Greeks. By all these authentic documents they have triumphantly demonstrated, that in every age, as at the present day, the Greeks have constantly admitted with the church of Romeseven sacraments, and ascribed to them the same efficacy of conferring grace to the worthy receiver; that they maintain the real presence in the most blessed sacrament; transubstantiationnot consubstantiation, as some have erroneously asserted; and the sacrifice of the mass: that they practise the invocation of saints; honor their relics, and their images; approve the custom of praying for the dead; observe religious vows, &c. This fact amounts to an unquestionable proof, that the articles of religious dispute between the protestants and Roman catholics, have not originated in the latter ages, as they affect to believe; since these very doctrines are professed and maintained by the Greeks their inveterate enemies; whose rancorous animosity, most certainly, would never have permitted them to borrow from the Latin church-any part of their system of belief. The realization of such an hypothesis would be attended with equal difficulty, as would their total reconciliation; nor have they been ever known to sacrifice the most trivial point of difference to promote the cause of peace, and christian charity. The unanimity of these and other ancient schismatics in condemning the protestant doctrines, evinces this truth;-that the tenets of their respective religions which at this present time so strikingly accord with those of the church of Rome, were the genuine doctrines of the universal church twelve hundred years ago;-a prescription, one would imagine, more than sufficient to command the respect of every thinking christian.

In

With regard to the contested doctrine of the papal supremacy, we must beg leave to observe that the church is a society; that she has her peculiar laws and form of worship, and regular discipline; her ministers to teach them, and to enforce their execution; a tribunal to determine all disputes concerning faith, morality and discipline. Such is the church established by Jesus Christ; and every such society must have a head. fact, Jesus Christ, in constituting his church, actually did appoint St Peter and his successors the spiritual heads of all the faithful. This is a truth avowed by the fathers and by the councils of every age; and the universal voice of catholic tradition proclaims it. Holy scripture informs us, that our Divine Redeemer gave this pre-eminence to Peter with respect to the rest of the apostles; as most evidently appears from Matt. xvi. 18, 19, where in reward of his faith and confession he confirmed to him the name of Peter, which signifies a Rock; and promised that upon this rock he would build his church, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; and, moreover, that he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c. And again from St John xxi. 15, &c. where our Lord, after having

asked St Peter-dost thou love me more than these? thrice committed to him the charge of all his lambs and sheep, without exception; that is, the special care of his whole church. Hence St Matthew (chap. x. 2) giving the names of the twelve apostles, says-The first, Simon who is called Peter. On no other account could he with propriety be styled the first of the sacred college, but solely by reason of his supremacy: for, that he was first in age, does not appear; and that he was first in calling, is not true; since St Andrew came to Christ before Peter, and was probably the elder brother. Certain it is, that the evangelists in reckoning up the names of the apostles upon several occasions, neither follow the order of their age, nor of their calling; nevertheless, they always place Peter the first on the list, and sometimes, the more plainly to intimate his pre-eminence, name him alone, as chief or prince over all his fellowapostles. It is said, for instance, in St Mark, (i. 36)—Simon, and they that were with him; in St Luke (ix. 32)-Peter, and they that were with him; in the Acts (ii. 14)-Peter standing-with the eleven; and again (v. 29)-Peter, and the apostles answered and said, &c. Here the protestant translation has substituted other apostles; the former expression too clearly denoting St Peter's being something more than the rest. In this place it may not be impertinent to remark,-that our Lord was pleased to instruct the people out of Peter's ship (St Luke, v. 3);—that he ordered the same tribute to be paid for Peter, as for himself, (Matt. xvii. 27);-that he prayed for Peter in particular, that his faith might not fail; and ordered him to confirm, or strengthen his brethren. (Luke xxii. 32, &c.)

Hence St Peter's supremacy has been ever acknowledged by the unanimous suffrage of the holy fathers. (See Origen-on the 6th chapter to the Romans, and in his 5th homily upon Exodus; St Basil-of the judgment of God, T. 2, P. 402; St Cyril of Jerusalem in his 2d Catechesis; St Epiphanius, Hær. 51. § 17, &c.; St John Chrysostom-in his 2d homily on the 50th psalm, &c.; St Cyril of Alexandria-in his 12th book of St John; St Asterius bishop of Amasea-in his sermon upon SS. Peter and Paul; and, among the Latins, St Cyprian Ep. 70th to Januarius; St Optatus of Milevis, L. 2; 3; St Ambrose, L. 10, upon St Luke; St Jerome in his first book against Jovinian; St Augustine, L. 2, de Baptismo, c. 1; St Leo, Ep. 85 to Anastasius; St Gregory the Great, L. 4, Ep. 32, &c. &c.

Now as Christ established his church to remain till the end of the world; (Matt. xxviii. 20) so, most certainly, he designed that the form of government which he established in this church, should remain to the end of time. Hence it cannot be questioned but that our blessed Lord intended, that the supremacy which he originally appointed for the better government of his church, and the preservation of unity, should not die with Peter-any

;

more than the church itself, with which he promised to remain for ever but that it should descend after Peter's decease, to his successors. For, in proportion as the danger of schism in succeeding ages must of course increase, the greater must be the necessity of one Head in order to preserve all in one faith and in one communion. Nor did the church ever acknowledge any other for her chief pastor than the bishop of Rome; and no other does, or ever did, put in a claim to the spiritual supremacy, in quality of successor to St Peter. Even the Greeks themselves down to the period of their first separation from the Latin church, respected his authority; and ecclesiastic history is full of instances, in which the primacy of the pope was exercised even over the church of Constantinople. St Gregory expressly affirms, that both the emperor, and the bishop of that see, always recognised the superiority of the Roman church, (Ep. p. 941.) The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem acknowledged also-the papal jurisdiction; as facts of incontested notoriety prove to demonstration. When Cerularius renounced the communion of the Western church, all his efforts to engage Peter of Antioch in his schism were ineffectual; and he constantly maintained against that schismatical patriarch-the primacy of the Roman chair. Nor was Africa a stranger to this doctrine; of which the history of the Donatists and the Pelagians affords innumerable proofs. At the commencement of the reforming era-the supremacy of the pope was universally admitted. Huss himself appealed from the sentence of his own pastor the archbishop of Prague, to the see apostolic of Rome; and Luther at first thought fit to disavow the charge of disaffection to the papal authority. "I cast myself," says he to Leo X. " at your holiness's feet, resolved as I am to obey Jesus Christ who speaks by your mouth." (Op. Tom. 5, p. 10.) He entreats the pope to listen to him as to a sheep committed to his charge; protests, that he acknowledges the supremacy of the Roman church; and allows, that in every age the popes have held the first rank among her pastors, (ibid. p. 285, T. 2, p. 1.) Melancthon too, was for leaving to the pope his spiritual authority, and was of opinion it might be of service to religion. The learned protestant writer Grotius declares, that the bishop of Rome has a right to preside over the universal church; and does away the objection, that the pope may possibly make an ill use of his prerogative-by observing, that in such case, when his mandates are in opposition to the canons, they must not be obeyed; but that, notwithstanding, his authority ought not to be denied, nor obedience to be witholden, when his commands are just: "Had due attention," continues he," been given to this maxim, we should at this moment have had a church both united and reformed." The clergy of France, and all its universities, maintained the same opinion; neither admitting infallibility in the

pope nor any power inherent in him, over the temporalities of princes.

The superiority then of the Roman pontiff, is a superiority of honor and jurisdiction: it is his province to cause the canons of the church to be duly observed throughout the christian world; to assemble synods, and excommunicate the refractory. His decisions, though not infallible, are of great weight, and ought to be respected. He can devise and propose to the church new laws; but they are not generally binding, independently of the general acceptation of the church. This primacy is of Divine right; and the Gallican clergy also maintained the bishop of Rome to be metropolitan and patriarch of his own diocese ; and to have particular prerogatives, and a temporal power over what is called the ecclesiastic state, though not of Divine right, but only by right of acquisition. They held him, likewise, to be inferior to a general council, and liable to deposition by its superior authority; and that the pope could neither absolve a subject from his allegiance to the king, nor even depose bishops in virtue of his primary jurisdiction. The Transalpine divines have different ideas of the papal supremacy; but their pretensions have nothing to do with faith.

In answer to the objection against the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, we will just remark, that it was the constant opinion of all the ancient fathers, that our Lord himself had used it in the institution of this divine sacrament; and that its use was general in the Western church before the times of Photius. Nor do we find any thing in holy scripture, in tradition, or in the sacred liturgies, which tends to reprobate this practice. It would appear, that the fathers had adopted it-after the example of our Blessed Redeemer, and for greater uniformity; and that, on the contrary, the Greeks had preferred leavened bread,-not to seem too much attached to a practice which had originated from an ordinance of the Jewish law. Both the one and the other proceeded in this point upon warrantable grounds; nor could their varying in matters of discipline only, justify a schismatical division.-The controversy concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost will be discussed under the article MACEDONIUS.

H

HELVIDIUS was an Arian who wrote a book against the perpetual virginity of the mother of God; his followers were termed Antidicomarianites. (See this article.) He was so profoundly

learned as not to know, that in the scripture style cousins are denominated brethren. (Hieron. cont. Helvid. Aug. Hær. 84. Epiph. Hær. 78.)

HENRY OF BRUYS-was by profession a hermit who, about the commencement of the eleventh age, adopted many of the errors of his master Peter of Bruys. (See the article.) He denied with the latter the utility of infant baptism, condemned the use of churches and oratories, and rejected the mass, together with the practice of praying for the dead, &c. An affected singularity and austerity of life obtained for Henry the reputation of a saint. He was young; wore his hair and beard short; went barefoot even in the severest seasons; was tall of stature, and ill clad; his eyes and countenance were wild as the aspect of a stormy ocean, and his voice terrific as the thunder. His rest he ordinarily took on the top of some eminence in the open air, and passed the day in the public resorts of the lower classes. The female part of his admirers affirmed, that he was gifted with the spirit of prophecy, and knew the secrets of their consciences, and their most hidden sins. Henry was now solicited to favor with his presence the diocese of Mans; whither he dispatched two of his disciples who were received with the veneration due to angels. Henry afterwards repaired thither in person; obtained surreptitiously leave to preach; and the clergy themselves exhorted the people to attend his sermons.

The hermit was endowed with a surprising natural eloquence; and he soon convinced the populace that he was an apostolic man. He then began boldly to inculcate his erroneous and equally seditious doctrines. Widely different was the effect of his discourses from what had been expected: the people were incited to acts of violence against the clergy, and were taught to treat them as excommunicated persons: they threatened to pull down their houses, to rifle their property, and to stone or hang their persons. Some were actually dragged in the mire, and beaten in the most outrageous manner. In the absence of the bishop of Mans, who was then at Rome, the chapter proceeded to excommunicate the new evangelist: the sentence was received with insult; and Henry continued his seditious harangues. Meanwhile, the pious and enlightened bishop Hildebert returning, caused the hermit to appear before the people; put some questions to him to expose his ignorance, and then forbade him to preach, with an order that he should quit his diocese. Henry left Mans accordingly; and travelling through Languedoc and Provence, collected there some few disciples. Pope Eugenius III. dispatched a legate into those provinces; and St Bernard also repaired thither, in order to preserve the faithful from the multifarious errors and fanaticism which desolated that part of France. Henry took to flight, but was arrested in his retreat,