Our Lord in establishing the supremacy of St. Peter gave to His Church a constitution and a government. He placed His kingdom under one monarchical head. He made the sacerdotal hierarchy subject to one chief. This law must therefore last as long as the Church lasts, that is, through all time. There is no power which can change the divine law of our Lord. The supremacy of St. Peter must therefore be perpetual in his successors. And that these successors are the Roman Pontiffs I shall proceed to show in my next discourse.
Sermon XIV.
The Roman Pontiffs
The Successors Of St. Peter.
St. Matt. xvi. 18.
"And I say to thee:
That thou art Peter;
and upon this Rock I will build My Church."
I have proved in a former discourse that St. Peter was constituted Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ, with supreme jurisdiction over the Catholic Church, by the Lord Himself. It remains now to show that this supremacy was given also to the successors of St. Peter, and that the Bishops of Rome are his successors, and consequently inherit his supremacy. That the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is the See of St. Peter, and the Mother and Mistress of Churches; and that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and Supreme Visible Head of the Church—this is what I now undertake to prove.
This is proved, in the first place, by an argument, the force of which is admitted in all courts of law, viz., the argument of prescription. The Roman Church is in possession of this claim, and has been from time immemorial. A claim on a certain property or to a certain right, which is so ancient that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary, is always admitted as valid in a law court. Now, it is evident that the Roman Church now asserts this claim; that she asserted it before the Reformation; that she asserted it before the Greek schism; and that not a single Church exists in the world which has not at some time admitted this claim, and submitted to it. If we go back, then, to the earlier centuries, we find the Roman Church always in possession of this supremacy, and we can never find its beginning. Protestants and others, who wish to prove that it began after the Apostolic age, can never agree together as to the epoch of the rise of the Papal power, although all give it a very early date. Now, I say that, according to all sound principles of reasoning, the fact that this claim had been made and assented to from time immemorial is a certain proof that it is just. It could not have been established so early and so universally without violence and without resistance, unless it existed under the Apostles, and was established by them in the infancy of Christianity. Just as it would be impossible for the Governor of Virginia to take peaceable possession of the Presidential chair and govern the United States, as its acknowledged chief magistrate, without any election of the people; so it would have been equally impossible for the Bishop of Rome to make himself peaceably the supreme ruler of the Catholic Church, unless he were appointed by St. Peter and the Apostles, according to the divine constitution of the grand Christian commonwealth, with the knowledge of all Christians. This argument alone would be perfectly conclusive, even if the New Testament were altogether lost, or were entirely silent on the subject.
But when we compare the fact that the Roman Church, under the name of the See of St. Peter, has always existed as the principal edifice of a vast agglomeration of smaller but similar edifices, with the prophecy of Christ that He would build the Church on the Rock of Peter, the conclusion is irresistible that the fact is the fulfilment of the prophecy. Here is the prophecy of Christ, that He would build His Church on Peter as a foundation, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. There is the Roman Church, evidently built on Peter as its foundation, which has endured through eighteen centuries, and is now as firm and immovable as ever. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that this is the Church built by Christ. The fact corresponds exactly with the prophecy, and there is no other fact which does, therefore the fact is the fulfilment of the prophecy. Let me illustrate this by a comparison. Suppose you describe the Moro of Havana to some one who has never seen it, and who is about taking a voyage to Cuba. You tell him it is a castle of large size and great strength, built on a rock which rises perpendicularly from the sea, at the mouth of the bay. There is no castle similar to it: on his route. Now, when this traveller comes on deck some morning, and sees a castle founded on a rock at the mouth of a harbor, with a large city in the distance, is it not evident that this is the Moro? If you sail from the city of New York, knowing that there is an American ship of the line anchored in the bay, and you pass a large man-of-war with the United States flag, and the broad pennant of an admiral flying at her mast-head, is it not evident that this is the ship in question? Though a hundred smaller vessels are anchored in the vicinity, you cannot hesitate a moment, you can not for an instant imagine that any of these is a man-of-war. The first glance tells you which is the line-of-battle ship, for there is only one which makes any pretension to that character, which has the size, the armament, or in any aspect the appearance of a man-of-war.