached-it may be in more moderate language-by the followers of Luther, down to the present day; so that it is not only held by the unreflecting multitude, but it is also professed, even against their own kindly nature, by some of the most learned, most sincere, and most pious members of the Protestant communion.

Α

In his Apologia pro vita sua, Cardinal Newman

says:

But now, as to the third point on which I stood in 1833, and which I have utterly renounced and trampled upon since,--my then view of the Church of Rome;-I will speak about it as exactly as I can. When I was young, as I have said already, and after I was grown up, I thought the Pope to be anti-Christ. At Christmas, 1824-25, I preached a sermon to that effect. In 1827 I accepted eagerly the stanza in the "Christian Year," which many people thought too charitable, "Speak gently of thy sister's fall." From the time I knew Froude I got less and less bitter on the subject.1

Again, His Eminence says:

As a matter, then, of simple conscience, though it went against my feelings, I felt it to be a duty to protest against the Church of Rome. But, besides this, it was a duty, because the prescription of such a protest was a living principle of my own Church, as expressed in not simply a catena, but a consensus of her divines, and the voice of her people. Moreover, such a protest was necessary, as an integral portion of her controversial basis; for I adopted the argument of Bernard Gilpin, that Protestants "were not able to give any firm and solid reason of the separation, besides this, to wit, that the Pope is anti-Christ." But while I thus thought such a protest to be based upon truth, and to be a religious duty, and a rule of Anglicanism, and a necessity of the case, I did not at all like the work.2

As these and other mistaken ideas of the kind, regarding the Holy See and its occupant, still extensively prevail, it may be useful, and certainly it appears more desirable than ever at the present moment, that there should be set forth a clear and explicit statement of the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy of Saint Peter and his successors, and of the grounds on which that doctrine is based; together with a review, from a Catholic standpoint, of the Papacy in its institution, development, and organization, and a necessarily condensed history of the Temporal Power of the Popesall brought down to the present day.3

1 64 Apologia," p. 124. London, 1864.

2 Ibid., p. 128.

3 Several able treatises in our language have been published on par

Accordingly, as a layman, I venture to contribute my humble share to this work, which I trust will be continued by far abler hands; and I am encouraged to do so by the circumstance, that the subject has ever been to me one of peculiar interest, and consequently has engaged much of my attention.

To the reflecting Christian there must always be something fascinating in the story of the humble Fisherman of Galilee, chosen by the world's Redeemer, to be His Vicar and the Visible Head of His Churchthat Church which was built upon Peter. The unbroken line of Peter's successors, which Catholics believe will endure to the end of time-that august dynasty, continuously assailed, but supernaturally upheld-is a similar instance of the Divine power and wisdom. Everything connected with the subject, while abounding with interest, is matter for deep thought and reverent investigation.

But, besides the interest and importance of the subject itself, there is an all-sufficient reason why, just now, it should be set in its proper light, and entirely freed from the mists of ignorance and prejudice. And that reason is, that in our day there is being waged an unceasing warfare of unbelief against faith, of materialism against Christianity. Formerly, it was a question of conflicting Christian creeds-Protestant against Catholic. Now, it is, as pre-eminently seen in the proceedings of the French and Italian Chambers, an unrelaxing struggle between those who deny, and those who believe in, the Gospel of Christ. Assuredly all Christian communions should be united in presence of this common danger: and, in order to promote so desirable an end, our separated brethren, instead of misrepresenting or misapprehending the tenets of the

ticular branches of the subject. Archbishop Kenrick's "Primacy of the Apostolic See," a most valuable work, deals with the whole question; but, having been written thirty-seven years ago, it does not embrace the important events of this and the past generation.

Catholic Church, ought loyally to accept her own account of the faith which is in her.

The devotion of Catholics of all ages and nations to the Successor of Saint Peter, the reverence and filial obedience which they render to him as the Vicar of Christ, and the same devotion, reverence and obedience paid him by so many who formerly were distinguished members of the Anglican communion, are in themselves a standing argument against those writers and preachers who inveigh against the Church of Rome and its Chief Pastor.

During the last half-century, there has been a movement within the bosom of the Anglican Church-a "Rome-ward tendency," which, however some may disapprove of it, all must admit to result from the purest and loftiest motives. Undeniably, among the seceders are some of the most highly gifted, most exemplary, and best subjects of the realm-men who, in obedience to the voice of conscience, have severed. family ties, cherished friendships, and life-long associations, and, in some instances, heroically leaving all to follow Christ, have resigned valuable Church livings and prospects of preferment, on which their families depended altogether for their maintenance and settlement in life. Surely such men must have clearly seen their way out of the haze through which they had been taught to regard the Catholic Church from their childhood. To join that Church, once they were convinced, they freely sacrificed all that the world had given or could give them; and thus, in the words of the venerable divine above quoted, they "utterly renounced and trampled upon" the erroneous impressions of their earlier years. Among those impressions, doubtless, not the least was, that "the Pope is the true anti-Christ."

CHAPTER II.

SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY OF PETER.

"Pierre paraît le premier en toutes manières; le premier à confesser la foi; le premier dans l'obligation d'exercer l'amour; le premier de tous les Apôtres, qui vit le Sauveur ressucité des morts, comme il en avait été le premier témoin devant tout le peuple; le premier quand il fallut remplir le nombre des Apôtres; le premier qui confirma la foi par un miracle; le premier à convertir les Juifs; le premier à recevoir les Gentils; le premier partout. Mais je ne puis tout dire; tout concourt à établir sa primauté; oui, tout, jusqu'à ses fautes."-Bossuet. FOR a long period, the title Iάπжая, Рара, Pape, or Pope, has been borne by the Bishop of Rome, who is regarded by Catholics as the successor of Saint Peter, not only as Bishop of Rome, but as Visible Head of the Church, and Vicar on earth of Jesus Christ its. Founder. The word signifies Father, or, according to some authorities, Father of Fathers,2 and was in the early ages of Christianity applied to bishops generally; but, in the commencement of the sixth century, it began to be exclusively applied to the Bishop of Rome, and at the close of the ninth, or early in the tenth century, it had become universally adopted, as his special designation.

1 In the Greek Church, the title IIármas is still given to all the clergy-the chief priest being styled рwтоráжwas, or "first father;" as we use "Father;" the French, Père; the Italians, Padre, etc.; thus indicating the paternal relations of a pastor to his flock.

2 Some writers would derive Papa from the first syllables of the words Pater Patrum, Father of Fathers, thus abbreviated. See Bracci, "La Etimologia del Nome Papa," p. 102 et seq., Rome, 1630. This derivation, however, seems somewhat far-fetched; although actually it is in this sense that the title was originally given to bishops and patriarchs, and subsequently exclusively attributed to the Pope, as we shall presently see.