the Apostolic history itself. If God originally entrusted the Church's government to a majority of voting Apostles, a strong presumption would arise that He entrusted it after their death to a majority of voting bishops. On the contrary, if the Apostles were commissioned to exercise that government, not as represented by a majority, but as acting in union with S. Peter, then there is every reason to expect that postApostolic bishops are corporately united on a similar principle. And there is, moreover, one very remarkable fact, conspicuous on the surface of Church history from the very first, which strikingly confirms this antecedent presumption; and to which (very characteristically) our prejudiced opponent nowhere makes the slightest reference. The later bishops in general were regarded as successors of the Apostles in general; but hardly ever was an individual bishop spoken of as successor of an individual Apostle, excepting only to S. Peter. The instances e. g. are most rare of the Bishop of Jerusalem being called successor to S. James; whereas the whole Catholic world concurred from the very first in regarding the Bishop of Rome as successor to S. Peter. This fact alone suffices to establish, that his office is, in one respect or other, different in kind from that of any other bishop.

Now as to ante-Nicene times in particular. We assume from our January article that in these times the Catholic Episcopate, acting corporately, had supreme power over the Church. But (as we have so often said) this proposition is simply unmeaning, until you have explained how it acted corporately; what was its principle of unity. Roman Catholics maintain that the Holy See was this principle of unity; and they point to various facts, which imply the existence of such a tradition in the earliest post-Apostolic times. There are very many facts, we say, which undeniably indicate the Roman doctrine, and not a few testimonies which distinctly affirm it. We shall not be expected to draw these out in detail: on this head we must refer to Catholic controversial works; but in truth, as will soon be seen, the scope of our argument in no way requires such detail. We will only mention that, as Mr. Sconce points out, every single Father (unless S. Ignatius be to some extent an exception†) who speaks of bishops at all,

*We think most highly of that work of Mr. Sconce to which we refer, "The Testimony of Antiquity to the Supremacy of the Holy See" (Burns and Oates). It is very far less known than it deserves to be; and, indeed, we hardly know any treatise which we should so strongly recommend on this particular subject to a candid Anglican inquirer.

+ But not really an exception; for the phrase, "ecclesia quæ præsidet in loco Romanæ regionis," is very significant. See Dr. Murray, vol. iii. p. 557.

speaks also of the Roman Primacy; and we will cite the wellknown passages of SS. Irenæus and Cyprian. S. Irenæus, as F. Schrader excellently draws out (vol. i. p. 81), expresses these four propositions: (1) the fact of the universal communion [in faith] of all Catholics with the Roman Church: (2) the necessity of this communion: (3) the cause both of the fact and of the obligation, derived from this circumstance; viz., that the Roman Church is at once a centre round which the faithful coalesce, and also a model in doctrine to all other Churches: (4) the reason of these various prerogatives; consisting in the peculiar "principalitas" which she possesses. (See also Dr. Murray's admirable exposition of the passage from p. 558 to p. 563, vol. iii.) So much on S. Irenæus. S. Cyprian, who (as we said in January, pp. 113-115) is so voluminous and energetic in behalf of the Church's indivisible unity, expresses very distinctly the divinely-given principle of unity. "It is from the chair of Peter," he says, from that "principal Church" that "hath issued the unity of the priesthood." "Thy communion," oh Cornelius of Rome, "is the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church." (Sconce, p. 16.)

But it is really wasting time and space to pursue such testimonies; for our argument only requires us to express the safest of all imaginable propositions. Certain Christians, we say, in the three first centuries regarded the Roman Bishop as having quite a different position from other bishops in keeping together that corporate society called the Church. Whereas the Church is one edifice built up by God, certain Christians considered S. Peter (in himself and in his successors) to be the Rock on which that one edifice was founded; whereas the Church is by divine ordinance indefectibly and corporately one, certain Christians considered communion with the Holy See to be the appointed principle of unity.

On the other hand (as we have so often observed) if the divinely appointed principle of unity be not the Papacy, it must be some other which admits of being named. God, e. g., may have ordained that the majority of bishops is infallible in teaching and supreme in governing. We are next, therefore to inquire, what ante-Nicene testimonies or indications can be adduced, for some other principle of unity distinct from the Papal. And to this inquiry the answer is most simple. Not one controversialist, however learned, has so much as suggested one such testimony or indication. Our argument, therefore, is most direct. That the ante-Nicene Fathers ascribed to the Church corporate unity as an essential attribute, is not less certain on the very surface of history, than that modern Roman Catholics ascribe to her that attribute. But if God

endowed the Church with indefectible corporate unity, it follows by absolute necessity that He endowed her with some principle of unity; and if the Apostles taught the former, they taught also the latter. You approach the ante-Nicene writers, who lived nearest to the Apostles, that you may learn from them what was the Apostolic doctrine on the principle of unity. You find in these writers various concurrent testimonies, and a large number of concurrent facts, stating or implying the Roman principle of unity; while as to any other, different from this, there is nowhere so much as the slightest hint of such an one having ever been heard of. The Roman therefore, and no other, must have been the doctrine taught by the Apostles. Here also we must repeat what has been said on two earlier occasions in this article. If we merely showed that ante-Nicene facts are reconcileable with the Roman theory, we should have done absolutely all which our argument requires; for our direct proof of that theory rests (as has been seen) on grounds altogether different. But we have done a great deal more than was necessary for our argument. We have shown, not merely that ante-Nicene facts are reconcileable with the Roman theory, but also that (even considered exclusively in their own mutual light) they suffice to establish it. They thus furnish a fourth independent argument for our conclusion.

We are next to investigate a period, which may be expected to determine most unmistakeably the point at issue: that of the early Ecumenical Councils. When Catholic bishops assemble from every part of Christendom, to exercise in common their divinely given office of teaching and governing the Church, one may expect confidently to find some clear exhibition of the corporate principle which unites them into one body. We will take the four first Councils as representing the rest; and they are indeed those on which Dr. Pusey and all Anglicans lay their greatest stress.

For reasons which will presently appear, we begin with the Council of Ephesus. We would earnestly draw Dr. Pusey's attention to the facts of this Council, as brought out by Dr. Murray (vol. iii. pp. 577-586).* We will here most briefly insert a few relevant particulars. Pope S. Celestine thus charged his legates, on their departure for Ephesus :-" If a discussion should arise, you are to declare judgment on the sentiments of the bishops; not yourselves to undergo a trial.” S. Cyril presided over the Council, avowedly as S. Celestine's

*F. Harper also treated this Council most powerfully, in a sermon which our readers will find noticed in our number for July, 1865, p. 264.