*An eminent theologian, whose authority is peculiarly great on all doctrines concerning the Church, has kindly forwarded to us the following expansion of the statement in the text. Christ established, not episcopal order merely, but episcopal jurisdiction; i. e., He ordained that there should be for ever in the Church, besides the universal pastor, pastors having particular flocks, with power to teach, legislate, inflict censures, &c. &c. The jus divinum assigns no limits to this jurisdiction: but it gives the Pope power of assigning limits ob justam causam; of which he is supreme judge. Yet the Pope cannot so limit this jurisdiction, as to destroy totally or in substance the idea of episcopal jurisdiction as instituted by Christ; he cannot, e. g., say that in future no bishop shall have any power to make any law for his diocese, inflict any censure, &c. &c. He can do this ob justam causam in particular cases, so that the particular bishop loses episcopal jurisdiction; but he cannot do it in so many cases as would constitute the corpus episcoporum.

+ Dr. Pusey most strangely considers (p. 307) Pope S. Celestine to have contradicted modern Roman Catholic doctrine, when he said "all we [bishops] are engaged in [teaching] by an hereditary right; all we who have come into the Apostles' stead preach the Name of our Lord to all countries in the world... He charged us with it as with a duty devolving in common upon all." (On Dr. Pusey's most singular mistake, however, in substituting "equally" for "in common," see our remarks in January, 1866, p. 191.) He considers, too, that S. Gregory contradicted modern Roman Catholic doctrine (p. 309), when he declared, "it is said to the Universal Church,

uniformly rejected the title of "Universal Bishop." Such a name would imply, that the Pope is the only divinely appointed bishop; and that other bishops are not really successors of the Apostles, but only his mere delegates and representatives.*

Such, then, are the Ultramontane principles of ecclesiastical unity. And if Dr. Pusey's reasoning against these principles is worth absolutely nothing, à fortiori it is worthless, as directed against any less consistent expression of Roman Catholic doctrine. Anglicans in general maintain that our principles are opposed to those of Scripture; and Dr. Pusey in particular argues that they are opposed to those of Antiquity. We will consider therefore in order (1) the sayings of our Blessed Lord recorded in Scripture; (2) the history of Apostolic times, as recorded chiefly in the Acts; and (3) the testimonies of Apostolic Tradition, derivable from the first six centuries. Under each of these heads it will be necessary of course to make a very brief selection, from a very large amount of matter. But on this particular controversy, when once the point at issue has been fairly stated, a very few facts go a very long way indeed; or, rather, it may be said that the ordinary objections will be found crumbling to pieces through their own intrinsic rottenness.

Firstly, then, our Blessed Lord's words are so far from contradicting Ultramontane doctrine, that on the contrary they most strongly and irresistibly confirm it. This is most clearly, laboriously, and powerfully drawn out by Dr. Murray; and we earnestly recommend to our readers the truly interesting and attractive task of studying carefully his most admirable exposition. (See vol. iii. from p. 373 to 421.) We can give but a few hints of the general argument; but those hints will be amply sufficient for our purpose.

When first Simon Barjona was brought into his Saviour's presence, the very first words uttered to him by that Saviour were these: "Thou art Simon son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas" (John i. 42). And this declaration was considered by the Evangelist so important, that even if our Lord uttered other words on that occasion, they have not been reported. The very first thing which happened to this Apostle at the outset of his Christian life, was to be designated as the Church's future Rock. At a later period, in reward for his divinely inspired confession of his Lord's Eternal Sonship, the prediction of change of name was accomplished. Once more Jesus called him by his birth-name; and once more contrasted it with that which he was henceforth to bear (Matt.

* On this name, "Universal Bishop," see Schrader, vol. ii. pp. 89-94.

"Essays on the Apostolic Age." pp. 121-3. The Dean preposterously prefaces the substantive "Church" here by the adjective "early," as his only shift to avoid the Roman Catholic conclusion. What syllable is there

significant passage, Luke xxii. 23-32. We must content ourselves, however, with a passing reference to that illustrious occasion, on which our Lord at once fulfilled His prediction and performed His promise, by conferring on S. Peter his great dignity. In John xxi. 15-17, He expressly distinguishes S. Peter from the other Apostles-again, aud for the third time, giving him his full birth-name, Simon Barjona-and endows him with the duty and the prerogative of being shepherd to the whole flock.

Our conclusions far outstrip the necessities of our argument. Our argument, however, may be thus drawn out. We assume throughout, what we established in January, that the Church is essentially one corporate society; and we are inquiring what is her principle or centre of unity. If, as Roman Catholics maintain, S. Peter and his successors constitute that centre, then the utterances of our Blessed Lord are permitted to retain their one obvious and intelligible sense. Peter is that Rock in whose strength the Church will be supported against the attacks of Satan; He is the one supreme shepherd on earth of Christ's lambs and sheep. On the Roman Catholic hypothesis, in proportion as our Lord's sayings are carefully and intently pondered, in that proportion there will be found in them an ever-increasing profoundness, richness, beauty, variousness of signification. But if God had appointed the principle of unity to reside,-not in S. Peter and his successors, but in a majority of Apostles first and of bishops afterwards, then these sayings would be absolutely unintelligible, or rather plainly false. The Church's Rock would not be one Apostle, but a majority of Apostles; and the same majority would exercise a shepherd's office even over S. Peter himself.

We are next to inquire whether Christ said anything in an opposite direction. No one, we reply, has ever so much as alleged one single text, in which He made the most distant allusion to any principle of unity in the Church other than S. Peter. As regards His various mentions of the Apostolic office,—in the first place no candid person will allege that they are expressed at all so emphatically, so prominently, so pointedly, as His mentions of S. Peter's Primacy. This, however, is quite unimportant to our argument. What concerns us is, that all such pronouncements of our Lord refer without exception to the Apostles' collective authority over the Christian flock, and have no bearing whatever on the internal constitution and mutual relations of the Apostolic College. In the Apostolic passages He declares, that the Apostles and their successors to the end of time shall teach and govern the Church; and in the Petrine passages He further declares, that S. Peter and his VOL. IX.-NO. XVII. [New Series.]

C

successors are to perform the same office in quite a special sense. There is nothing whatever therefore in the former class, which has the slightest tendency to clash with what is said in the latter.

Our historical refutation of Dr. Pusey would have remained so far complete, had we merely shown that our Lord's various utterances are fully reconcileable with the Roman theory. But we have established much more than this; we have established that they are not reconcileable with any other. We have not therefore contented ourselves with answering an objection; but have added a second and important argument for our thesis. We are next to view the Church of the Apostles in practical action; and for that purpose we open the Acts. It is admitted by Dr. Pusey and by all with whom we are here concerned, that each of the Apostles was individually infallible in teaching we are now inquiring what was their principle of unity wherever they acted corporately in matters of discipline. And it follows from what has already been said, that there are three different alternatives which specially demand our consideration. (1) The Apostles may have imaginably received inspiration on matters of discipline, no less than of doctrine; so that harmony was at once secured for their action without argument or deliberation. (2) Their collective decision may have been determined in each case by a majority of Apostles. (3) The Roman doctrine may be true: viz., that they acted corporately, precisely so far as they acted in union with S. Peter; and consequently that he possessed over them a real Primacy of authority. Now the second of these alternatives is negatived at once, by the most superficial appeal to facts. If God originally placed the Church under the government of a majority of Apostolic votes, it was implied by that very fact that the Apostles were to remain together throughout their lives; whereas in fact, after a few years of united government, they separated to preach the Gospel in distant lands. By far the most critical and important act of Apostolic discipline was that promulgated at the Council of Jerusalem; and yet at that Council only three of the original Apostles were present. This alternative then must be at once put out of account. It is plain the "the Apostolic College" was but a temporary fact, a transient feature, in the Church's early history. On the other hand there are the strongest indications in the Acts of S. Peter's Primacy.

It was he who arranged the filling up of the Apostolic College through Matthias' election; he fixed the form of election, confining it to those who had been companions of Christ and witnesses of His teaching and acts. He