THE PAPAL AND ROYAL SUPREMACY

1. The Supremacy of S. Peter not to be found in Holy By the Rev. W. DENTON, Vicar of S. Bartholomew, Cr Masters.

2. Report submitted to the Manchester Church Society, b mittee appointed for that purpose, on the Royal Supre Church Emancipation. J. H. Parker.

THESE two pamphlets, each in their way, afford an index is creating anxiety in some of the more thoughtful min present day. And though they were written for most purposes, they may be advantageously considered toge cause, whereas some of those who have left the English have done so on the supposition that the Supremacy of would emancipate them from the fetters of the Royal Su the Manchester Report by pointing out what constitutes fetters of the State, enables us to judge how far the Pope to confer the liberty that is desired, as well as to esti amount of good which would accrue to the Church were tion of the Committee at once granted.

We hope Mr. Denton's reasoning may be successful suading the friend, to whom the pamphlet was first ad that the Supremacy of S. Peter is not contained in Script he has failed to do so, it is not because he has not writter and argued ably. In addition to the usual refutations Roman claims, there are several coincidences mentioned certainly are striking.

1. In answer to the argument based upon the fact, Peter is mentioned first in the catalogue of the Apostles, M ton points out that neither S. John, nor S. Paul, mention the same order. Bethsaida is described "as the city of and Peter." It is "Paul, and Apollos, and Cephas;" an "James, Cephas, and John." And that this is no insig piece of reasoning, may be understood by the circumstance Roman writers though they have not ventured to alter the Scripture, yet in their comments are careful to transpose S order, and to speak of Cephas, James, and John. And a the Divines of the Council of Trent, when drawing up the the books of the New Testament, speak of the Epistles of John, and James, instead of in their received arrangement."

2. Mr. Denton argues, that had our LORD conferred an rior powers on S. Peter, there would not have been those c

1 Gorranus, Corn. a Lapide, Alex. Natalis, Tirinus, all invert the order S. Paul.-P. 7.

2 Con. Trid. Sessio IV. De Canon. Script.

disputes between His Apostles, which of them should be the greatest. One of which Apostolic disputes evidently occurred after the declaration, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church."

3. In the Acts of the Apostles it is very evident that there was some central authority which "sent out Peter and John," and that the metropolitan power was exercised by S. James, who presided at the Council, heard the arguments of S. Peter, and then came to a decision, "My sentence is."

We cannot forego another interesting consideration advanced by Mr. Denton, which is based upon the amount of argument that might be brought forward to prove, that S. John was supreme. Considering what was laid down as the main characteristic principle of CHRIST's kingdom, it would only be fair to conclude that the meekness of S. John rather than the ardour of S. Peter, would mark him out as the Primate or supreme ruler of the Church; and so we shall find that all promises made to S. Peter, and all actions of CHRIST in regard to him, are as nothing compared with the incidents in the life of the beloved Apostle. There were evidently favours exhibited by the LORD toward S. John, which singled him out from among even the other two; and on one occasion S. Peter himself made use of his nearer approach to our SAVIOUR.2

"Again, in no sense can it be said that S. Peter is a type and representative of that Church, to which has been promised the gift of indefectibility. His repeated falls forbid this; but it is true of that Apostle, who was with Him in the judgment-hall, who denied Him not; but following close the footsteps of his GOD, stood beneath the Cross, even when all was 'finished.' To S. John, moreover, was consigned the charge of the Blessed Virgin, the type of CHRIST's Catholic Church, and of whom we are expressly told that that disciple took her unto his own home. . . . To him was revealed in a vision the future history of CHRIST'S Church; and he, not S. Peter, was bidden to write words of comfort and of rebuke-the message of the great Head of the Church-to the Seven Churches of Asia. Lastly, he was preserved alive, as CHRIST had promised, longer than any of the rest of the Apostles, and so for a while was, by Divine Providence, actually as far as man can be, the supreme ruler of CHRIST's Church on earth."-P. 14.

These extracts will give some idea of Mr. Denton's line of refutation: should any of our readers wish to see the proofs from Ecclesiastical antiquity on this tenet, we can refer them to Mr. Scudamore's learned work,3 in which Bellarmine's quotations from the Fathers are carefully examined, and it is shown very clearly that early writers are unanimous on one point, viz., that their ex

1 Acts xiii. 14.

2 S. John xiii. 22-25; where S. Peter beckoned to S. John to ask the LORD who should betray Him.

3 Scudamore's England and Rome, (Rivington,) in which, however, unfortunately some of the author's peculiar views on the Eucharist appear.

position of S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, however various, one and all exclude the interpretation, which the Divines of modern Rome desire to thrust upon the text.

We shall give the best idea of the contents of the Manchester Report, by proceeding at once to give the conclusion to which the Committee have come :

They think that there are three statutes at present existing, which have been and are the main cause of the troubles of the Church, and which most decidedly destroy her independence, thereby preventing her from performing, as she ought to do, the functions of her office.

1. "The first is the statute 25th Henry VIII., c. 26, which regulates the manner of appointing new Bishops to vacant sees. This statute is fatal not only to the independence of the Church of GOD, but to the spiritual welfare of the people; for though there have been many good Bishops of our Church, yet there have been many bad ones appointed. By bad Bishops it is not meant to imply that they were immoral characters, but that they were not fitted for so arduous and responsible an office as that of the Episcopate.

2. "There is another statute which ought to be amended, for as it now stands it is impossible in consequence for the Church to make any laws until she has first obtained the royal licence. The statute alluded to is the 25th Henry VIII. c. 19, commonly called the Act of Submission.

3. "There is another Act of Parliament, which requires amendment, -one, which as it now stands, wounds the consciences of all true Churchmen. It is the statute 1st and 2nd William IV., c. 92, which empowers the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear appeals from the Church courts on questions of false doctrine.

"Your Committee would therefore earnestly call upon all churchmen, both clergy and lay, to combine for the purpose of promoting the restoration of the Church's rights and liberties, and especially the right to elect her own Bishops, to make canons, &c, &c. (with no civil penalties) and to administer the law divine."-P. 47.

And now let us imagine what an advocate on the other side would allege. On the question of the Election of Bishops he would say that it was very doubtful whether on a vacancy, the clergy of the Diocese would at present elect a better Bishop than the nominee of the Prime Minister. At all events, he would be able to point to occasions of not very distant date, when the clergy would have in all probability nominated an Ecclesiastical Superior, who would have allowed them to go on in their old and abominable system of parochial neglect. The incumbents of the see of Norwich or of the old diocese of London, would not have elected men who would have attacked their systematic non-residence, their single services, and biennial Sacraments. It is to a certain but not an equal extent questionable, whether the Lincolnshire Rectors might not have preferred to perpetuate the easy rule and tolerant sway of

their late amiable and learned Bishop,-certainly they would not have chosen a man who had by his energy and piety worked his way up from the ranks.

It would be also worth considering, he would think, how far there would be any danger of the powers of selection falling into the hands of some great family clique in a county. No doubt local interests would play their part, and it is a notorious fact that the principal families in a neighbourhood are generally allied one to another. Should they combine to promote one of their scions to the Episcopate, a vast amount of influence would be brought to bear, and that not of a healthy character.

Would it or would it not be likely that the choice would fall upon some elderly person, beyond the age for active toil? Would not the selection sometimes, if not most frequently, be the result of a compromise, between two theological parties in a diocese; and so an inferior and a fettered man be promoted to preside over it? How too would the minority feel toward their superior nominated in spite of their opposition, when he began his episcopal work; and how would he feel towards those who strove hard to keep him out of his office? How far would he feel bound to provide for his especial constituents? Would there not be the possibility of an ambitious man laying his plans carefully and deeply, and thus rising to a hollow popularity among his brethren, which might not be detected until he had been lifted up by them on the episcopal throne? It is quite plain that a high-minded man would not embark upon such a contest; but is it so plain, that a man of lower tone would not do so and succeed in his endeavour? We admit, he would say, that the clergy generally make a good selection of proctors, though here the choice often falls upon an elderly man,—or a connexion of some great county family. But then would not the vast difference between the prize of £5000 a year and a peerage, and a seat in Jerusalem chamber at a considerable outlay of time and money, completely alter the prospects of the selection being the same? These are grave questions, that must be carefully weighed before it is expedient to agitate for the abolition of a system which, with its many dangers and evils, quite disposes of most, if not all, of the above difficulties,-some of which are certainly not imaginary. A free election would be most advantageous in a more perfect state of clerical morality; or in those dioceses that have been well and successfully governed; but as a general rule we are afraid that the Church is not ripe for such a change. All that we arrive at is the conviction, that such an election would be better than restoring the real power of choosing to the Deans and Chapters, who would invariably treat the mitre as they now do their best pieces of preferment, and appoint one of their own body. 2. The same rule, he would contend, we fear must be applied to the suggestion that the court of appeal should consist of the

Bishops of the Church. We have not a word to say in favour of the present Ecclesiastical tribunals, except that the eminent lawyers are for the most part men of higher mental qualifications, than many Bishops, and have a greater judicial reputation at stake. It is, however, quite clear that in a late celebrated trial the Archbishop's official was nearer the truth than his own patron was, that the Judicial Committee played a more dignified part than either; and he would be a bold man indeed, who would venture to submit the lay judgment on the Liddell and Westerton case to the revision of the Episcopal Bench.

3. The third grievance, he would say, is more easily dealt with; and we look hopefully for the time when the Synods and Convocation of the Church of England may be allowed to enact laws and canons. We have always felt that the present Convocation in its present form might do a great deal of useful work, and that the agitation that has been directed toward the improvement of its constitution would be better expended in pressing a few universally felt grievances on their consideration, and praying for the permission to have them remedied. Episcopal and Archidiaconal visitations might be made use of also as opportunities of mutual conference and consultation. There is, however, a danger that must be carefully kept in view, viz., that alterations made by Church and State, even if pernicious in themselves, are binding on all churchmen. We must be quite certain before we thus legislate, that the change will be one for the better. Had Convocation been invested with legislative powers thirty years ago, we should certainly have lost the Athanasian Creed out of our Service Book.

We have now, we believe, given fairly what would be the doubts and difficulties that will cross the mind of many an orthodox person in perusing the Manchester Report on this very difficult subject. We certainly do not wish to underrate them. But, after all, the objections seem to spring from the conviction that we are not worthy of or prepared for a better system. But surely the answer to such a statement is, that it is not we who are now injured and dishonoured by the present state of things, but CHRIST who is the Head of the Church. And therefore, while we admit to the full our existing shortcomings, we rest none the more content with the status quo, and we believe that the Church's Head will, by His Spirit, make her better and more worthy of the better system, quite as rapidly as we can promote and facilitate the advent of that better system.

Without, therefore, at this time giving any opinion as to the best way of remedying what is amiss, and by no means imagining that the English Church alone finds difficulty in regulating her relations with the State, we have no hesitation in tendering our best thanks to the authors of this very able Report for bringing the subject under consideration.