Metaphor, then, and obscurity are very far removed from each other, and there is nothing to prevent a metaphorical expression bearing the plainest sense. For such the sense will be, whenever what is called the _foundation_ of the metaphor is clear, and the series of the discourse indicates _the point of likeness_, and usage of speech unfolds _the force_ of the metaphor. Now all these conditions, which ensure perspicuity in the metaphor, are found in interpreting the metaphors which contain the singular prerogatives of Peter. For as it is perfectly plain whence the metaphors of _foundation_, _building_, _keys_, _binding_, _loosing_, _sheep_, _lambs_, _shepherd_, are drawn, so the context defines the point of similitude, and usage of speech does not allow ignorance of the force of such metaphors. And thus the texts on Peter's Primacy have a verbal perspicuity which will bear a favourable comparison with those texts, on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists rely. For indeed all the difficulties, in the invention of which Protestants have shown their ingenuity, are introduced, put upon the words, not drawn from them. So on the contrary, the haters of the Primacy evidently wince at their clearness. 2. _Verbal_ perspicuity is followed by _real_, or that which concerns the _subject matter_. And this, I assert, is far inferior, far more slender, in the above named Protestant controversies, than in this of the Catholics. Indeed, both the controversies, on the real presence and on the divinity of Christ, have a super-intelligible object, so far exceeding the natural power of reason, as to admit of the mind's conceiving it by analogy, but not by a _distinct_ and _proper_ knowledge. For this is the nature of mysteries, whence it follows in them that neither single words have distinct notions, nor a whole proposition distinct sense. Whereas in the controversy about the Primacy, there is nothing which is not commensurate with reason, and which has not the advantage of proper and distinct notions. For, of revealed truths, some being _rational_, some _beyond_ reason, and some _above_ reason, the proper character of those which are called _beyond_ reason is, that, _if_ revealed, they are cognizable by reason. Now to such an order of truths the institution of the Primacy belongs. Thus its _real_ evidence, that namely which concerns its _subject matter_, is much superior to that which the others admit of. But should we grant as much to the controversy in which Anglicans defend the superiority of bishops over presbyters? Grant this, yet still it remains that in this species of _real_ evidence the cause of the Primacy is far superior to that of the real presence, or that of the divinity of Christ. But, in truth, the Anglican doctrine on bishops may be considered from two points of view, either as severed from the Catholic dogma on Peter's Primacy, or as in connexion and coherence with it. From the latter point of view I should admit it to be so agreeable to