But, now, is there such a sum of doctrine, so remarkable, and so diffused through all the books of the New Testament, that the texts expressing the gifts and prerogatives of Peter, can be tried by the touchstone of this analogy? Such, indeed, there is, very remarkable, and threefold in character. The first point is found in the texts[26] which regard the divine institution of bishops: the other two in those which show the unity,[27] and the Catholicity[28] of the Church. For what can stand in closer connection with these articles of doctrine, than the appointment of a supreme ruler to discharge over the universal Church the office which every bishop exercises over his own particular Church, and his own portion of the flock? What, again, can be more opposed to them, than the supposition that provision was made, by the institution of bishops, for _the parts_, but none, by the institution of a supreme pastor, for _the whole body_, which is to be one and Catholic? Therefore, that exposition of the texts concerning Peter, which exhibits him as ruler of the Church universal, and as made to be the visible cause of that same Catholic unity, so admirably agrees with analogy, that it must be considered unquestionable, unless texts contradictory to it can be produced. But so far is it from the case that texts _considered in themselves_ contradict it, that, on the contrary, they _immediately_ express it _of themselves_, and can be distorted from it only by violating all the laws of interpretation. Accordingly, that view of the texts about Peter, which establishes his Primacy, is wonderfully confirmed by analogy, and by its harmony with what the Scriptures tell us of the Church, as instituted by Christ. 4. And nothing will be wanting to give full assurance to this confirmation, if we add the _fourth or external_ criterion, that derived from consent of witnesses. I am not going to urge here the divine force and infallible authority of Christian tradition: I shall merely allege what no person of discretion can deny or question. The first point is, that in the actual controversy the testimony of the most ancient witnesses cannot be disregarded: and the second, that it carries the very strongest prejudice in favour of whichever interpretation it supports.