The truth of papal claims; a reply to The validity of papal claims by F. Nutcombe Oxenham

Contents

PAGE

Preface ix

Correspondence in the Church Times — The reason of

PART I Doctrine op the Supremacy and Infallibility - - 9

The Supremacy — The Proof from Scripture — S. Peter in relation to the other Apostles — Difierence between individual Bishops and individual Apostles — The Catholic Episcopate — Infallibility — What it means and what it does not mean — The Proof from Scripture— De Maistre — The Bishops of Rome — The Founders and the Bishop — The Clementine Romance — The False Decretals 9 — 32

PART II The Venerable Fathers 33

Maldonatus and Bellarmine — S. Augustine’s Retractations— S. John Chrysostom — S. Cyril of Alexandria 33 — 54

VI

CONTENTS

PACK

PART III Arguments against the Supremacy and Infallibility 54

“Ye shall be witnesses unto Me ” (Acts i. 8) — The Election of S. Matthias — The Institution of Deacons — “They were sent” (Acts viii.) — The conversion of Cornelius — The Council of Jerusalem — S. Paul rebukes S. Peter — The Epistles of S. Paul — The Epistles of S. Peter 54 — 80

Catholic England - - - - - -126

The Venerable Bede — The Bishops of the Province of Canterbury — The “Branch Theory” — Newman and the Fathers 126 — 129

Index

PAGE

Introductory 1

The Supremacy 9

The Bishops of Rome 23

The Venerable Fathers 33

Maldonatus 36

Bellarmine - - - - 41

S. Augustine - • 44

S. John Chrysostom 48

S. Cyril of Alexandria 52

The Book of Acts 54

S. Paul 76

S. Peter’s Epistles 79

The Constant Belief of Every Age 81

S. Victor 93

S. Cyprian 95

S. Irenaeus 101

Councils of the Church 110

The Council of Nicsea 113

The Sardican Canon 114

The Second General Coimcil 118

The Council of Chalcedon - - - - - - - - 120

Conclusion 126

■ M

I

PEEFACE

The following correspondence appeared lately in the Church Times, and we publish it here, as explaining the reason of this little book : —

ROMAN WAYS IN CONTROVERSY.

Sir, — May I ask your courtesy for the publication of the following letter, which I have had occasion to write to a Roman priest, whose main occupation here in Rome appears to be to entice straying Anglicans into the Roman fold : —

18, Piazza del Popolo,

Rev. Sir, — I am informed that you are preaching a course of sermons in adverse criticism of a small book which I published on “Papal Claims.” May I venture to express a hope that you will publish your criticisms in order that they may bear the test of examination, and, if necessary, of reply ?

I have the honour to be.

Your obedient servant,

F. N. OXENHAM.

The Rev. Mons. Merry del Val,

P.S. — I reserve to myself the right of publishing this letter, together with any reply which you may think fit to make.

To this letter I have received no answer or acknowledgment.

I had reason, arguing from precedent, to suspect that Mons. Merry del Val would probably make statements in

X

PREFACE these sermons which he would not venture to publish ; his silence goes far to confirm this suspicion.

It is not difficult to estimate the value of controversial statements which a preacher ventures to make to a select congregation, but which he does not venture to publish.

F. NUTCOMBE OXENHAM,

English Chaplain in Rome.

March 10th.

ROMAN METHODS OF CONTROVERSY.

Sir, — May I venture to trespass upon your valuable space and say a word in reference to a letter of Dr. Oxenham’s which appeared in your issue of the 14th of March. It is a fact that on the 4th of March (not the llth) Dr. Oxenham addressed to me the letter which he has published and that I have not replied.

I should have been glad to do so, though unacquainted with Dr. Oxenham, had he not added the postscript which appears at the foot of that letter. Without commenting upon the form and tone of what he has written, I would have replied that I was willing to consider the utility of publishing my lectures, in accordance with his request, though it is questionable that such a course could substantially add anything to the arguments and facts expounded so ably in the following works to which I refer Dr. Oxenham: — “St. Peter: his Name and his Office,” by T. W. Allies; “The Catholic Claims,” by Richardson; “ History of my Religious Opinions,” by J. H. Newman ; “ The Primitive Church and the See of Rome,” by Luke Rivington; and “England and the Holy See,” by Spencer Jones, one of Dr. Oxenham’s brother clergymen, not to

PEEFACE

XI mention other writers. I might have added that if Dr. Oxenham would take pains to refer to authentic sources and to the original works of the Fathers and of Catholic theologians he would find a good deal to change in such astounding statements as the following, which are contained in his little book: — 1. That the “ultramontane Jesuit doctor (Maldonatus) acknowledges (what every patristic scholar knows) that all those great doctors of antiquity, and among them three of the greatest — Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine — every one of them differs from modern Romanists, and gives other interpretations to this famous text (Matt, xvi.), which other interpretations do not give any countenance to Papal claims” (pp. 26-27). And on page 32 Dr. Oxenham sums up his conclusion thus: “We saw just now how the Jesuit Maldonatus conclusively refutes the Papal assertions as to the first text on which they rely.” The italics are my own. Dr. Oxenham discreetly suppresses all that Maldonatus says of the testimony of those very same Fathers, and of many others, upon this text, and his explanation of how the various interpretations of this same text may be easily accepted and reconciled.

2. On page 33 Dr. Oxenham, quoting from Dr. Salmon, asserts that another Ultramontane Roman writer, Bellarmine, can quote nothing earlier than the eleventh century in support of the Catholic interpretation of the text in St. Luke xxii. 31-32, upon which Bellarmine hardly dwells, and he again discreetly suppresses Bellarmine’s numerous quotations from the early Fathers upon the Primacy of St. Peter and upon his relative position to the other Apostles. These are but samples of Dr. Oxenham’s methods of controversy and of the arguments which he uses to convince his guileless readers of the futility of Papal claims. They are

XU

PEEFACE methods which I will leave others to qualify, as they deserve. Much as I may differ from the Anglican position and consider it untenable, I can willingly acknowledge that those who defend it with honesty and ability (and there are many) do not resort to such questionable methods of controversy as those which Dr. Oxenham has adopted in his little book.

It was not my intention before, nor is it my intention now, to be dragged into a controversy in the press with Dr. Oxenham. I therefore refrained from answering his letter, for I could not do so in any form without acknowledging the right, which he assumed, of publishing any reply which I might have thought fit to make.

R. MERRY DEL VAL,

Archbishop of Nicaea.

March 17 th.

ROMAN WAYS IN CONTROVERSY.

Sir, — I was unwilling to disturb the quiet of Holy Week by taking any notice of Mons. Merry del Yaks letter in your issue of March 21st; but now I beg leave, by your kind permission, to make a few remarks on that letter.

(1) I admit readily that I did, in my book on “Papal Claims,” make both the “astounding statements” to which Mons. Merry del Val objects; and hereby I distinctly reassert both those statements, because both of them are simply true, as Mons. Merry del Val might easily satisfy himself, if he would take the trouble to consult those “ original works ” to which he is kind enough to refer me. Your readers may do the like.

(2) I admit, wdth equal readiness, that I did (to use

Preface

Xlll

Monsignor’s phrase) “discreetly suppress” those portions of the writings of Maldonatus and of Bellarmine to which he refers.

I should not myself use, in this sense, the word “suppress,” but I quite agree that it is “discreet” to omit making long quotations which have no bearing upon the particular point in question.

This was the simple and, I think, sufficient reason for both those omissions of which Mons. Merry del Val complains.

Let me make this clear to your readers.

In the first instance, my purpose was to show that the assertions made by the Vatican Council and .by the present Pope with reference to the famous passage in St. Matt, xvi. 18, were not true, those statements being that the Papal interpretation of this passage was “the venerable and constant belief of every age,” and that it was held and taught by “aZZ the venerable Fathers.” (The italics are mine.)

For this purpose I quoted the Jesuit Maldonatus, who admits that three of the greatest of “the venerable Fathers” — Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine — every one of them differ from this Papal interpretation and adopt other interpretations, which do not give any countenance to Papal claims. The case of St. Augustine (shall I say that Mons. Merry del Val “discreetly suppresses” it?) is particularly strong, because, as I have shown in “Papal Claims” (pp. 27-28), St. Augustine in his younger days had interpreted “this rock” to mean St. Peter; but in a book which he wrote some years later (“Retractations,” Book 1, cap. 21) he says he thinks the interpretation which he once gave, mistaken, and that “this rock”

XIV

PREFACE

^ means Christ Himself. If the interpretation, which St. \ Augustine first gave, had been, as the Vatican Council 1 declares that it was, the “constant belief of every age,” / it is inconceivable that St. Augustine should have thus quietly put it aside and adopted another interpretation.

Now if three of the greatest of “the venerable Fathers” did not hold or teach the Papal interpretation of this text, it is plainly false to assert that they “ all ” did so hold and teach.

That was my only point, and I repeat that what Maldonatus says as to Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine, does “ conclusively refute ” the Papal assertions as to this text.

“All that Maldonatus says of the testimony of those very same Fathers and of many others,” which Mons. Merry del Val accuses me of having “discreetly suppressed,” is nihil ad rem.

No doubt Maldonatus quotes “ many others ” who agree with the Papal interpretation; and, of course, he thinks St. Augustine and the rest, who disagree, mistaken ; and he tries to make out that they could not really have meant to differ from the Papal view. That is so, no doubt, and I make Mons. Merry del Val a present of that admission, if he cares to have it.

In the second instance of my “ discreet suppressions ” my point was to show that what Mons. Merry del Val is pleased to call “the Catholic interpretation” of the text in St. Luke xxii. 31-32, was not “the venerable and constant belief of every age.” For this purpose I referred to the statement of “a recent learned writer” (Dr. Salmon, “The Infallibility of the Church,” p. 344) w^ho asserts that Bellarmine “ can quote nothing earlier than the eleventh century ” in

PREFACE

XV support of this “ Catholic interpretation ” of this text. If nothing earlier than the eleventh century can be found in support of this so-called “Catholic interpretation,” it is plainly false to assert that it was “ the constant belief of every age.” That was my only point ; and it was proved. That Bellarmine makes “numerous quotations from the early Fathers upon the primacy of St. Peter, and upon his relative position to the other Apostles,” is no doubt quite true. And it is equally true that I have “discreetly suppressed” — i.e.^ not recited — any of those numerous quotations, because they were nihil ad rem.

These are the two instances which Mons. Merry del Val selects as illustrating my “ questionable methods of controversy,” and he gently intimates that there is some lack of “ability and honesty” therein. My method (at least so far as intention goes) has been to keep strictly to the exact point in question and to try to prove it, and not to endeavour to mislead unwary readers by going off on to side issues and trying to make capital out of them when you know that you have no case as to the main point at issue — e.g.^ when you are discussing whether three particular writers did, or did not, make certain statements, and when you know perfectly well that they did make those statements, you should not attempt to divert attention by complaining that you have not been told what “ many other ” writers have said on the same, or a similar, subject.

The method which I have adopted appears to me to have the merit of “honesty,” however much it may lack “ability”; whereas, in the other method, although there is great scope for “ability,” there is not much room for “honesty.” A suspicion that something of this latter method might have crept into the Monsignor’s sermons

XVI

PEEFACE in criticism of my little book was my reason for wishing that he would publish those sermons. I gather from his letter to you that probably these sermons will be “ discreetly suppressed.”

Here I take my leave of Monsignor Merry del Val, “Archbishop of Nicaea,” of which venerable diocese he has about as much rightful claim to be the Archbishop as I have.

F. NUTCOMBE OXENHAM.

18, Piazza del Popolo, Rome,

Easter Monday.

[We have allowed Mr. Oxenham his right of reply, but it is quite impossible to continue this controversy. — Ed.].

The reader will find in these pages the substance of five lectures delivered in Rome at the beginning of this year. They formed part of a whole series on various subjects, and they were addressed to converts.

Feast of the Seven Dolours, 1902.

INTRODUCTORY

It is never a pleasing task to have to deal with an opponent who delights in sophistry, but when a writer forgets his good manners and finds it necessary to couch his specious reasoning in terms which are offensive and discourteous, the task becomes more displeasing still. Dr. Oxenham, in his little book entitled “The Validity of Papal Claims” — a book in which he endeavours to reply to the Pope’s Encyclical on the Unity of the Church — appears to revel in abusive epithets, and he accuses Leo XIII. of “ deliberate mistranslations and forgeries,” of “ most presumptuous ” and “ profane impostures,” just as on a previous occasion he did not hesitate to charge the venerable Pontiff with having uttered a “ deliberate and audacious falsehood.”^ But abuse is not argument, and I fancy that most people will be inclined to suspect that his position must be a weak one if it requires such weapons for its defence.

The main point at issue, as Dr. Oxenham himself acknowledges in the opening chapters of his book, is no other than this : — Did S. Peter hold the frivi-

^ See Dr. Oxenham’s Letter to the Guardian^ Nov. 23, 1896.

A leges of supremacy and infallibility now claimed for Kim, and were those frivileges recognised by all the venerable Fathers of antiquity, and by all the holy and orthodox Doctors of the Church, as the Vatican Council asserts, and the 'present Pontiff teaches in his Encyclical on the Unity of the Church, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour given to the Prince of His Apostles f

1. Now, as regards Dr. Oxenham’s manner of dealing with the subject, I must first point out that he seems to have experienced considerable difficulty when he came to translate the very simple text of the Yatican Council. No one in the least familiar with the terms of ecclesiastical language, or indeed with the etymology of words, would venture to translate discipulorum principi ” by “ the wisest of His ApostlesP And yet, this is the version as it appears on page 8 of Dr. Oxenham’s little book. However, after he had printed his book. Dr. Oxenham discovered his mistake, and in the copy which I possess,^ there is inserted a strip of paper with some Errata, and we are asked to read Prince instead of wisest. It is not easy to pass over the mistranslation as a printer’s error, and we are led to wonder how far we can trust Dr. OxenEam’s manner of handling the texts which he quotes, and whether he is in any way competent to pronounce upon a

1 A friend of mine has shown me a copy of Dr. Oxenham’s book in which the correction does not appear.

INTEODUCTOKY translation given by Leo XIII., wbom be accuses of “ deliberately falsifying ” tbe testimony of one of tbe Fatbers.i

2. Dr. Oxenbam proceeds at once to abandon tbe main point at issue, mentioned above, and, after tbe manner of tbe bero of Cervantes, to combat an imaginary foe. He adds page to page in order to prove tbat tbe Vatican Council and tbe Pope were wrong in saying tbat wbicb they never did say. For nowhere bas tbe Council or tbe Pope asserted tbat all tbe venerable Fathers and orthodox doctors of tbe Church, at all times and on every occasion, even when dealing with a subject other than the supremacy of S. Peter, have expressly described or expounded at length tbe position of S. Peter, or tbat each one of tbe Fathers bas been at pains to mention tbat doctrine every time tbat be may have bad occasion to refer to one or other of tbe three famous texts quoted by Dr. Oxenbam, viz. : — “ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and tbe gates of bell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee tbe keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou sbalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven ; and whatsoever thou sbalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven” (Matt. xvi. 18). “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you tbat be may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not : and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke xxii. 31). “Peed my lambs.

. . . Feed my sheep” (John xxi.).

^ We all know, and surely Br. Oxenham cannot ignore the fact, that the Fathers often comment upon one same text in different ways, according to the particular doctrine with which they happen to be actually dealing, and that they frequently use the same text in support of several doctrines. Nor do they deny one of the doctrines because they are intent upon explaining another, and where there is no incompatibility between them. Now, I put it to the candid reader — Is it honest, is it fair, to quote the words of a Father in connection with one of the texts already mentioned, in a passage where that Father is not expressly discussing the supremacy of S. Peter, and perhaps only referring incidentally to this subject, and then, without allusion to all that the same Father has taught elsewhere, to conclude that he knew nothing of the supremacy of the great Apostle, and that the Pope is wrong in asserting that all the Fathers have acknowledged that doctrine? And yet this is Dr. Oxenham’s method. Let me give an instance.

He discusses separately, I might almost say he dissects the three passages from Scripture above mentioned, and, with a fiourish of trumpets, he professes to show that S. Chrysostom is not one of the “ venerable Fathers ” who taught the supremacy

INTRODUCTORY of S. Peter. He quotes a passage from one of that great doctor’s homilies, in which, besides a number of other subjects, S. John Chrysostom comments upon the fall of S. Peter, and refers to the text:

Simon, Simon ... I have prayed for thee ” ; and Dr. Oxenham concludes triumphantly with these words — “ How entirely impossible would such a commentary as this be in the mouth of a modern Papalist ! How entirely fatal to modern Papal claims in regard to this text is such a commentary in the writings of S. Chrysostom.”^ I intend dealing more fully, further on, v/ith Dr. Oxenham’s daring assertions in regard to the teaching of Chrysostom, and I shall show how Dr. Oxenham has suppressed the evidence connected with the point at issue, which is contained even in the very homily to which he refers us. But I would ask here — What right has he, in the name of sheer honesty, to present S. John Chrysostom to his readers in this way, in opposition to the Pope’s assertion, without a word upon what that great doctor says upon the position of S. Peter ? What right has he thus to leave his readers under the impression that S. J ohn Chrysostom cannot be quoted as one of the venerable Fathers who taught the supremacy of S. Peter ; which, as we have said, is the real point at issue? What would Dr. Oxenhan say if I were to argue that he admits Papal claims, by quoting some words of his at the end of liis book without mentioning what is evident from all that be has written? By such a method* and with the help of sophistry of this kind, one ^ight assert that Scripture denies the existence of God, and then turn upon a critic with the question— Does the Scripture say, or does it not say, that There is no God ” ? Undoubtedly it does, but where? and when? and how?

3- Before a writer attempts to contradict a teaching, from whatever source it may proceed, it is essential that he should ascertain what that teaching really is, for otherwise he must inevitably employ his energies in beating the air. Now, Dr. Oxenham, when he comes to discuss the doctrine of S. Peter’s infallibility, reveals the fact that he has not even understood the doctrine which he endeavours to overturn. On page 32, he comments upon the text of S. Luke xxii., and he writes as follows: — “Now, if these words of our Lord did indeed promise to S. Peter that he should be infallible and supreme, as we are told by the present Pope that He did, it is strange that shortly after this promise S. Peter should three times have actually denied his Lord — this did not look like infallibility.” To say nothing of the fact that the Pope does not even mention that text on pp. 38, 39 of his Encyclical, as Dr. Oxenham declares that he does, his remarks suffice to show that Dr. Oxenham imagines, like so many other Protestants, that the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of S. Peter and of his successors implies

INTRODUCTOEY im'peccdbility, which no Pope, no Council, no Catholic theologian ever dreamt of asserting. And Dr. Oxenham brings his mistake (should I say ignorance?) into further prominence when he speaks of the discussion between S. Peter and S. Paul, recorded in the epistle to the Galatians, and in regard to which, on page 68, he says — “For whether S. Peter’s fault on this occasion were one ‘ of faith ’ or ‘of fact,’ whether his fault were ‘ light and venial’ or not, the fact remains that he was in the wrong, that S. Paul withstood him before the Church, and openly rebuked him.” If Dr. Oxenham had taken pains to find out what is really claimed for S. Peter and his successors by the Vatican Council and by the present Pope, and what Catholics mean by infallibility^ he might have avoided stumbling into a blunder which does away with so many of his arguments.

4. Finally, we must place on record that Dr. Oxenham employs a method of controversy which he himself declares to be unfair. For on page 44 he writes as follows : — “ It would not be fair to cite any of those passages in the life of S. Peter which are recorded in the Gospels, because it might be urged that our Lord did not confer on S. Peter his great privileges until the close of His own earthly ministry.” Yes, exactly so, it would not be fair, or reasonable, as obviously S. Peter did not receive his office until the close of our Lord’s earthly ministry, and therefore not until after the denial.

But tills method of arguing wliich Dr. Oxenham pronounces not to be^fair is precisely the one which he adopts all through the first half of his little book ! He constantly refers to S. Peter’s fall as an argument against his supremacy and infallibility, and he constantly recalls the comments of the Fathers upon S. Peter’s sin as fatal to Papal claims. When an author thus adopts a line of argument which he himself declares not to be fair, there is little left for his critics to add.

PiAPAL CLAIMS

Part I A Brief Statement Of The Doctrine Of The

Supremacy and Infallibility of S. Peter 1 — The Supre77iacy

Pope Leo XIII. ’s Encyclical on the Unity of the dkurch explains the Catholicdoctriiie ol !S. PetePs aupremacy so clearly and so forcibly, that my readers have but to peruse it to convince themselves DrT^tDxenham’s assertions, * to the effect that “ the teaching of Scripture is plainly inconsistent with the truth of such a doctrine,”^ and that the texts quoted by Catholics in support of that doctrine “ each and all fail to declare, or even indeed, to allude to, any such doctrines,”^ are undoubtedly bold assertions, but assertions that are contrary to fact. I will tlierefore only give a summary of the doctrine of S. Peter’s supremacy and infallibility, but I will do so sufficiently to show, I trust, how little Dr. Oxenham understands the position which

^Page 16.

2 Page 40.

he endeavours to contradict, and how futile are his arguments.

The two chief texts of Holy Scripture from which the Catholic teaching is drawn by the Vatican Council, by the present Pope, by the Fathers, and by our theologians, are the following : — 1. Thou art Kephas (Eock), and upon this Kephas (Eock) I

WILL BUILD MY ChURCH, AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. AnD I WILL GIVE TO THEE THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. AnD WHATSOEVER THOU SHALT BIND UPON EARTH, IT SHALL ■BE BOUND ALSO IN HEAVEN; AND WHATSOEVER THOU SHALT LOOSE^ ON EARTH, IT SHALL BE LOOSED ALSO IN

HEAVEN ” (Matt. xvi.). 2. “ Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep ” (John xxi.). Three times

our Lord gave this charge to Peter, andT we cannot fail to note the progression, for He first speaks of the lambs, and then of the sheep in the most solemn manner. The text of S. Luke xxii., “ Simon, Simon,

BEHOLD SATAN HATH DESIRED TO HAVE YOU . . .

BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT : AND THOU BEING ONCE CONVERTED, CONFIRM THY BRETHREN,” significant as it is in the light of the two other texts, is often, though not always, quoted, and can be quoted in support of the same doctrines, but rather as cumulative evidence, together with other texts concerning S. Peter. Neither the Vatican Council nor the present Pope have said that this text of S. Luke, especially when taken separately from the other two, was never used by the F athers to

THE SUPREMACY further emphasise some of Christ’s teaching on other points of doctrine ; and many “ modern Eomanists,” as Dr. Oxenham would call them, very often hardly stop to dwell upon the text of S. Luke, after having proved S. Peter’s position on the strength of what is said in the Gospels of S. Matthew and of S. John.^ Undoubtedly S. Luke’s words are of great significance when taken in connection with the two most important texts already mentioned. I say in connection with those texts ; for if we are to know what Scripture teaches us upon any subject we must consider all the texts that refer to that subject, and place them side by side, and in true harmony one with another. We shall thus be in a position to gauge their exact meaning and significance, since a teaching may not always be found fully expounded in one text. If we proceed, as Dr. Oxenham proceeds, to cut up the texts, there are many unquestionable and unquestioned doctrines of the Christian Paith which could not be proved by Holy Writ. When our Lord says, for instance : “I and the Father are one,” if I follow the lines of Dr. Oxenham’s argument against the supremacy of S. Peter, I might say that this text makes no reference to the Holy Ghost, and that the Fathers who have commented upon it, and spoken only of the Son, knew

^The Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican Council rests chiefly, not to say entirely, upon the texts of S. Matthew and S. John, and only quotes the passage from S. Luke as further evidence on behalf of the same doctrine. (See Appendix. )

notliing of tlie existence of a tliird Person in the Blessed Trinity.

Aow, with these texts before us, we hold, in union with the Yatican Council, that the Church, typified by Christ as an Edifice, as a Kingdom, as a Fold, rests upon S. Peter as a building rests upon its foundation, that it is ruled by S. Peter, to whom “ the keys of the kingdom of heaven ” were given, that it is led and provided with proper food by S. Peter, to whom the care of the whole flock was committed ; a care which, our Lord says, was to be extended to the sheep as well as to the lambs, to the chief members of the flock, therefore, as well as to those who are dependent upon them. If the metaphors chosen by Christ Himself mean anything — and will Dr. Oxenham dare to assert that they mean little or nothing? — they must signify what we have just explained, and, accordingly, as we shall have occasion to point out, all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have held this doctrine of S. Peter's supremacy, which, let us remember, is the matter at issue. We must not tire of recalling this in the face of Dr. Oxenham’s evasions.