to turn round on the steps and solemnly bow down in worship of the Sun God; Rome, the last powerful enemy of the Cross, would, if put in the stead of Jerusalem, have been in one sense a greater declension than Peter put as the Rock instead of God; for Peter was, at any rate, a glorious saint, but all Rome's spiritual memories were of idolatry, cruelty, and lust, contrasting with the glory of Jerusalem not merely in the far distant past, but as the City in which the Great King manifested his countenance, fulfilled His work, and endowed His Church with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

No such degradation from the loftier ideal is to be found. 'Here,' says the Apostle, 'we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.'-Heb. xiii. 14. And what that is, let him tell us more at length :

'But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.'-Heb. xii. 22.

It is this 'Jerusalem above [which] is free,' according to S. Paul, 'which is the mother of us all '—Gal. iv. 26: the only 'mother and mistress of all Churches' known to him. And only to this city are men under the Gospel to go on pilgrimage, because

'Now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for He hath prepared for them a city.'-Heb. xi. 16.

What it is like S. John tells us in the glowing language at the close of the Apocalypse, wherein the jasper walls, jewelled foundations, gates of pearl, and golden streets of the Heavenly City are depicted.

Such is all that is directly obtainable from the clear letter of Scripture.

There is one isolated fragment of testimony adducible, and adduced, on the Ultramontane side, namely, this verse of the first Epistle of S. Peter :—

6

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1 S. Peter v. 13.

The received opinion in the Roman Church, based on very early tradition (beginning with S. Papias of Hierapolis and, as Eusebius says, S. Clement), and also on arguments

which have some weight and cogency, is that Babylon here stands for Rome. On the whole, there is much to be said for this view, and against the alternatives of the Mesopotamian Babylon and of Cairo, which have been suggested (and, in the former instance, supported with very cogent arguments) by Protestant controversialists (though at best there is only conjecture, not proof), while the Sinaitic MS. supplies the word 'church,' formerly supposed to be missing in the Greek, and thus refutes the theory of Calvin that S. Peter is speaking in this verse, not of the Church, but of his wife, as she who is elect at Babylon.' But the passage, nevertheless, cannot be pleaded in evidence of privilege, because (1) it is unquestionably obscure and ambiguous, not clear and manifest; because (2) it does not specify any official connexion between S. Peter and the Church at Babylon, wherever that may have been; and because, (3) even if these two facts were otherwise, the adjective 'elect together,' σuvekλektý, Vulg. coëlecta, denotes absolute equality of spiritual condition with those other Churches of 'Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,' enumerated in the opening words of this Epistle as those to which it is addressed. And, lastly (4), it is the evil case of Babylon that, whether in the Old Testament or the New, there is not one word ever spoken in its favour. Egypt and Assyria, often condemned, have, at any rate, some sets-off to show, as Isaiah xix. 18–24; Ps. lxviii. 31; Micah vii. 12; but for Babylon, from Isaiah to Revelation, there is nothing but denunciations of judgment, destruction, and woe: no hint of so much as a remnant to be delivered out of it, save of such as, being mere exiles and captives there, are not of its citizens (Rev. xviii. 4, cf. Isa. xlviii. 20, Jer. li. 6, 45); no promise of a spiritual growth to spring up when the earthly one is cut down. And therefore, if the types of the Old and New Testament are to count for anything in the evidence, this identification of Babylon and Rome is fatal to any claim of privilege urged on behalf of the latter on the ground of Divine favour and revelation.

The last item of the evidence is that, in the closing book of the Sacred Canon, there is total silence as to any central court of appeal for the Seven Churches, any supreme visible authority to which each Angel is subject. The visitation, so to speak, of each Church is made directly by Christ Himself, and not by any Vicar of His upon earth; and even the Apostle S. John acts as merely communicating a message, not as personally enforcing it.

No case, therefore, can be established from the Holy

Scriptures, regarded in the legal point of view as a single document proffered in evidence of the Petrine privilege, and as the chief item of that evidence, since being the most authoritative and indisputable form of Divine revelation; and therefore unless it can be conclusively shown that this primâ facie failure to prove the claim thereby is fully repaired by evidence of equivalent weight, as marked in its broader outlines, and as cumulative in its minor indications, as that which has been marshalled above, it remains that Christ as the Rock, and the Heavenly Jerusalem as the Mother of all the Churches, are alone set forth and recognised in these capacities by the inspired writers of the New Testament. And that because the one possible plea in bar of judgment which might be adduced under other circumstances, that of Development, is inapplicable here, first, because a charter of privilege' cannot be developed at all, but must have been clearly granted from the first in explicit terms, unlike a mere right by prescription, which may grow through user in course of time; and next, because in this particular instance the comparison of the evidence shows that there is nothing to develope.

So far, then, as the Papal claim is alleged to be of Divine privilege, given by revelation, the Scriptures, treated as the chief document in evidence of claim, fail to satisfy the requirements of Roman Canon Law; for (1) they afford no testimony whatever as to the annexation of privilege to the Roman See, or its transmission from S. Peter to any of his successors; (2) the evidence as to his own primacy is obscurely and enigmatically worded; (3) so far as its wording does go, it is a personal, not an official grant, and thus dies with the original grantee; (4) if continued in the Ultramontane sense, it encroaches on S. Paul's privileges, which are more clearly worded.

Wherever the proof may be found, therefore, it is certainly not in the Scriptures.

Although the investigation of the letter of Scripture yields such extremely slender results in favour of the privilege of Peter, yet it may be, and in fact is, argued that there is such a body of other incontestable evidence on its behalf in existence, proving its recognition and acceptance from the very first, as to amount to proof of Divine revelation; on the principle that the universal prevalence of a certain interpretation of Scripture at the hands of the body which is the custodian and witness of Scripture, and of an unbroken practice based on that interpretation, is as truly proof of its

being revealed as part of the Gospel of Christ as any statement found in the express words of Scripture itself. Exactly so, there are certain statutes in English law whose wording is far from being clear to the lay mind, and whose clauses seem to go but a very small way towards covering the whole subjectmatter concerned, but where a perfectly consistent series of decisions in the law-courts, dating from the original enactment, and an unbroken usage in entire harmony therewith, serve as proof to every one that these Acts have in fact one unquestioned meaning, itself as much part of the law of the land as if verbally embodied in their wording.

Examples of the kind referred to may be found in ecclesiastical matters also. The observance of Sunday, the baptism of infants, the institution of episcopacy, do not rest on clear and express warrant of the letter of Scripture. They are instances of an universal identity of interpretation of that letter, resulting in an universal identity of practice all over the Christian world from its earliest times.

And to all who accept the Church as being a divinely established and guided body, such evidence is sufficient; while even those who regard it merely as a human organisation, are constrained to admit that whatever exhibits such complete unison and such an unbroken prescription, must fairly represent the mind of the first Christian teachers, and be clothed with whatever authority they possessed.

If, then, any such harmonious testimony to the Privilege of Peter be producible as that which can be found for Sunday, for infant baptism, and for episcopacy, with a like absence of rebutting evidence, it will, to say the least, very nearly counterbalance the adverse construction which a comparative survey of the bare letter of Scripture forces on the theologian's attention.

'Very nearly,' but not quite. And only 'very nearly,' for these reasons: (1.) The claim in this individual instance is of a special privilege by a deed, so to say, of particular grant or donation, to which impugners are referred as the paramount evidence and authority. The claim on behalf of Sunday observance, or of infant baptism, does not rest on any such definite warrant at all, but on unbroken prescription. Now, it is a maxim of Canon Law that privilege and prescription cannot be simultaneously pleaded on behalf of the same claim; for the man who bases his demand on a deed of privilege is held to renounce his right of prescription-(Decret. Greg. IX., lib. ii. titt. xxvi. and xxvii. 19.) (2.) That which expresses the mind of the Church only, and is not directly

matter of Divine revelation, may be conceivably altered by the consent of the whole body, as if, suppose, the distinction between Metropolitans and Bishops were abolished. But it is not competent for even the whole body to alter, either by enlargement or diminution, whatever it acknowledges to be divinely revealed, as is the case with the books of the Old and New Testament.

The most, therefore, which could be derived from such a consensus of authorities, each indefinitely inferior in weight to any New Testament writer, and all collectively not nearly equalling the aggregate witness of the New Testament, would be a very strong presumption, but still far short of Divine certainty, in favour of a particular opinion or usage, unless this consensus went the whole length of asserting that the matter alleged is a divinely revealed dogma of Christianity. And this is the least which would make amends for the indirectness and obscurity, to say no more, of the evidence for the Privilege of Peter as found in the Scriptures.

Before beginning the investigation of such evidence as is tendered or producible, it is expedient to set down once more the links which must be, one and all of them, conclusively established before the claim will bear the weight of Papal supremacy or infallibility, and also to state the sources of inquiry, and the classification of testimony.

First, then, it must be shown that there is full agreement amongst the Fathers, that S. Peter was the Rock of the Church, was infallible, and was invested with direct jurisdiction over all the other Apostles, and not with a mere primacy of honour.

Next, that this supreme jurisdiction and infallible character were not personal only, but capable of being devolved or transmitted to his successors.

Thirdly, that S. Peter was local and diocesan Bishop of Rome.

Fourthly, that as a matter of fact he did professedly and expressly transmit his privilege to the Bishops of Rome, constituting them his heirs and successors.

Fifthly, that the Christian Church did, in fact, from the earliest times, recognise and submit to this infallible supremacy as of Divine institution.

There are several collateral issues, scarcely less important, but it will suffice to examine these five links, the failure of any one of which is fatal to the whole claim.

As to the sources of inquiry, they are: (1.) The ancient Liturgies. (2.) The writings of the Fathers from S. Ignatius