Chapter IX

THE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.

Different sorts of proof.—1. The principal here used, and the subsidiary.—Their

joint force246

Hence, I. The nature of the answer required to it.—2. The proof, if unanswered,

demonstrates the Primacy to be revealed247

3. Enquiry into the certitude of the proof used248

I. Force of the proof in itself and absolutely.—Two conditions requisite,

and here found, authenticity of the documents, and clearness of their

evidence.—Number and harmony of scriptural testimonies to the Primacy249

The parallel of Julius Cæsar250

Collateral proof, supporting that of the holy Scriptures, so that the whole

consists in the harmony of these four:—1. Scriptural documents.—

2. Ancient witnesses.—3. Analogy.—4. Facts of Christian history, in fourteen

distinct classes251

Prodigious force of this compound proof256

No counter religious system producible by Greek, Anglican, or pure Protestant,

but mere negation and objection257

II. Force of the proof comparatively with other doctrines: comparison

with the texts on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists severally

rely259

Retort that all but Catholics are opposed to our interpretation; answer,

that from Catholics alone we are to gather the truth260

Yet all protestants not agreed in opposing our interpretation and reasons

why their opposition is of little moment261

Compare, likewise, opposition to the Church in the fourth, fifth, and

sixth centuries264

And again the conduct of Lutherans and Anglicans in maintaining their

own distinctive texts.—But what, then, are the true criteria of documentary

evidence? They are four:—

Internal {and immediate {4. Verbal.

{ {2. Real.

{and remote 3. Analogical.

External 4. Agreement of witnesses 265

1. Comparison carried through verbal criterion, between the texts alleged

by us, and those of Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists266

2. And through the real criterion, or that of the subject matter, greater

in the proofs for Peter's prerogatives than in those for the real presence,

or the Divinity of Christ, on account of the difficulty of grasping

the object in the latter cases267

As to the superiority of bishops over presbyters, the proof severed from

that of the Primacy sinks into nothing: considered with it, it is of the

same character, but weaker268

Accordingly, the criterion from the subject matter is stronger for Peter's

Primacy, than for the superiority of bishops over presbyters, for the

real presence, and for the Divinity of Christ.—Sum of both these criteria,

verbal and real, in favour of Peter's Primacy, over these three

doctrines270

Appeal hence arising to Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists.—Comparison

with the inferior evidence for other received doctrines271

3. The third criterion of analogy: force of this in favour of Peter's Primacy

from three heads:—1. The divine institution of bishops.—2. The

unity of the Church.—3. The Catholicity of the Church272

4. Fourth criterion of witnesses.—Immense force of this criterion, both

as stated by the fathers, and shewn by Protestants in their own conduct274

Witnesses unanimous in favour of the Primacy277