Chapter IX. That the Bishop of Rome is Tkue Successor of S. Peter, and Head of the Militant Church

I HAVE presupposed that S. Peter was Bishop of Eome and died such. This the opposite party deny; many of them even deny that he ever was at Eome; but I am not obliged to attack all these negatives in detail, because when I shall have fully proved that S. Peter was and died Bishop of Eome, I shall have sufficiently proved that the Bishop of Eome is the successor of S. Peter. Besides, all my proofs and my witnesses state in express terms that the Bishop of Eome succeeded to S. Peter, which is my contention, and from which again will follow a clear certainty that S. Peter was at Eome and died there.

And now here is my first witness, — S. Clement, disciple of S. Peter, in the first letter which he wrote to James, the brother of the Lord; which is so authentic that Eufinus became the translator of it about twelve hundred years ago. Now he says these words: " Simon Peter, the chief apostle, brought the King of ages to the knowledge of the city of Eome, that it also might be saved. He being inspired with a fatherly affection, taking my hand in the assembly of the brethren, said: I ordain this Clement, Bishop, to whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine." And a little further on: "to him I deliver the power of binding and loosing which was delivered to me by the Lord." And as to the authority of this epistle, Damasus in the Pontifical,

ART. vi. 0. X.] The Rule of Faith. 281 in the life of Clement, speaks of it thus: " In the letter which was written to James you will find how to Clement was the Church committed by Blessed Peter." And Eufinus, in the preface to the book of the Recognitions of S. Clement, speaks of it with great honour, and says that he had turned it into Latin, and that S. Clement bore witness in it to his own institution, and said " that S. Peter had left him as successor in his chair." This testimony shows us both that S. Peter preached at Rome and that he was Bishop there. For if he had not been Bishop how would he have delivered to S. Clement a chair which he would not have held there?

The second, S. Irenseus (iii. 3): " To the greatest and oldest and most famous Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." And a little further on: " The blessed Apostles therefore, founding and instituting the Church, delivered to Linus the office of administering it as Bishop; to him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement receives the episcopate.

The third, Tertullian (de Pr. xxxii.): " The Church also of the Romans publishes," — that is, shows by public instruments and proofs — " that Clement was ordained by Peter." And in the same book (xxxvi.): " Happy Church, into which the Apostles poured with their blood their whole doctrine! " — and he speaks of the Roman Church, " where Peter's passion is made like to the Lord's." Whereby you see that S. Peter died at Rome and instituted S. Clement there. So that joining this testimony to the others, it is seen that he was Bishop there and died teaching there.

The fourth, S. Cyprian (Ep. 55, ad Corn.): "They dare to sail off to the chair of Peter, and to the head Church, whence the sacerdotal unity has come forth; " — and he is speaking of the Eoman Church.

Eusebius (Cliron. ann. 44): "Peter, by nation a Galilsean, the first pontiff of Christians, having first founded the Church of Antioch, proceeds to Eome, where, preaching the Gospel, he continues twenty-five years bishop of the same city."

Epiphanius (ii. 27): "The succession of bishops at Eome is in this order; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, &c."

Dorotheus (in Syn.): " Linus was Bishop of Eome after the first ruler, Peter."

Optatus of Mile vis (de Sch Don.): " You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Eome the episcopal chair was first intrusted to Peter, in which Peter, head of all the Apostles, sat." And a little further on: " Peter sat first, to whom succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement."

S. Jerome (ad Dam.): " With the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross do I treat: I am united in communion with thy Blessedness, in the chair of Peter."

S. Augustine (Ep. 53, ad Gen.): "To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement."

In the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon (Act. iii.), when the legates of the Holy See would deliver sentence against Dioscorus, they speak in this fashion: " Wherefore, most holy and blessed Leo, of the great and older Eome, by us and by the present holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and ever to be praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the foundation of

ART. VI. ex.] The Rule of Faith. 283 the Catholic Church, has stripped him of the episcopal dignity and also ejected him from the priestly ministry." Give a little attention to these particulars; that the Bishop of Eome alone deprives him, by his legates and by the Council; that they unite the Bishop of Eome with S. Peter. For such things show that the Bishop of Eome holds the place of S. Peter.

The Synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, in its letter to Felix II., uses remarkable words on this point, and amongst other things, relates that in the Council of Nice it had been determined that it was not lawful to celebrate any Council without the consent of the Holy See of Eome, but that the canons which had been made to that effect had been burnt by the Arian heretics. And in fact, Julius I., in the Rescript against the Orientals in Favour of Athanasius (cc. 2, 3), cites two canons of the Council of Mce which relate to this matter, — which work of Julius I. has been cited by Gratian, four hundred years ago, and by Isidore nine hundred: and the great Father, Vincent of Lerius, makes mention of it a thousand years back. I say this because all the canons of Nice are not in existence, only twenty remaining: but so many grave authors cite others beyond the twenty, that we are obliged to believe what is said by those good Fathers of Alexandria above-named, that the Arians have got the greater part destroyed.

For God's sake let us cast our eyes on that most ancient and pure Church of the first six centuries, and regard it from all sides. And if we find it firmly believes that the Pope was successor of S. Peter, what rashness will it be to deny it?

This, methinks, is a reason which asks no credit.

pays in good coin. S. Peter has had successors in his vicarship: and who has ever in the ancient Church had the reputation of being successor of S. Peter, and head of the Church, except the Bishop of Kome? In truth all ancient authors, whosoever they be, all give this title to the Pope, and never to others.

And how then shall we say it does not belong to him? Truly it were to deny the known truth. Or let them tell us what other bishop is the head of the Church, and successor of S. Peter. At the Council of Nice, at those of Constantinople and Chalcedon, it is not seen that any bishop usurps the primacy for himself: it is attributed, according to ancient custom, to the Pope; no other is named in equal degree. In short, never was it said, either certainly or doubtfully, of any bishop in the first five hundred years that he was head or superior over the rest, except of the Bishop of Eome; about him indeed it was never doubted, but was held as settled that he was such. On what ground, then, after fifteen hundred years passed, would one cast doubt on this ancient tradition? I should never end were I to try to catalogue all the assurances and repetitions of this truth which we have in the Ancients' writings: but this will suffice just now to prove that the Bishop of Eome is the successor of S. Peter, and that S. Peter was and died Bishop at Eome.

ABT. VI. c. XL] The Rule of Faith. 285