of his episcopal dignity, and of every sacerdotal ministry." This sentence was adopted by the council, and received the subsequent sanction of the holy pontiff, at the request of the fathers, who tell him, that he had presided over them as the head over its members'." Here the catechist and his friends may safely be challenged to produce any facts more appropriate to sustain any argument, or carrying more weight by their decisive evidence in the whole compass of history. I will only add, that all these councils are received by the Church of England'.

The language of every council ever held in the Catholic church is in perfect unison with these proceedings of the synod of Chalcedon. But not to tire the reader with superfluous evidence, I will content myself with supplying the declaration of the council of Florence on the subject. The decision of this council, held in 1439, will probably have more weight at this period of time, as it was framed on the reunion of the Greek and Latin churches. The decree is expressed in the following terms: "WE DEFINE that the holy Roman See, and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter,

1 See Conc. tom. iv. also Carranza, Act. i. ii. iii. fol. 140— 145; Cabassut. Notit. Eccles. Sæc. v. p. 214, et seq.; Fleury, b. 28; Mr. Butler, St. Leo's Life, April 11.

: 1 Eliz. c. i

prince of the apostles, and true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole church, and the father and doctor of Christians; and that to him, in St. Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, a full power to feed, rule and govern the universal church, as appears from the proceedings of general councils and holy canons. Given at Florence, in a synodal public session, in the year 14391."

In addition to documents so clear and decisive on this subject, it would be easy to collect a volume of evidence no less convincing both from the Greek and Latin fathers, the legitimate and authorised witnesses of tradition. But to what purpose are we to trespass on the patience of the reader, when the centuriators of Magdeburg have kindly performed the work. Those rigid partisans of Protestantism, have, in their motley performance, undertaken to vent their rancour and spleen against both the Greek and Latin fathers, for constantly supporting the supremacy of the apostolic see. As this is a sure and unequivocal acknowledgment of the point under consideration, it becomes altogether unnecessary to search for further evidence from this sourceo. Perhaps the English reader may wish to hear

'See Carranza, fol. 351.

2 See Cent. iii. col. 84, 85; Cent. iv. col. 125, 555, 556, 558; Cent. v. col. 774, 777, 778, 779, 781, 783.

the opinion of a writer, whose name may be more familiar to him, than the centuriators of Magdeburg. Let Bucer therefore step forth with his tale, the man who was called over to England to assist Cranmer in forming the Anglican church. "We confess," says this writer, "that in the opinion of the ancient fathers, the Roman church did hold the primacy, having the chair of Peter, and that her bishops have been accounted his successors1." This is a fair and candid acknowledgment, which, coming from such a man as Bucer, should have great weight in the Protestant world.

But as two witnesses of unexceptionable credit, usually establish a fact in a very satisfactory manner, let us hear the evidence of Blondel on the subject, a Protestant divine, who for skill in languages, and an intimate acquaintance with history, civil and ecclesiastical, stands unrivalled among his brethren. "Rome," says he, "being a church, consecrated by the residence of St. Peter, whom antiquity acknowledged as the head of the Apostolic college, and honoured as the See of Peter, might easily have been-considered by one of the most renowned councils, (that of Chalcedon) as head of the church2." Such is the admission of Blondel, and such is the language of those Protestants, whose learning rendered familiar facts, which bigotry cannot disavow.

1

Bucer, Prep. ad Conc. 2 Blondel on the Supremacy, p. 107.

If the catechist and his friends require any farther confirmation of the supremacy of the chief pastor of the Catholic church, I beg their attention to the three following considerations. First, whenever any bishop, in any part of the Catholic world, has felt himself aggrieved by the proceedings of a national or provincial synod, recourse has invariably been had to Rome. Thus the great St. John Chrysostom appealed to the authority of Innocent the First, from the unjust decisions of his adversaries; St. Flavian, the venerable patriarch of Antioch, resorted to the jurisdiction of St. Leo the Great, under similar circumstances; about the same time, Chelidonius, bishop of Besançon, who had been deposed by St. Hilary of Arles, recurred to the same tribunal. In all these instances, the cases submitted to the Holy See were carefully investigated, and judicially discussed; and ample justice was done to the contending parties. Ecclesiastical history is full of similar appeals, when the adverse parties manifested the most perfect acquiescence in the authority and equity of the judge. Secondly, let the catechist reflect, that in all controversies relating to faith, the party adhering to the Apostolic See, has ever been accounted orthodox; the party dissenting from the supreme pastor, has, in every instance, been reputed heretical or schismatical. "I am associated in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter," exclaims St. Jerom, in his

celebrated letter to Pope Damasus : "I know the church to be built upon that rock: whoever eats the lamb out of that house is profane." And again, "I know not Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you, scatters; that is, he who does not belong to Christ, is a follower of antichrist'." Thirdly, let the catechist remember, that nothing has ever been defined in the church relating to faith, without the consent, or the subsequent sanction of the Pope, as the supreme pastor. Surely this must be considered as a standing monument, a practical confirmation of the belief of the church on this subject.

To all this overwhelming weight of reason and authority, what says the learned catechist?

1. He alleges, that there is no authority in Scripture for the prerogatives of the Church of Rome. To this, it may be obviously and rationally replied, that there are many, very many points necessarily observed, which are not warranted by any text of Scripture. The Sunday, or the first day of the week, is to be kept holy; and this duty is universally regarded as a matter of conscientious obligation: yet the practice, so

1 "Beatitudini tuæ, id est, cathedræ Petri, communione consocior; super illam petram ædificatam ecclesiam scio: quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, prophanus est..... Non novi Vitalem, Meletium respuo, ignoro Paulinum. Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit, hoc est, qui Christi non est, antichristi est."-Epist. St. Hier. lib. i. Epis. 25, edit. Canis. fol. 21, Lovan. 1581.