in the claim of historical proofs and precedents. They are chiefly
significant as attesting the general desire of churchmen to find some
warrant for a vigorous exercise of the papal prerogative. A primate with
real powers was desired, not only by the clergy of the national churches
as a bulwark against the brutal oppression of the State, but also by all
religious thinkers as a symbol of corporate unity and a guarantee of
doctrinal uniformity.

No theory can be regarded as supplying a satisfactory explanation of
papal authority, unless it explains this general belief in the necessity
for a visible Head of the Western Church. In part the necessity was
political. Exposed to the common danger of secular tyranny, the national
churches looked for safety in federation; and they notified their union
in the only way that uneducated laymen could understand, by announcing
their subjection to a single spiritual sovereign. But there remained the
problem of justifying this act of independence amounting to rebellion.
The justification was found in two arguments, the one historical, the
other doctrinal; the one based upon the Roman legend of St. Peter, the
other on the acknowledged importance of holding fast to right tradition.
Each of these arguments calls for some consideration.

St. Peter, says the legend, was invested with the primacy among the
Apostles; such is the plain meaning of the Saviour's declaration, _Tu
es Petrus_. St. Peter founded the Roman Church and instituted the
Roman bishopric. To Linus, the first bishop, Peter bequeathed his Divine
commission and his knowledge of the Christian verities. From Linus these
gifts descended without diminution to one after another in the unbroken
chain of his successors. Hence Rome is entitled to the same pre-eminence
among the churches which Peter held among his brethren. To examine the
historical basis of the legend would be a lengthy and unprofitable task.