Kitabı oku: «St. Peter, His Name and His Office, as Set Forth in Holy Scripture»

PREFACE

The present work took its rise, and is largely drawn, from the very learned Father Passaglia's "Commentary on the Prerogatives of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, as proved by the authority of Holy Writ," which was published in Latin, in 1850. The eighth and ninth chapters are, indeed, translations, respectively, of the twenty-seventh of his first book, and the first of his second book. And as to the rest, my obligations are more than I can specify. I owe, on the other hand, many excuses to Father Passaglia, for while I have only partially observed his order in treating the subject, I have considered his whole work as a treasure-house of learning, whence I might draw at my pleasure "things old and new," adapting them, as I thought good, to the needs of the Protestant mind, as familiar to me in England. Thus I have not scrupled to translate, to omit, or to insert matter of my own, according to my judgment. It seemed to me of paramount importance to present to the English reader the whole chain of scriptural evidence for the Primacy and prerogatives of St. Peter. This chain of evidence is so strong, that, when I first saw it completely drawn out, it struck my own mind, brought up in the prejudices of Protestantism, with the force of a new revelation. I put to myself the question; is it possible that they who specially profess to draw their faith from the written Word of God, would refuse to acknowledge a doctrine set forth in Holy Scripture with at least as strong evidence as the Godhead of our Lord itself, if they could see it not broken up into morsels, like bits of glass reflecting a distorted and imperfect image, according to the fashion of citing separate texts without regard to the proportion of the faith, but presented in a complete picture on the mirror of God's Word? This picture is thus complete and perfect in Father Passaglia's work. Yet the form of that work, no less than its bulk, the scrupulous minuteness with which every opposite interpretation of so many adversaries in modern times is answered, as well as the fulness with which every part of the subject is treated, made me feel that a simple translation would not be tolerated by the impatience of a population, which has little time and less mind for studies of this character. I have pursued, therefore, the humble task of popularising, so far as I could, Father Passaglia's work, omitting, as I trust, no essential part of the argument, and grouping it under different combinations, each of which might be in turn presented to the eye, and so more readily embraced.

The importance of the argument, as it affects the Papal Supremacy, which is but a summary of the whole cause at issue between Protestantism in every shape, and the Church of Christ, cannot be overrated. If St. Peter be already set forth in Scripture as the Head and Bond of the Apostolic College, if he be delineated as the supreme Ruler who succeeds our Lord Himself in the visible government of His Church on earth, there becomes at once the strongest ground for expecting that such a Ruler will be continued as long as the Church herself lasts. Thus a guiding clue is given to us among all the following records of antiquity. Tradition and history become illuminated with a light which exhibits all objects in their due proportion and true grouping, when they are shown to be but the realisation of what the Incarnate Word, His Church's one only Lawgiver, decreed from the beginning, set forth not only in prophetic image, but distinct command, and stored up in words of such exceeding power, that they bear the whole weight of the kingdom of God, stretching through all ages and nations, without effort or pressure. And if ancient writers speak in no doubtful tone of St. Peter's prerogatives, yet clearer, more emphatic, and soul-piercing, as we should expect, are the words of God Himself, appealing in man's form to the mind and heart of man, whom He had created, and was come to redeem, and to knit into one eternal monarchy.

A subsequent part of the argument, namely, that the Bishop of Rome is successor of St. Peter, has been treated by the author in another work, "The See of St. Peter the Rock of the Church, the Source of Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity," specially in the fifth section, which ought, logically, to be preceded by this treatise. It is there proved that not only the Christian Fathers, as individual writers and witnesses, but the ancient Church in her universal Councils, did, with one voice, from age to age, regard the Pope as sitting in St. Peter's chair, which is proof enough, and all that can in reason be demanded, that the prerogatives given to St Peter as Head of the Church were, in the belief of the Church, and in full accordance with our Lord's own promise,¹ continued on to his successors, and are as imperishable as the life of the Church herself.

21, North Bank, Regent's Park, September, 1852.

CHAPTER I.
THE NAME OF PETER PROMISED, CONFERRED, AND EXPLAINED

Our Lord tells us that He came upon earth to "finish a work;" and He likewise tells us what that work was, the setting up a living society of men, who should dwell in Him and He in them; on whom His Spirit should rest, with whom His presence should abide, until the consummation of all things. For, the evening before His passion, "lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said: Father, the hour is come. * * * I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do. * * I have manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou hast given Me out of the world. Thine they were, and to Me Thou gavest them; and they have kept Thy word. * Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, whom Thou has given Me; that they may be one, as We also are. While I was with them I kept them in Thy name. – And now I come to Thee. – I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from evil. * * As Thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for those also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou hast given to Me, I have given to them, that they may be one, as We also are one. I in them, and Thou in Me; that they may be made perfect in one; and the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me. * * And I have made known Thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them."²

In these terms the Eternal Word condescends to declare to us that the fruit of His Incarnation, the "finished work" which His Father had given Him to do, was the establishment of a society whose unity in "truth" and "love" should be so perfect, that He exemplifies it by the indwelling in each other of the Divine Persons; which should be perpetual and visible for ever, so that the world by it and in it should recognise His own mission, and believe in the Sender; and that the dowry of this society, thus perpetually visible, should be the equally perpetual possession of truth – the revelation of God's will – and of love, which is conformity to it. And He based these unexampled promises on no less a guarantee than the Almighty Power and ineffable Goodness of His Father, witnessed by His own dwelling amongst us in our flesh.

Elsewhere He termed this society His Church, declared that He would ³"build it on a rock, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it."

He told those whom He had set over it to go forth in His name, and to teach all nations whatsoever He had commanded them, adding the solemn engagement on His own part, ⁴"Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

His whole teaching is full of reference to it, setting forth its nature with every variety of illustration, enfolding it, as it were, with an exuberance of divine charity.

But two conceptions run through every illustration, and are involved in its primary idea, nay, as this was the finished work of His Incarnation, so are they found in His adorable Person, from which His work springs. These conceptions are Unity and Visibility.

As the mystery of the Incarnation consists in the union of the divine and human natures, in one Person, and in the assumption of a body, that is, matter, by the one uncreated, incomprehensible, and invisible Being, whereby He becomes visible, so Unity and Visibility are the unfailing marks of His Church, and enter into every image of it, in such a manner that without them the image loses its point and significancy.

Accordingly He proclaims the Church which He was founding to be "the Kingdom of God," and "the Kingdom of Heaven," thus bringing before us the conceptions of order, government, power, headship on the one hand, dependence on the other, and a host of mutual relations between the Sovereign and the people, significantly remarking that "a kingdom which is divided against itself must fall." Now, a kingdom without unity is a contradiction in terms, and a kingdom of God on earth, which cannot be seen, would be for spirits and not for men.

So He calls it a ⁵"city seated on a mountain," which "cannot be hid," answering to His prophet's words, "the city of the great King," "His rest, and His habitation for ever." Here again are embodied the notions of order, government, conspicuous majesty, impregnable strength.

Thus He inspires His apostle to call it ⁶"the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The house must have its head, the family their father; the knowledge of that father's will is the truth which rests upon the family as its support and pillar. Outside of the family that knowledge may be lost, together with the will to obey the father and to love him; but within it is a living tradition, "familiar to the ear as household words." As long as the Master and the Father is there, a perpetual light from His face is there too upon His children and His servants. Divide the house, or corrupt its internal life, and the idea of the house is destroyed; while an invisible house is an absurdity.

Again, the Lord, calling Himself ⁷"the Good Shepherd, who giveth His life for the sheep," terms His Church the sheepfold, and declares that as there is one shepherd, so there must be one fold.

But, rising yet in nearness to the Divine Person of the Word Incarnate, from whose side sleeping on the cross she is moulded, the Church is called His Spouse, as united to Him in eternal wedlock, ⁸"a great Sacrament," or mystery; and even yet more, His Body, as supported by the continual influx of her Head; and all her members are called "flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bones."

It is evident, then, that in these promises and illustrations are set forth, as belonging to their object, a visible unity, a perpetual possession and maintenance of the truth, and the closest union with God, founded upon a most supernatural indwelling of the Godhead in a society of men on earth, the founding of which was the "finished work" of God the Word Incarnate. Were these promises to fail in any respect, which is utterly impossible, for while heaven and earth shall pass away, no word of their Maker can pass away —it is plain that our ground for trusting in any promises of Holy Writ whatsoever would be demolished. The whole Christian revelation rests on the imperishable life of the Church; because the corruption or division of the Church would falsify the written records of our faith, in which, after the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and the Godhead of our Lord, no truth is so deeply embedded as the perpetual existence and office of the Church.

We have seen the idea of King, Lord, Master, Father, Shepherd, Husband, and Head, running through the delineation of the Church. And no society is complete without its ruler. Such was our Lord, while on earth – the visible ruler of a visible Church. "While I was with them I kept them in Thy name." He went forth from His baptism to win souls. The water became wine in His presence. He bade men follow Him, and they followed. Power went forth from Him, and healed diseases. Grace flowed from His lips and conquered hearts. An innumerable multitude surrounded Him, of all ages and conditions. ⁹"And going up into a mountain He called unto Him whom He would Himself; and they came to Him. And He made that twelve should be with Him, and that He might send them to preach."

Here, then, the true Israel chooses the future princes of His house, who should sit with Him on thrones, judging the twelve tribes. Already, while yet with His Church, He is preparing for her future government, when His visible presence shall be taken from her. In three years all should be accomplished, but when ¹⁰"the covenant should have been confirmed with many in one week, and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice should fail;" when His Apostles should see Him no longer; was any one ordained to take that all-important place of supreme ruler which He had filled? For upon earth He had been in two relations to His Church, her Founder, and her Ruler. The former office belonged to His single Person; in its nature it could not pass to another; the work was finished once and for ever. But the latter office was, in its nature likewise, perpetual. How, then, should the charge of visible ruler, as man among men, be executed, when His Person was withdrawn, when He ascended up on high, when all power in heaven and earth was indeed given into His hands, and so the headship of spiritual influence and providential care; but when, nevertheless, that sacred Body was withdrawn into the tabernacle of God, and the Bridegroom was taken away for a time, and the voice and visible presence ¹¹"what they had seen, and heard, and handled, of the word of life," "was with them and kept them" no longer. Should His Church, which had been under one visible ruler from the beginning, now have her government changed? Or had He marked out any one among the Twelve to succeed to His own office of visible headship, and to be ¹²"the greater," and "the ruler" among His brethren. His own special representative and vicar?

To answer this question, we must carefully observe and distinguish what is said and what is given to the Apostles in common, and what to any one of their number in particular; the former will instruct us as to their equality, the latter as to the pre-eminence which any one enjoyed over the rest, and in what it consisted.

Just, then, as at a certain period of His ministry, our Lord, out of the multitude who followed Him, selected twelve, to be His special attendants upon earth, and, when He should be taken up, to be the heralds of His Gospel among all nations, so out of the twelve He from the beginning distinguished one, marked him out for a peculiar and singular office, connected him with Himself in a special manner, and after having through the whole of His ministry given him tokens and intimations of his future destination, at last expressly nominated him to take His own place, and preside among his brethren. His dealing with this Apostle forms one connected whole, in which there is nothing abrupt or inharmonious, out of keeping, or opposed to what He said to others. What is at first obscurely intimated is afterwards expressly promised, again in fresh terms corroborated, and at last, in yet other language, but of the like force, most significantly ¹³conveyed, while it is attested by a number of incidental notices scattered through the whole Gospel history. Thus ¹⁴it becomes necessary to consider each particular, as well as the whole sum of things said, proper and peculiar to this Apostle; to weigh first their separate and then their joint force, and only at last to form an united judgment upon all.

We are searching into the will of the Divine Founder of our faith, which He has not only communicated to His Church in a living tradition, but in this case likewise ordered to be set forth in authentic written documents. These alone we are here considering, and the point in question is whether He decreed that all the Twelve should share equally in that divine mission and authority which He had received from the Father, or whether while bestowing on them all very high and distinctive powers, He yet appointed one, namely Simon, the son of Jonas, to preside over the rest in His own place. We have, then, to consider all in these documents which is said peculiar to such apostle, pointing out singular gifts and prerogatives, and carrying with it special authority of government. And we must remember that where proofs are numerous and complex, some which in themselves are only probable and accessory, yet have their force on the ultimate result. But this result must be drawn from a general view of the whole, and will collect in one the sum of proof both probable and certain.

Again, where many various causes concur, some more and some less, to produce a certain effect, the force of such effect is the force of all these causes put together, not of each by itself alone. Or where many witnesses are examined, whose evidence differs in value, although the testimony of some be in itself decisive, yet the verdict must be given after a consideration and review of all.

Now the first mention which we have of the Apostle Simon is full of signification. Our Lord had only just begun His ministry; he had been lately baptized, and as yet had called no disciples. But two of John the Baptist's disciples hearing their master name Jesus "the Lamb of God," follow Him, are kindly received by Him, and one of them being Andrew, Simon's brother, finds Simon, and says to him, ¹⁵"we have found the Messias. And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking on him said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter: " as if He would say, by birth thou art Simon, son of John; but another and a higher lot is in store for thee. I will give thee another name which thou shalt bear, a name in itself signifying the place which thou shalt hold in my Church. Thou shalt be called, and thou shalt be, the Rock.

For why, when a vast multitude of our Lord's words and actions have been omitted, was this recorded for us, save that a deep meaning lay in it? Or what could that meaning be when our Lord, for the first time looking on Peter, promised to him and to him alone, a new name, and that a name given in prophecy to Himself, a name declaring by its very sound that he should be laid by the builder, as a foundation of the structure about to be raised? So in the fourth century S. Chrysostome comments on the text, calling him "the foundation of the Church, he that was really Peter" (the Rock) "both in name and in deed:"¹⁶ and a little after S. Cyril, of Alexandria, "with allusion to the rock He transferred His name to Peter, for upon him He was about to found His Church." The Creator of the world does not give a name for nothing. His word is with power, and does what it expresses. Of old, "He spake and they were made; He commanded and they were created." Now, too, He speaks, at the first dawn of His great spiritual restoration. When as yet nothing has been done, and not a stone of the divine building reared, He who determines the end from the beginning looks upon what seemed a simple fisherman, and at first beholding him, He takes Simon, the son of Jonas, out of the roll of common men; He marks him for a future design; He wraps him in a prophetic title; He associates him with His own immovable power. Of Himself it had been said,¹⁷ "Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded on the foundation. He that believeth, let him not hasten." And again, "the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is wonderful in our eyes." And again, "A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands; and it struck the statue upon the feet thereof that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." And again, "Behold the stone that I have laid before Jesus: upon one stone there are seven eyes; behold I will grave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of Hosts; and I will take away the iniquity of that land in one day." In reference to which S. Paul said of Christians, that they are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into a holy temple in the Lord." It is plain, then, that our Lord "both by the Old and New Testament,¹⁸ is called a stone."

But this which He had of Himself, and by virtue of His own divine power, as the Word of God, He would communicate in a degree, and by dependence on Himself, to another. This is no modern interpretation, but the very words of St. Ambrose, "Great is the grace of Christ, who bestowed almost all His own names on His disciples. I, said He, am the light of the world, and yet He granted to His disciples the very name in which He exulted, by the words, Ye are the light of the world. Christ is the Rock, but yet He did not deny the grace of this name to His disciple, that he should be Peter, because he has from the Rock firm constancy, immovable faith."¹⁹

In the third century, Origen, on this very text, observes: "He said he should be called Peter, by allusion to the Rock, which is Christ, that as a man from wisdom is termed wise, and from holiness holy, so too Peter from the Rock." And in the fifth, S. Leo paraphrases the name thus: "While I am the inviolable Rock, the Corner-stone, who make both one, the foundation beside which no one can lay another; yet thou also art the rock, because by My virtue thou art established, so as to enjoy by participation the properties which are peculiar to Me."²⁰

Here, then, we have three facts: i. That our Lord having twelve Apostles whom He chose, loved, and honoured, above all His other disciples, yet promised to one²¹ only a new name; and, ii., this a name in the highest degree significative, and most deeply prophetical of a particular office; and, iii., a name peculiar to Himself, as the immovable foundation of the Church. This happened in the first year of His ministry, before, as it would appear, either Peter or any other apostle was called.

The promise thus emphatically made to Simon, "Thou shalt be called the Rock," our Lord fulfilled in the second year of His ministry, when He distinguished the twelve Apostles from the rest of His disciples, giving them authority to teach, and power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils. Then, says S. Mark "to²² Simon He gave the name of Peter;" and S. Matthew, "the names of the Twelve Apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter;" and S. Luke, "Simon whom also He named Peter." And by this name He marked Him out from amongst all his brethren, and united him to Himself. "He changes, too," says Tertullian, "Peter's name from Simon, because also as Creator He altered the names of Abraham, Sara, and Oshua, calling the last Jesus, and adding syllables to the others, but why did He call him Peter? If for the strength of his faith, many solid substances would lend him a name from themselves. Or was it because Christ is both the Rock and the Stone? Since we read that He is set for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. I omit the rest. And so it was His pleasure to communicate to the dearest of His disciples, in a peculiar manner, a name drawn from the figures of Himself, I imagine, as being nearer than one drawn from figures not of Himself."²³

It is, then, setting a seal on His former acts, drawing out and corroborating their meaning, that He once more, and in the most emphatic way of all, recurs to this name, attaching to it the most signal promises, and establishing its prophetic power. In the third year of His ministry our Lord "came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? But they said, Some John the Baptist, and others Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them, But whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jonas, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock 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 on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

When we reflect that the first act of our Lord to Peter was to look upon him, and to promise him this name, a token of His omnipotence to Simon yet knowing him not, as that seeing him under the fig-tree was to Nathaniel of His omniscience; and that when He chose His twelve apostles, it is said markedly "to Simon He gave the name of Peter," the force of His reply cannot well be exceeded. The promise of our Lord answers part by part to the confession of His apostle. The one says: "Thou art the Christ," that is, the anointed one; the other, "Thou art Peter," that is, the Rock, the name which I gave thee myself: my own title with which I invested thee. The one adds, "the Son of the living God;" the other, "And upon this rock I will build my Church," that is, as it is true what thou confessest, that I am "the Son of the living God," so my power as such shall be shown in building my Church upon thee whom I have long named the Rock, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Not only this, but I will unfold to thee the full meaning of thy name, and declare the gifts which accompany it. "And²⁴ I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." That is, "The root and the offspring of David," "the holy one and the true one, He that hath the key of David; He that openeth and no man shutteth; shutteth and no man openeth;" as He gave to thee to share His name of the Rock, so He shall give to thee to bear in His name His own symbol of supreme dominion, the key which opens or shuts the true city of David; all ages shall own thee, all nations acknowledge thee, as The Bearer of the Keys; as long as my Church shall last, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, thy office shall last too; as long as there are souls to be saved, they shall pass by thy ministry into the gate of the Church. And further, as long as there need in my spiritual kingdom laws to be promulgated, precepts issued, sins forgiven, "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."

Who, indeed, can adequately express the gifts which the world's Creator and Redeemer here promises to His favoured servant? Thus in the fourth century S. Chrysostome labours to set them forth. "See how He raises Peter to a higher opinion of Himself; and reveals and shews Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises. For what belongs to God alone, to loose sins, and to render the Church immovable in such an assault of waves, and to make a fisherman more solid than any rock, when the whole world was at war with him, these are what He promises to give him; as the Father addressing Jeremias, said: 'I have made thee an iron pillar and a wall,' but him to one nation, whereas the other to the whole world. Willingly would I ask those who wish to diminish the dignity of the Son, which are the greatest gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son. For the Father bestowed on Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son disseminated that of the Father and of Himself through the whole world; and put into the hands of a mortal man power over all things in heaven, when He gave the keys to him who extended the Church through the whole world, and showed it to be firmer than the heaven."²⁵ And not many years later S. Leo says, "That which the Truth ordered remains; and blessed Peter persisting in that strength of the rock which he received, has not deserted the guidance, once undertaken, of the Church. For thus was he set before the rest, that while he is called the Rock, while he is declared to be the foundation, while he is appointed the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, while he is advanced to be the judge of what shall be bound and what loosed, with the condition that his sentence shall be ratified even in heaven, we might learn through the very mysteries of the names given to him, how he was associated with Christ."²⁶ This association passed, indeed, into the very mind of the Church, for among all the titles given by fathers and councils and liturgies to Peter, and expressing his prerogatives, the one contained in this name is the most frequent. Thus he is termed,²⁷"the rock of the Church,"²⁸ "the rock of the Church that was to be built,"²⁹"underlying the building of the Church,"³⁰"receiving on himself the building of the Church,"³¹"the immovable rock,"³²"the rock which the proud gates of hell prevail not against," ³³"the most solid rock,"³⁴"he to whom the Lord granted the participation of His own title, the rock," ³⁵"the foundation second from Christ,"³⁶"the great foundation of the Church,"³⁷"the foundation and basis," ³⁸"founding the Church by his firmness,"³⁹"the support of the Church,"⁴⁰"the Apostle in whom is the Church's support,"⁴¹"the support of the faith,"⁴²"the pillar of the Church," and by an authority sufficient alone to terminate all controversy, the great Council of Chalcedon,⁴³ "the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the basis of the orthodox faith."⁴⁴

CHAPTER II.
EDUCATION AND FINAL DESIGNATION OF PETER TO BE THE RULER WHO SHOULD CONFIRM HIS BRETHREN

Having promised⁷⁸ and bestowed on Simon a new name, prophetic of the peculiar position which he was to occupy in the Church, and having set forth the meaning contained in that name in terms so large and magnificent, that, as we have seen, the greatest saints and fathers have felt it impossible to exhaust their force, our Lord proceeded to educate Peter, so to say, for his especial charge of supreme ruler. He bestowed upon him, in the course of His ministry, tokens of preference which agree with the title thus solemnly conferred; and He instructed him with all the care which we should expect to be given to one who was to become the chief doctor of Christians. Such instruction may be said to consist in two things, a more complete knowledge of the Christian revelation, and a singular apprehension of its divine proofs.

Now, innumerable as are the particulars in which the Christian revelation consists, they may yet be gathered up mainly into two points, which meet in the Person of our Lord, and are termed by the ancient fathers who have followed this division, the Theology, and the Economy. There is the Divine Nature, that "form of God," which our Lord had from the beginning in the bosom of the Father; and there is the human nature, that "form of a servant," which "in the economy or dispensation of the fulness of times" He assumed, in order that He might purchase the Church with His blood, and⁷⁹ "re-establish all things in heaven and on earth." All, therefore, in the Christian faith which concerns "the form of God" is termed the Theology; all which contemplates "the form of a servant," the Economy.

But the heavenly origin and certain truth of both these parts of Christian faith are proved partly by the fulfilment of prophecy, and partly by the working of miracles. To both our Lord perpetually appealed, and His apostles after Him, and those who have followed them. One, then, who was to be the chief ruler and doctor of Christians, needed especial instruction in the Theology, and Economy, especial assurance of the fulfilment of prophecy, and the working of miraculous power. Now Peter was specially selected for this instruction and that assurance.

The whole teaching of our Lord, indeed, and the innumerable acts of power and words of grace with which it was fraught, were calculated to convey these to all the Apostles. But while they were witnesses in common of that teaching in general, some parts of it were disclosed only to Peter and the two sons of Zebedy. Perhaps there is no incident in the Gospel history, which set forth in so lively a manner, and so convincingly proved, the mysteries concerning the union of "the form of God" and "the form of a servant," as the Transfiguration. The retreat to the "high mountain apart," and in the midst of that solitary prayer, "the face shining as the sun," and "the robes white as light," the presence of Moses and Elias, conversing with Him on the great sacrifice for sin, "the bright cloud which encompassed them," and the voice from out of it, proclaiming "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear Him;" so impressed themselves on the great Apostle, that after long years he appealed to them in proof that he and his brethren had not taught "cunningly devised fables, when they made known the power and presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, but had been eyewitnesses of His majesty, when He received from God the Father honour and glory, this voice coming down to Him from the excellent glory, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I have pleased myself: hear ye Him.' And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with Him in the holy mount." Among all the Apostle's experience of the three years' ministry, by the shore and on the waves of the lake of Galilee, in the cornfields, or on the mountain side, in the noon-day heat, or midnight storm, even in the throng which cried 'Hosannah!' and 'Crucify Him!' this stood out, until "the laying aside of his fleshly tabernacle," as "the Lord had signified to Him."⁸⁰ For⁸¹ what indeed was not there? the plurality of persons in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, the true, and not adopted, Sonship of the latter, His divine mission unto men; the new order of things resulting from it, and the summing up under one head of all things in heaven and in earth; the sealing up and accomplishing of the law and the prophets, by the presence of their representatives, Moses and Elias, a most wonderful and transporting miracle; and the command implicitly to obey Him in whom the Father was well pleased. Thus the Transfiguration may be termed the summing up of the whole Christian revelation.

But now of this we read that "after six days Jesus taketh unto Him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart." These three alone of the twelve. Yet does He not associate the sons of Zebedy with Peter in this privilege? Needful no doubt it was that so splendid an act should have a suitable number of witnesses, and that as His future glory should have⁸² three witnesses from heaven, and as many from earth, so this, its rudimental beginning, should be attested by three as from heaven, God the Father, Moses, and Elias, and by three from earth, Peter, James, and John. Dear to Him likewise, next to Peter, and most privileged after Peter, were the sons of Zebedy; yet a distinction is seen in the mode in which they are treated even when joined together in so great a privilege. For in all the three accounts Peter is named first; "He taketh to Him Peter, and James, and John." They likewise are called by their birth-name, he by his prophetic appellation of the Rock; they are silent, but he speaks; "Peter answering, said;" nor only speaks, but in the name of all; "It is good for us to be here," as if their leader. And, fifthly, he is named specially, they as his companions; "but Peter, and they that were with him, were heavy with sleep."⁸³ Thus even when three are associated in a special privilege above the Twelve, Peter is distinguished among the three.

But if there was one other occasion on which above all "the form of the servant" was to be set forth in the most awful, and the most endearing light, it was on that evening, "the hour" of evil men and "the power of darkness," when "the righteous servant who should justify many" was about to perform the great, central, crowning act of His mediation. Then we read that "He said to His disciples, Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray."⁸⁴ And then immediately "taking with Him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedy, He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad." Yet here again, even in the association with the sons of Zebedy, Simon is distinguished, for he is named first; and by the illustrious name of Peter, the Rock; and as the leader of the others, for, says Matthew, Christ after His first prayer, "comes to His disciples, and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" Why the change of number, Peter in the singular, ye in the plural? Why the blame of Peter, involving the blame of the rest? Because the members are censured in the head.

In these two signal instances our Lord, while preferring Peter and the two sons of Zebedy to the rest of the Twelve, yet marks a gradation likewise between them and Peter. And these two set forth the Theology and Economy, in the most emphatic manner.

And as the supreme preceptor must not only be acquainted with the truth which he has to deliver, but with the evidence on which it rests, so is Peter specially made a witness of his Lord's "power and presence" and "the works which no other man did." In that remarkable miracle of raising to life the ruler of the synagogue's daughter we read, "He admitted not any man to follow Him, but Peter and James, and John the brother of James;"⁸⁵ where, as before, and always, Peter is mentioned first, and by the prophetic name of his Primacy.

From⁸⁶ all which we gather four points; 1. Several things are mentioned in the Gospels which Christ gave to Peter, and not to the rest of the Apostles: 2. But nothing which He gave to them together, and not to Peter with them. 3. What He seemed to give to them in common, yet accrue to Peter in a special manner, who appears among the Apostles not as one out of the number, but their destined head, by the name, that is, of Peter, so markedly promised, bestowed, and wonderfully explained by our Lord, of which, as we have seen, S. Chrysostome, an eastern Patriarch, as well as a great Saint and Father, observed, "When I say Peter, I mean the impregnable Rock, the immovable foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples." 4. Either we are not to take Christ's dealing as the standard of Peter's dignity, and destination, or we must admit that he was preferred to the rest, and made the supreme teacher of the faithful.

S. Matthew records the incidents of the officers asking for the payment of the didrachma which all the children of Israel were bound to contribute to the temple; and his words show us a fresh instance of honour done to Peter, and a fresh note of his superiority. "When they were come to Capharnaum, they that received the didrachma came to Peter and said to him, Doth not your master pay the didrachma?"⁸⁷ But why should they come to him, and ask, not if his master, but "your" master, the master of all the Apostles, paid the census, save that it was apparent, even to strangers, that Peter was the first and most prominent of the company? Why use him rather than any of the others, for the purpose of approaching Christ? "As Peter seemed to be first of the disciples," says S. Chrysostome, on the text, "they go to him." The context naturally suggests this reason, and the ancient commentators remarked it. But what follows is much more striking. Peter answered, Yes, that is, that his master observed all the laws of Moses, and this among the number. As he went home he purposed, no doubt, to ask our Lord about this payment, but "when he was come into the house Jesus prevented him," having in His omniscience seen and heard all that had passed, and He proceeded to speak words involving His own high dignity, followed by a singular trial of Peter's faith, and as marked a reward of it when tried. "What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom? of their own children or of strangers? And he said, Of strangers. Jesus said to him, Then the children are free." Slight words in seeming, yet declaring in fact that most wonderful truth which had formed so shortly before Peter's confession, and drawn down upon him the yet unexhausted promise; for they expressed, I am as truly the natural Son of that God, the Sovereign of the temple, for whom this tribute is paid, as the children of earthly sovereigns, who take tribute, are their sons by nature. Therefore by right I am free. "But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea and cast in a hook; and that fish which shall first come up, take; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater; take that and give it to them for Me and thee." Declaring to His favoured disciple afresh that He is the true, and not the adopted, Son of God, answering his thoughts by anticipation, and expressing His knowledge of absent things by the power of the Son of God, He tries his faith by the promise of a fresh miracle, which involved a like exercise of divine power. Peter, in proceeding to execute His command, must make that confession afresh by deed, which he had made before by word, and which his Lord had just repeated with His own mouth. How else could he go to the lake expecting to draw at the first cast a fish in whose mouth he should find a coin containing the exact amount due to the temple for two persons? But what followed? What but a most remarkable reward for the faith which he should show? "Take that and give it to them for Me and thee." There are looks, there are tones of the voice, which convey to us more than language. So, too, there are acts so exceedingly suggestive, that without in any formal way proving, they carry with them the force of the strongest proof. And so, perhaps, never did our Lord in a more marked manner associate Peter with Himself than here. It was a singular distinction which could not fail to strike every one who heard it. Thus S. Chrysostome exclaims,⁸⁸ "You see the exceeding greatness of the honour;" and he adds, "wherefore, too, in reward for his faith He connected him with Himself in the payment of the tribute;" and he remarks on Peter's modesty, "for Mark, the disciple of Peter, seems not to have recorded this incident, because it pointed out the great honour bestowed on him; but he did record his denial, while he was silent as to the points which made him conspicuous, his Master perhaps begging him not to say great things about him." Indeed, how could one of the disciples be more signally pointed out than by this incident, as "the faithful and wise steward, whom the Lord would set over His household, to give them their portion of food in due time?"

Other fathers, as well as S. Chrysostome, did not fail to see such a meaning in this passage; but let us take the words of Origen as pointing out the connection of this incident with the important question following. His words are: "It seems to me that (the disciples) considering this a very great honour which had been done to Peter by Jesus, in having put him higher than the rest of His disciples, they wished to make sure of what they suspected by asking Jesus and hearing His answer, whether, as they conceived, He judged Peter to be greater than them; and they also hoped to learn the cause for which Peter was preferred to the rest of the disciples. Matthew, then, wishing to signify this by these words, "take that and give it to them for Me and thee," added, "on that day the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?"⁸⁹

For, indeed, why should they immediately ask this question? The preceding incident furnishes a natural and sufficient cause. The Apostles, it seems, were urged by the plainness of Christ's words and acts to inquire who among them should have the chief authority. Who will not agree with S. Chrysostome: "The Apostles were touched with a human infirmity, which the Evangelist too signifies in the words, 'in that hour,' when He had honoured him (Peter) before them all. For though of James and John one of the two was the first-born," (alluding to an opinion that the tax was paid by the first-born,) "He did nothing like it for them. Hence, being ashamed, they confessed their excitement of mind, and do not say plainly, Why hast thou preferred Peter to us? Is he greater than we are? For this they did not dare; but they ask indefinitely, Who is the greater? For when they saw three preferred to the rest, they felt nothing like this; but when one received so great an honour, they were pained. Nor were they kindled by this alone, but by putting together many other things. For He had said to him, 'I will give to thee the keys,' and 'Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,' and here 'Give it to them for Me and for thee;' and also they were pricked at seeing his confidence and freedom of speech."⁹⁰

Thus their question, if it did not express, at least suggested this meaning, "Speak more plainly and distinctly whether Peter is to be the greater and the chief in the Church, and accordingly among us," and so they seem to have drawn from our Lord's act a conclusion which they did not see in the promising or bestowing the prophetic name of Peter, nor even in the promises conveyed in explaining that name, and were vexed at the preference shown to him.

And if ⁹¹any be inclined to conclude from hence that our Lord's words and acts to Peter had not been of any marked significancy, they should be reminded that the very clearest and plainest things were sometimes not understood by the Apostles, before the descent of the Holy Spirit on them. This was specially the case with the things which they were disinclined to believe. Thus our Lord again and again foretold to them His passion in express terms, but we are told, "they understood none of these things."⁹² He foretold, too, His resurrection, yet they did not the least expect it, and they became at length fully assured of the fact before they remembered the prediction. Strange as these things seem, yet probably everyone's private experience will furnish him with similar instances of a veil being cast upon his eyes, which prevented his discerning the most evident things, towards which there was generally some secret disinclination.

But ⁹³how did our Lord answer their question? Did He remove at once the ground of their jealousy by declaring that in the kingdom of heaven no one should have pre-eminence of dignity, but the condition of all be equal? On the contrary, He condemns ambition and enjoins humility, but likewise gives such a turn to His discourse as to insinuate that there would be one pre-eminent over the rest.⁹⁴ "Jesus calling unto Him a little child, set him in the midst of them, and said, Amen I say unto you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Then He adds, "whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." Thus He did not exclude the pre-eminence of that "greater one," about which they asked, but pointed out what his character ought to be. But this will be much clearer from a like enquiry, and the answer to it, recorded by S. Luke.

For even at the last supper, our Lord having told them that He should be betrayed, and was going to leave them in the way determined for Him, there was not only an enquiry among them which of them should do that thing, but also, so keenly were their minds as yet, before the coming down of the Holy Spirit, alive to the desire of pre-eminence, and so strongly were they persuaded that such a superior had not been excluded by Christ, but rather marked out and ordained, "there was a strife among them which of them should seem to be greater." Now our Lord meets their contention thus: "The ⁹⁵kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so; but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth. And you are they who have continued with Me in my temptations; and I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom; and may sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Now ⁹⁶in this speech of our Lord we may remark four points: —

1. What is omitted, though it would seem most apposite to be said;

2. What is affirmed, if not expressly, yet by plain consequence;

3. What comparison is used in illustration;

4. What meets with censure and rejection.

1. First, then, though the Apostles had twice before contended about pre-eminence, yet our Lord neither there, nor here, said openly that He would not prefer any one over the rest, nor appoint any one to be their leader. Yet the importance of the subject, His own wisdom, and His love towards His disciples, as well as His usual mode of acting, seemed to demand, that had it been His will for no one of them to be set over the rest, He should plainly declare it, and thus extinguish all strife. No less a matter was at issue than the harmony of the Apostles with each other, the peace of the Church, and the success of the divine counsel for its government. Moreover, the Gospels represent Him to us as continually removing doubts, clearing up perplexities, and correcting wrong judgments among His disciples. Let us recall to remind a very similar occasion, when the mother of the sons of Zebedy with her children came before Him asking "that these my two sons may sit the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom." He rejected their prayer at once, saying, "To sit on My right or My left hand is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by My Father."⁹⁷ The silence, therefore, of Christ here, under such circumstances, is a proof that it was not the divine will that all the Apostles should be in such a sense equal that no one of them should hold a superior authority over the rest.

2. But eloquent as this silence is, we are not left to trust to it alone, for our Lord's words point out, besides, the institution of one superior. "The kings of the Gentiles," He says, "lord it over them; and they that have power over them are called benefactors. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth." A greater and a leader, then, there was to be. Our Lord's words contain two parallel propositions repeated. 1. There is among you one who is the greater, let him, then, be as the younger. 2. There is among you one who is the leader, let him be as he that serveth. Thus our Lord's meaning is most distinct that they should have a superior.

But in the very similar passage about the sons of Zebedy, lest any should conclude that no one of the Apostles was to be superior to the rest, He called them to Him and said, "You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that are the greater exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister; and he that will be the first among you shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many." Where He tells them His will, not that no one of the Apostles should be "great" and "first," but what the type and model should be which that "great" and "first" one should imitate, even the Son of man who came to minister.

3. For to make this quite certain, there, and here too, He directs us to a particular comparison, by which He explains and concludes His discourse, "For who is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am among you as he that serveth. – And I dispose unto you as My Father disposed unto Me, a kingdom." Here our Lord sets Himself before His Apostles as the exemplar both of the rule which the superior was to exercise, and of the temper and character which he was to shew. As He had been speaking of the kingdoms of the Gentiles, so He now points out to them in contrast the true kingdom which He was disposing unto them. The Church as it had been from the beginning, was to be the model of what it should be to the end. Now all confess that in that Church Christ had held the place of "the First," "the Great one," "the Ruler." And now He explains that one of His Apostles should occupy that place of His, and occupying it should be of a like temper with Himself, who had been the minister and servant of all. And it may be remarked that the same word is here applied to him who should rule among the disciples, which expresses the dignity of Christ Himself in the prophecy of Micah, quoted in Matt. ii. 6, "Out of thee shall go forth⁹⁸ the ruler, who shall be shepherd over my people Israel." For Christ says, "He that is the greater among you let him be as the younger; and he that ruleth as he that serveth. For, who is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he who serveth? But I am among you as he that serveth." "I dispose to you a kingdom: as My Father disposed to Me: " let him who follows Me in place, follow Me in character.

But, 4, what does our Lord censure and reject from His Church? It is plain that He compares kingdom with kingdom, and the kingdom of heaven, which is the Church, with human kingdoms, and, moreover, that the negative quality as to which, in the clause, "But you not so," the two are compared, is, not the fact that there is pre-eminence and rule in both, but a certain mode of exercising them. This is, the pomp and ambition expressed in the words, "lording it," "exercising authority," "are called benificent." As again is shewn in the repeated declaration that what had been most alien from the spirit of His own ministry, should not appear in the ministry that He would establish after Him. Now He had shown no pomp and pride of dominion, but yet He had shown the dominion itself in the fullest sense, the power of passing laws, enjoining precepts, defining rites, threatening punishments, governing, in fine, His Church, so that He had been pre-eminently "the Lord." Lastly, this is shown in the words recorded by S. John, as said shortly after on this same occasion. "You call Me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have given you an example, that as I have done unto you, so you also may do."⁹⁹

Now nothing can show more strongly than this discourse the pre-eminence and authority which our Lord was going to establish in one of His Apostles over the rest. For here we have His intention disclosed that in His kingdom, which is the Church's, some one there should be "the Great," "the First," and "the Ruler," who should discharge, in due proportion and analogy, the office which He Himself, before He returned to the Father, had held. But before we consider further who this one was, let us look at the subject from a somewhat different point of view.

And ¹⁰⁰here we must lay down three points, the first of which is, that our Lord, during His life on earth, had acted in two capacities, the one, as the Author and Founder, the other, as the Head and Supreme Ruler of His Church. His functions in the former capacity are too plain to need enlarging upon. He disclosed the objects of our faith: He instituted rites and sacraments: He provided by the establishment of a ministry for the perpetual growth and duration of the Church. It was in this sense that He spoke of Himself to His apostles, as "the Master," who could share His prerogatives with no one: "But be not you called Rabbi, for one is your Master, and all you are brethren."¹⁰¹ Thus is He, "the Teacher," "the Master," throughout the Gospel.

But He likewise acted as the Head of His Church, with the dignity and authority of the chief visible Ruler. He was the living bond of His disciples: the person around whom they grouped: whose presence wrought harmony: whose voice terminated contention among them: who was ever at hand to solve emergent difficulties. Thus it is that prophecy distinguished Him as "the Lord," "the King," "the Shepherd;" "on whose shoulders is the government," "who should rule His people, Israel." And His Church answers to Him in this capacity, as the family, the house, the city, the fold, and the kingdom.

Thus His relation to the Church was twofold, as Founder, and as Supreme Pastor.

Secondly, the Church shares her Lord's prerogative of unchangeableness, and as He is "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," so She, His mystical Body, in her proportion, remains like herself from the beginning to the end. The Church and Christianity are bound to each other in a mutual relation; the Church is Christianity embodied; Christianity is the Church in conception: the consistency and identity which belong to Christianity belong likewise to her; neither can change their nature, nor put on another form.

But, thirdly, the Church would be unlike herself, if, having been from her very cradle visibly administered by the rule of One, she fell subsequently, either under no rule at all, according to the doctrine of the Independents, or under the rule of the multitude, according to the Calvinists, or under the rule of an aristocracy, as Episcopalians imagine. A change of government superinduces a change of that substantial form which constitutes a society. But this holds in her case especially, above all other societies, as she came forth from the creative hand of her Lord, her whole organization instinct with inward life, her government directly instituted by God Himself, in which lies her point of distinction from all temporal polities.

For imagine, that upon our Lord's departure, no one had been deputed to take the visible headship and rule over the Church. How, without ever fresh revelations, and an abiding miraculous power, could that complex unity of faith, of worship, and of polity, have been maintained, which the¹⁰² Lord has set forth as the very sign and token of His Church? A multitude scattered throughout the most distant regions, and naturally differing in race, in habits, in temperament, how could it possibly be joined in one, and remain one, without a powerful bond of unity? Hence, in the fourth century, S. Jerome¹⁰³ observed, "The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the supreme Priest, in whom, if all do not recognise a peculiar and supereminent power, there will arise as many schisms in the Church as there are priests." And the repentant confessors out of Novatian's schism, in the middle of the third century, "We know that Cornelius (the Pope) has been elected Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church, by Almighty God, and Christ our Lord. – We are not ignorant that there is one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we confessed, one Holy Spirit, and that there ought to be one bishop in the Catholic Church."¹⁰⁴ And these words, both of S. Jerome, and of the confessors, if they primarily apply to the diocesan bishop among his priests and people, so do they with far greater force apply to the chief bishop among his brethren in the whole Church. Now, as our Lord willed that His Church should do without fresh revelations, and new miracles, such as at first accredited it, and that it should preserve unity; and as, when it was a little flock, which could be assembled in a single room, it had yet one visible Ruler, how can we doubt that He willed this form of government to remain, and that there should be one perpetually to rule it in His name, and preserve it in unity, since it was to become co-extensive with the earth?

CHAPTER III.
THE INVESTITURE OF PETER

Our Lord has hitherto, while on earth,¹³⁹ ruled as its visible head that body of disciples which He had chosen out of the world, and which His Father had given Him. And this body He for the first time called the Church in that famous prophecy¹⁴⁰ wherein He named the person, who, by virtue of an intimate association with Himself, the Rock, should be its foundation, and the duration of which until the consummation of the world, He pronounced at the same time, in spite of all the rage of "spiritual wickedness in high places" against it, because it should be founded upon the rock which He should lay.

Secondly, He had, at that period of His ministry when He thought it meet, the second year, selected out of the rest of His disciples, after ascending into a mountain and continuing the night long in prayer, twelve whom He named Apostles – as before and above all sent by Him – for "He called whom He would Himself, and they came to Him," to whom "He gave authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every weakness," whom He chose also "to be with Him," His personal attendants, "and to send them to preach;" to whom, moreover, He subsequently made a promise that whatever they should bind on earth, should be bound in heaven, and whatever they should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven.¹⁴¹

Thirdly, as at a certain time in His ministry, that is the second year, He had selected twelve to be nearer His person than the rest of His disciples, so at a yet later time, the third year of His ministry, He had set apart one out of the twelve, to whom from the very first, and before either he, or any one, had been called to be an Apostle, or even, as it would seem, a disciple, He had given a prophetic name; whom by word and deed, in correspondence with that name, He designated to be the future Rock of His Church, to be the Bearer of the keys, which opened or shut the entrance to His mystical Holy City, to be endued with power singly to bind and to loose; and whom at last, on the very eve of His being taken away from His disciples, He pointed out as the future "First one," "Greater one," or "Ruler," among them, having, as such, had given to him a special and singular charge, after the departure of the Head, to "confirm his brethren."

It is manifest that this was all which, before His offering Himself up for the sin of the world, and the withdrawal of His visible presence thereupon ensuing, He could do for the government of His Church. For as long as He was there, the Son of Man among men, seen, felt, touched, and handled, the sacred voice in their ears, and the divine eyes gazing bodily upon them, He was not only the fountain of all headship and rule, but He exercised in His own person the highest functions of that headship and visible rule. He daily encouraged, warned, corrected, taught, united them; in short, to use His own words, "while He was with them, He kept them in His Father's name."¹⁴²

But now another time, and other dangers were approaching. The sword was drawn which should "strike the shepherd," there was a fear that "the sheep would be scattered," not only for a moment, but for ever. To meet this the care of the divine guardian was necessary in a further disposition of those powers which He received at His resurrection from the dead. For henceforth His visits, as of a risen King, were to be few and sudden, when He pleased, and at times they expected not, "for forty days appearing to them and speaking of the kingdom of God," and as soon as His final injunctions had been thus royally given, "the heavens were to receive Him till the time of the restoration of all things." The Apostles could no longer "be with Him," as before, nor He "keep them," as in the days of His flesh.

How, then, does He complete the ministerial hierarchy which sprung from His own divine Person on earth, and which is to rule His Church and represent that Person from His first to His second coming?

Now, first, we must remark, that while great care is taken to make known to all the Apostles the resurrection of the Lord, yet a special solicitude is shown with regard to that one who was to be "the Ruler." Thus the angels, announcing the fact to the holy women at the sepulchre, "He is risen, He is not here, behold the place where they laid Him," add, "but go, tell His disciples and Peter, that He goeth before you into Galilee."¹⁴³ The expression indicates his superior place, as when Peter, himself delivered from prison, recounted to the disciples at the house of Mark his escape, and added, "Tell these things to James and to the brethren," where no one fails to see the pre-eminence given to James, by such a mention of him, that apostle being the Bishop of Jerusalem, and so put over the brethren, and, with himself, one of those who "seemed to be pillars." Again, to Peter our Lord appeared first among the Apostles. S. Paul exhibiting a sort of sum of Christian doctrine, as he says "the Gospel which I preached unto you," begins, "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven." By him alone, first, then by them in conjunction with him. And further, St. Paul's words seem to express a sort of descending ratio, "Then was He seen by more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the Apostles. And last of all He was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the Apostles."¹⁴⁴ And while they were yet in doubt, and for joy could not receive the marvellous tidings, when brought by the women, as soon as our Lord appeared to Peter, their hesitation was removed, and the two disciples returning from Emmaus – themselves full of His wonderful conversation with them – "found the eleven gathered together and those that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon," as the Church in her exultation repeats, where philologists tell us that the Greek and bears what is often the Hebrew meaning, and signifies "for," as if no doubt could remain any longer of their happiness, when Peter had become a witness of it.

These are indications of superiority, slight perhaps in themselves, if they stood alone, but not slight as bearing tacit witness to a fact otherwise resting on its own explicit evidence. If one of the Apostles was destined to be the head of the rest, this is what we should have expected to happen to that one, and this did happen to Peter, who is elsewhere made the head of the Apostles.

But now we come to those most important injunctions which our Lord gave to His Apostles after His resurrection, concerning the government of His Church. And here it becomes necessary to mark with the utmost accuracy what He said and what He gave to all the Apostles in common, and what to Peter in particular.

First of all, then, we may remark our Lord's care to redeem the promises which He had made to the Twelve, and to convey to them their legislative, judicial, and executive powers. These are mentioned by each of the four Evangelists, in somewhat different terms, but alike involving the distinctive apostolic powers of immediate institution by Christ, and universal mission; as Apostles they are sent, and they are sent by Christ. The form recorded in S. Matthew is, "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

The form of S. Mark is, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

S. Luke refers specially in two passages to the descent of the Holy Ghost, as being Himself as well the Divine "Gift," and the immediate worker of all graces in man, as the principle of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. "And I send the promise of My Father upon you, but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high." And again, "Eating together with them, He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard," saith He, "by My mouth; for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." "You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."

The form recorded by S. John is, "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them; and He said to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."¹⁴⁵

Now, it may be remarked that these passages of the several evangelists are identical in their force; that is, they each convey all those powers which constitute the Apostolate. These are received by all the Apostles in common, and together; and in the joint possession of them consists that equality which is often attributed by the ancient writers to the Apostles, as notably by S. Cyprian, "He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, 'as the Father sent Me, I also send you.'" And again, "Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship, both of honour and power."¹⁴⁶

And these Apostolic powers, legislative, judicial, and executive, are afterwards referred to as exercised; as in Acts ch. xv., where the first council passes decrees which bind the Church, nay, which go forth in the joint name of the Holy Ghost, and the rulers of the Church, "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;" – which are delivered by S. Paul to the cities to be kept: Acts xvi. 4 – as in Acts xx. 28, where bishops are charged to rule the Church, each over his flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed him – as in 1 Cor. v. 1-5, where S. Paul, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," excommunicates – as in 2 Cor. x. 6, where he sets forth his apostolic power – as in the Epistles to Titus and Timothy, where he sets them in authority, enjoins them to ordain priests in every city, and commands them to "reprove," or "rebuke."

And all these powers S. Peter, of course, as one of the Twelve, had received in common with the rest. The limit to them would seem to lie in their being shared in common by twelve; as, for instance, universal mission dwelling in such a body must practically be determined and limited somehow to the different members of that body, or one would interfere with the other. But there is nothing in these powers which answers to the images of "the rock," on which the Church is built, the single "bearer of the keys," and "confirmer" of his brethren, which Christ had appropriated to one Apostle.

In like manner, then, as our Lord fulfilled His promises to the Twelve, so did He those to S. Peter, and we find written the committal of an authority to him exactly answering to these images; an authority, which expresses the full legislative, judicial and executive power of the head, which can be executed by one alone at a time, and is of its own nature supreme, and responsible to none save God. It remained for our Lord to find an image setting forth all this as decisively as that of the Rock, the Bearer of the keys, and the Confirmer of his brethren.

Once, as He passed along the shores of the lake of Galilee, He had seen two fishermen casting their net into the sea, and had "said to them, Come after Me, and I will make you fishers of men, and immediately leaving their nets, they followed Him." Once again, too, He had gone into the ship of that same fisherman, and sitting, taught the multitudes out of it. And then He bade that fisherman, "who had laboured all the night and taken nothing, to launch out into the deep," and in faith, "let down his nets for a draught," whereupon "he enclosed so great a multitude of fishes that the net brake."¹⁴⁷ And, again, in after times, when the fisherman had become an Apostle, that same ship waited on His convenience, and carried Him across the lake. It was there He was asleep when the storm raged, and His disciples in little faith awoke Him, saying, "Master, save us, we perish," not yet knowing that the ship which carried the Lord might be tost, but could not sink.¹⁴⁸ From it they beheld Him walking on the sea, in the fourth watch of the night, when Peter, in his fervour, desired to join Him, and going to meet his Lord on the waves, his faith failed him, and he began to sink, till the Almighty hand supported him, and drew him with it to the ship, which "presently was at the land to which they were going."¹⁴⁹ And now, Peter, and Thomas, and Nathaniel, and the sons of Zebedy, and two others, were once more on that same ship and sea, but no longer with Him who had commanded the winds, and walked on the waves. Once more, too, they¹⁵⁰ toiled all the night, but "caught nothing: " when, lo, in the morning light, Jesus stood on the shore, but yet unknown to them, and bade them cast the net on the right side of the ship, "and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes." Thus He revealed Himself to them, and invited them to eat with Him of the fishes which they had caught. "Then Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken: " for, indeed, that draught of great fishes, gathered by Peter at Christ's command, betokened God's elect, whom the Church is to gather out of the sea of this world, who cannot break from the net, which net, therefore, Peter drew to land, even the everlasting shore whereon Christ welcomes His own. And after that marvellous banquet of the disciples with their Lord, betokening the never ending marriage feast, wherein "the roasted fish is Christ in His passion,"¹⁵¹ our Lord proceeds to crown all that series of distinctions, wherewith, since imposing the prophetic name, He had marked out Simon, the son of Jonas, to be the Leader of His disciples; and thus He fulfils by the side of the lake of Galilee what He foreshadowed when He first looked upon Peter, what He promised in the quarters of Cesarea Philippi, and what He repeated on the eve of His passion.

It was His will to appoint one to take His place on earth. Now He had assumed to Himself specially a particular title, under which of old time His prophets had foretold His advent among men, and which above all others expressed His tender love for fallen man. It had been said of Him, "I will set up one shepherd over them, and He shall feed them, even my servant David: He shall feed them, and He shall be their shepherd." And again: "Say to the cities of Judah, behold your God. – He shall feed His flock like a shepherd: He shall gather together the lambs with His arm, and shall take them up in His bosom, and He Himself shall carry them that are with young." And, once more, in the very prophecy by which the chief priests and scribes declared to Herod that He must be born at Bethlehem, "For from thee shall go forth the ruler, who shall feed (or shepherd) My people Israel." Appropriating these predictions to Himself, the Lord had said: "I am the good shepherd.¹⁵² The good shepherd giveth His life for His sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." And now it was His pleasure to give this particular title, so specially His own, to Peter, and to Peter alone, and to Peter in most marked contrast even with the best beloved of His other disciples, and to Peter, thrice repeating the charge, and varying the expression of it so as to include the term in its utmost force. "When, therefore, they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith to Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him, Feed My lambs. He saith to him again, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He saith to Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him, Feed My lambs. He saith to him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He had said to him the third time, lovest thou Me? And he said to Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things: Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to him, Feed My sheep."

Our Lord had before addressed the seven disciples present in common, "Children, have you any meat?" "Cast the net, and you shall find." "Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught." "Come and dine." But now, turning to one in particular, He singles him out in the most special manner, by his name, by asking of him a love greater than that of any others towards Himself, by conferring on him a charge, which, as we shall see, from its extension excludes its being held in joint possession by any other, and by a prophecy concerning the manner of his death, which is wholly particular to Peter. If it is possible by any words to convey a power and a charge to a particular person, and to exclude the rest of the company from that special power and charge, it is done here.

But, secondly, it is a charge of a very high and distinguishing nature indeed, for our Lord before conferring it demands of Peter, as a condition, greater love towards His own person than that felt for Him by any of the Twelve – even by the sons of Zebedy, whom from their zeal He surnamed Boanerges, sons of thunder – even by the disciple whom He loved, and who lay on His breast at the last supper. What must that charge be, the preliminary condition for which is a greater love for Jesus than that of the beloved disciple? What shall be a fitting sequel to "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?" What, again, the importance of that office, in bestowing which our Lord thrice repeats the condition, and thrice inculcates the charge? The words of God are not spoken at random, nor His repetitions without effect. What, again, are the subjects of the charge? They are "My lambs," and "My sheep," that is, the fold itself of the Great Shepherd. As He said, "If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with Me," so those who are not either His lambs or His sheep, form no part of His fold. Others, too, in Holy Writ, are addressed as shepherds, but with a limitation, as, "Take heed to the whole flock wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops," or "feed the flock of God which is among you." And, more largely far it was said, "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples all nations;" and "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature."¹⁵³ But they to whom this was said were yet themselves sheep of the Great Shepherd, and in committing the world to them, He did not commit them to each other. Whereas here, they too, as His sheep, are committed to one, even Peter; and very expressly, in the persons of James and John, and the rest present, "lovest thou Me more than these?" A particular flock is never termed absolutely and simply "the flock," or "the flock of God," but "the flock which is among you," "in which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." And, again, the Apostles are sent in common to the whole world, to preach to all nations, and to form one flock; but they are twelve, and "power given to several carries its restriction in its division, whilst power given to one alone and over all, and without exception, carries with it plenitude, and, not having to be divided with any other, it has no bounds save those which its terms convey."¹⁵⁴ What are the terms here? "Feed," and "be shepherd over" or "rule" "My lambs and My sheep." The terms have no limit, save that of salvation itself. Such, then, are the persons indicated as subjects of this charge. But what is the nature of the charge? Two different words of unequal extent and force in the original, but both rendered "feed" in the translation, convey this. One means "to give food" simply, the other, of far higher and nobler reach, embraces every act of care and providence in the government of others, under an image the farthest removed from the spirit of pride and ambition. Such is even its heathen meaning, and the first of poets termed Agamemnon by this word, "Shepherd of the people." By this word, S. Paul, and S. Peter¹⁵⁵ himself, express the power of the bishop over his own flock. And so our Lord, here instituting the Bishop of Bishops, the one Shepherd of the one fold, gives to Peter over all his flock, the very word given to Him in the famous prophecy, "Thou, Bethlehem, the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule My people Israel: " the very word, which used of Himself in Psalm ii. to express all His power and dominion, in His revelation to S. John, is spoken of His own triumphant career, as the Word of God going forth to battle, "He shall rule them with a rod of iron;" and, again, in the same book is applied by Himself to set forth the honour which He will give "to him that shall overcome and keep My works unto the end."¹⁵⁶ Thus, just as in the persons pointed out, the subject of this charge is universal, so in the terms by which it is expressed, the nature of the power is supreme. What the bishop is to his own flock, Peter is made to "the flock of God: " and this at once, in the most simple, as well as in the most absolute and emphatic manner, by institution from the chief Shepherd Himself, at the close of His ministry, and by associating Peter singly with Himself in His most distinctive title. If the fold of Christ is equivalent to "the Church of Christ," and "the kingdom of heaven," so to feed and to rule the lambs and the sheep of that fold is equivalent to being "the Rock" of that Church, and "the Bearer of the keys," as well as the First, the Greater one, and the Ruler in that kingdom of heaven.

Again, looking at the circumstances under which this charge is received by Peter, it either conveys that special and singular honour and power which we have here set forth, or none at all. For Peter had already received the full Apostolic authority: he had heard together with the rest of the Apostles those words of power, "As My Father sent Me, I also send you," and the charge following, to bind and to loose. It could not therefore be this power which was given him, for he had it already. All which James and John, the sons of thunder, ever had given them, he also had before these words were uttered. Besides a power which was to be shared by James and John, and the rest of the Apostles, could not be given in terms which distinguished him from them, "lovest thou Me more than these?" It could not be the mere forgiveness of his denial, for not only did the Apostolate, since conferred, carry that, but when our Lord appeared to him first of all the Apostles after His resurrection, it was a token of such forgiveness. There remained nothing else to give him, but presidency over the Apostles themselves, the reward of superior love, as was prophesied and promised to him in reward for superior faith. For these two oracles of our Lord exactly correspond to each other as promise and performance. Their conditions and their terms shed a reciprocal light on each other. In the one there is the great confession, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;" in the other as singular a declaration, "Lovest thou Me more than these? Yea, Lord." In the one there follows the reward, "And I say to thee, that thou art Peter," &c.: and in the other a like reward, "Feed My lambs, be shepherd over My sheep." The one is future, "I will build, I will give, thou shalt bind, thou shall loose: " the other present, "Feed and be shepherd." What concerns "the Church and the kingdom of heaven" in the one, concerns "the fold" in the other. And the promise and performance are singularly restricted to Peter – "I say unto thee, Thou art Peter" – "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?"

As then Peter received the promise of the supreme episcopate before all and by himself, under the terms that he should be the Rock, by being built on which the Church should never fall, that he should be the Bearer of the keys in the kingdom of heaven, and that singly he should bind and loose in heaven and in earth; so after his own Apostolate, and that of the rest had been completed, by himself, and as the crown of the divine work, he received the fulfilment of that supreme episcopate, under the terms, "Feed My lambs, be shepherd over My sheep." And as a part out of that magnificent promise made to him singly, was afterwards taken and made to the Apostles jointly with him, for so "it was the design of Jesus Christ to put first in one alone what afterwards He meant to put in several; but the sequel does not reverse the beginning, nor the first lose his place. That first word, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind,' said to one alone, has already ranged under his power each one of those to whom shall be said, 'Whatsoever ye shall remit;' for the promises of Jesus Christ, as well as His gifts, are without repentance; and what is once given indefinitely and universally is irrevocable:"¹⁵⁷ so when Peter and the rest already possessed the whole Apostolate, the commission to go and preach to the whole world, and to make disciples of all nations, a power was added to Peter to make up what was promised to him originally; the Apostles themselves, with the whole fold, were put under his charge; he represented the person of the Great Shepherd: and the divine work was complete.

Thus the powers of the Apostolate and the Primacy are not antagonistic, but fit into, and harmonise with each other. In the college of the Twelve, as before inaugurated, and sent forth into the whole world, something had been wanting, save that, "by the appointment of a head, the occasion of schism was taken away:"¹⁵⁸ and Satan would have shaken the whole fabric, but that there was one divinely set to "confirm the brethren." He who "kept them" once, when "with them," by His personal presence, now kept them for evermore by the word of His power, issued on the shore of the lake of Galilee, but resounding through every age, clear and decisive, amid the fall of empires, and the change of races, and heard by all His flock to the utmost of the isles of the sea, till the day of the Son of Man comes, – "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed My lambs: Feed My sheep."

And that the universal and supreme authority over the Church of Christ, was in these words committed to Peter by the Lord, is the belief of antiquity. Thus, S. Ambrose, in the west: "It is not doubtful that Peter believed, and believed because he loved, and loved because he believed. Whence, too, he is grieved at being asked a third time, Lovest thou Me? For we ask those of whom we doubt. But the Lord does not doubt, but asks not to learn, but to teach him whom, on the point of ascending into heaven, He was leaving, as it were, the successor and representative of His love.¹⁵⁹ It is because he alone out of all makes a profession, that he is preferred to all. Lastly, for the third time, the Lord asks him, no longer, hast thou a regard (diligis me) for Me, but lovest (amas) thou Me: and now he is ordered to feed, not the lambs, as at first, who need a milk diet, nor the little sheep, as secondly, but the more perfect sheep, in order that he who was the more perfect might have the government."¹⁶⁰ In the East, S. Chrysostome, "Why, then, passing by the rest, does He converse with him on these things? He was the chosen of the Apostles, and the mouthpiece of the disciples, and the head of the band. Therefore, also Paul once went up to see him rather than the rest. It was, besides, to shew him, that for the future he must be bold, as his denial was done away with, that He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He does not mention the denial, nor reproach him with what had past; but He says, if thou lovest Me, rule the brethren, and show now that warm affection which on all occasions thou didst exhibit, and in which thou didst exult, and the life which thou didst offer to lay down for Me, now spend for My sheep." Again, "thrice He asks the question, and thrice lays on him the same command, showing at how high a price He sets the charge of His own sheep." Again, "he was put in charge with the direction of his brethren." "He made him great promises and put the world into his hands." Thus John and James, and the rest of the Apostles were committed to Peter, but never Peter to them: and he adds, "But if any one asks, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? I would reply that He elected Peter not to be the teacher of this throne, but of the whole world." And in another place, "Why did He shed His blood to purchase those sheep which He committed to Peter and his successors? With reason then said Christ, 'who is the faithful and prudent servant whom his Lord hath set over His own¹⁶¹ house?'" Theophylact repeated, seven hundred years later, the perpetual tradition of the East. "He puts into Peter's hands the headship over the sheep of the whole world, and to no other but to him gives He this; first, because he was distinguished above all, and the mouth-piece of the whole band; and secondly, showing to him that he must be confident, as his denial was put out of account." And if S. Leo, a Pope, declares that "though there be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter rules all by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules by Sovereign power,"¹⁶² the great Eastern, Saint Basil, assigned an adequate reason for this near a century before, when he viewed all pastoral authority in the Church as included in this grant to Peter, declaring that the spiritual "ruler is none else but one who represents the person of the Saviour, and offers up to God the salvation of those who obey him, and this we learn from Christ Himself in that He appointed Peter to be the shepherd of His Church after¹⁶³ Himself."

But especially must we quote S. Cyprian, because to that equality of the Apostles as such, before referred to by us, by considering which without regard to the proportion of faith some have been led astray, he adds the full recognition of the Primacy, and urges its extreme importance. Thus quoting the promise and the fulfilment, "Thou art Peter, &c." and "Feed My sheep," he goes on, "Upon him being one He builds His Church; and though He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, "As the Father sent Me, I also send you, &c.," yet in order to manifest unity He has, by His own authority, so placed the source of the same unity as to begin from one. Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power, but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one."¹⁶⁴ That is, the Apostles were equal as to the powers bestowed in John xx. 23-5, but as to those given in Matt. xvi. 18-19, Luke xxii. 31-3, and John xxi. 15-18, "the Church was built upon Peter alone," and he was made the source and ever-living spring of ecclesiastical unity.

Yet clearly as our Lord in this charge associates Peter with Himself, puts him over his brethren, the other Apostles, and fulfils to him all that He ever promised, as to making him "the first," "the greater one" and "the ruler or leader," by that one title of "the Shepherd," in which is summed up all authority over His Church, and the very purpose of His own divine mission, "to seek and to save that which was lost," still a touch of tenderness is added by the Master's hand, which brings out all this more forcibly, and must have told personally on Peter's feelings and those of his fellow-disciples, as the highest and most solemn consecration to his singular office. For when the Lord spoke that parable, "I am the good shepherd," He added, as the token of the character, "the good shepherd giveth His life for His sheep." And so now, appointing Peter to take His place over the flock, He adds to him this token also: "Amen, amen, I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not." "When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself," alluding, perhaps, to that impulse of affection with which, just before, as soon as Peter heard from John that it was the Lord standing on the shore, "he girt his coat about him and cast himself into the sea," for his love waited not for the slowness of the boat. Thus He taught Peter that the chiefship to which He was appointing him, that "care of all the Churches," as it required a different spirit to fulfil it from that which prevailed among "the kings of the nations," so it led to a different end, the last crowning act of a lifelong self-sacrifice, which began by being the servant of all, ran through a thousand acts of humiliation and anxiety, and was to be completed in the martyrdom of crucifixion. And so in his death, as well as in his charge of visible head of the Church, he was to be made like his Lord, and after the manner of the Good Shepherd, whom he succeeded, should lay down his life for his sheep. For "this He said signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when He had said this, He saith to him, Follow Me." With far deeper meaning now than when those words of power were first uttered to him beside that lake. Then it was, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Now it is, "Follow Me, and I will associate thee with My life and with My death, with My charge and with its reward. This shall be the proof of thy greater love, to be obedient even to death, and that the death of the cross." Such was the anointing which the first Primate of the Church received to the triple crown. "Follow thou Me." Like his divine Master, he was during the whole of his ministry to have the cross set before his eyes, and laid upon his heart, as the certain end of his course. And thus Peter "received power and sacerdotal authority over all, from the very God for our sakes incarnate:"¹⁶⁵ thus he followed in the steps of the Good Shepherd, as he succeeded to His office. And, therefore, having accomplished his mission and triumphed on the Roman hill, from Rome he speaks through the undying line of his spiritual heirs, and feeds the flock of Christ.

CHAPTER IV.
THE CORRESPONDENCE AND EQUIVALENCE OF THE GREAT TEXTS CONCERNING PETER

Before we compare together more exactly what was said to the Apostles in common, and what to Peter in particular, it is desirable to consider briefly two other points, which will complete the evidence furnished by the Gospels.

1. If, then, the¹⁶⁶ question to be decided by documents is, whether several persons are to be accounted equal in rank, honour, and authority, or whether one of them is superior to the rest, it will be an unexceptionable rule to observe whether they are spoken of in the same manner. For words are signs of ideas, and set forth as in a mirror the mind's conceptions. A similarity of language, therefore, will indicate a similarity of rank; a distinction of language, especially if it be repeated and constant, will show a like distinction of rank. Let us apply this rule to the mode in which the Evangelists speak of Peter and of the other Apostles.

Now to express one of rank and his attendants, the Evangelists often use the phrase, a person and those with him. Thus, Luke vi. 4, "David and those that were with him;" and Matt. xii. 3 with Mark ii. 25, "Have ye not read what David did, when himself was a hungered and those that were with him?" Of our Lord and the Apostles it is said, Mark iii. 11, "And He made twelve, that they should be with Him:" and xvi. 10, "She went and told them that had been with Him." And Acts iv. 13, the chief priests "knew them," Peter and John, "that they had been with Jesus." And Matthew xxvi. 69, Peter is reproached, "Thou also wast with Jesus." Now just so the Evangelists speak of Peter. Our Lord having on one occasion left the Apostles for solitary prayer, S. Mark writes, i. 36, "And Simon and they that were with him followed after Him." Again, the woman with the issue of blood having touched the Lord, when He asked, 'Who is it that touched Me?' S. Luke says, viii. 45, "all denying, Peter and they that were with him said," &c. And on the occasion of the Transfiguration, "Peter and they that were with him," being James and John. Just as after the resurrection Luke writes, Acts ii. 14, "Peter standing up with the eleven;" verse 37, "They said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles;" v. 29, "Peter and the Apostles answering said." And the angels to the holy women, Mark xvi. 7, "Go tell His disciples and Peter."

It is then to be remarked that Peter is the only Apostle who is put in this relation to the rest. Never is it said "James," or "John and the rest of the Apostles," or, "and those with him." Peter is named, and the rest are added in a mass, and this happens in his case continually, never in the case of any other Apostle.

No adequate cause can be alleged for this but the Primacy and superior rank of Peter, which was ever in the mind of the Evangelists, and is sometimes indicated by the prophetic name; for as often as Simon is called Peter, he is marked as the foundation of the Church, according to the Lord's prophecy. And long before contentions about the prerogatives of Peter arose, the ancient Fathers attributed it to his Primacy, that he was thus named expressly and first, the others in a mass, or in the second place.

According, then, to the rule above-mentioned, Peter, by the mode in which the Evangelists speak of him, is distinguished from the other Apostles, and his position with regard to the rest is described in the very same phrase which is used to express the superiority of David over his men, and even of our Lord over the Twelve. And for this there seems no adequate cause, but that special association of Peter with Himself indicated in the name, and the promises accompanying it in Matt. xvi.

2. Again, four¹⁶⁷ catalogues of the Apostles exist,¹⁶⁸ and in each of these Peter is placed first. And in the three which occur in the Gospels, (that of Luke in the Acts being a more brief repetition of his former one,) the prophetic name Peter is indicated as the reason for his being thus placed first. So Mark. "And to Simon He gave the name Peter. And James the son of Zebedy, and John the brother of James; and He named them Boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder: " for which reason, that the Lord had given them a name, though it was held in common, and not, like that of Peter, expressive of official rank, but personal qualities, Mark seems to set these two before Andrew, whom both in Matthew and in Luke they follow. Again, Luke says, "He chose twelve of them, whom also He named Apostles, Simon whom He surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother," &c. "The first of all, and the chief of them, he that was illiterate and uneducated," says S. Chrysostome;¹⁶⁹ and Origen long before him, observing that Peter was always named first in the number of the twelve, asks, What should be thought the cause of this order? He replies, it was constantly observed because Peter was "more honoured than the rest," thus intimating that he no less excelled the rest on account of the gifts which he had received from heaven, than "Judas through his wretched disposition was truly the last of all, and worthy to be put at the end."¹⁷⁰ But much more marked is Matthew in signifying the superior dignity of Peter, not only naming him at the head in his catalogue, but calling him simply and absolutely "the first." "And the names of the twelve Apostles are these, The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James," &c. Now that second and third do not follow, shows that "first" is not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus in heathen authors this word "first" by itself indicates the most excellent in its kind: thus in the Septuagint occur, "first friend of the king," "first of the singers," "the first priest,"¹⁷¹ i.e. the chief priest. So our Lord, "whichever among you will be first;" "Bring forth the first robe;" and S. Paul, "sinners, of whom I am first,"¹⁷² i.e. chief. Thus "the first of the island," Acts, xxviii. 7, means the chief magistrate; and "first" generally in Latin phraseology, the superior, or prince.

Such, then, is the rank which Matthew gives to Peter, when he writes, "the first, Simon, who is called Peter."

It should also be remarked that, whenever the Evangelists have occasion to mention some of the Apostles, Peter being one, he is ever put first. Thus Matt., "He taketh unto Him Peter, and James, and John his brother;" and Mark, "He admitted not any man to follow Him, but Peter, and James, and John, the brother of James: " and "Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew asked Him apart: " and "He taketh Peter, and James, and John with Him: " and Luke, "He suffered not any man to go in with him, but Peter, and James, and John, and the father and mother of the maiden: " and "He sent Peter and John: " and John, "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathaniel, who was of Cana in Galilee, and the two sons of Zebedy, and two others of His disciples."¹⁷³ This rule would seem to be invariable, though James and John are not always mentioned next after him.

An attempt has been made to evade the force of these testimonies, by giving as a reason for Peter being always thus named first, that he was the most aged of all the Apostles, and the first called. Even were it so, such reasons would seem most inadequate, but unfortunately they are neither of them facts. For as to age, antiquity bears witness that Andrew was Peter's elder brother. And as to their calling, S. Augustine has observed, "In what order all the twelve Apostles were called, does not appear in the narrations of the Evangelists, since not only not the order of the calling, but not even the calling itself of all is mentioned, but only of Philip, and Peter, and Andrew, and of the sons of Zebedy, and of Matthew, the publican, termed also Levi. But Peter was both the first and the only one who separately received a name from Him."¹⁷⁴ As it may be conjectured from the Gospels that Christ said to Philip first of all, "Follow Me," Joh. i. 44, he has the best right to be considered the first called.

Now the two classes of facts just mentioned, as to the mode in which the Evangelists speak of Peter in combination with the other Apostles, prove directly and plainly his Primacy, while they do not directly prove, save Matthew's title of First, nor are they here quoted to prove, the nature of that Primacy, which rests, as we have seen, on other and more decisive texts.

At length, then, we have before us the whole evidence of the Gospels, and having considered it piece by piece, may now take a general view. It is time to gather up the several parts of this evidence, and, claiming for each its due force, to present the sum of all before the mind. For distinct and decisive as certain texts appear, and are, even by themselves, yet when they are seen to fit into a whole system, and perfectly to harmonise together, they have much greater power to convince the mind, which really seeks for truth. But moral evidences generally, and especially that which results from a study of the Holy Scripture, is not intended to move a mind in a lower condition than this; a mind, that is, which loves something else better than the truth.

Thus, out of the body of His disciples, we see our Lord choosing Twelve, and again, out of those Twelve, distinguishing One by the most singular favours. This distinction even begins before the selection of the Twelve, and has its root in the very commencement of our Lord's ministry: for, as we have seen, it was when Andrew first led his brother Simon before Christ, that He "looked upon him," and promised him the prophetic name which revealed his Primacy, and his perpetual relation to the Church of God. The name thus promised is in due time bestowed, and solemnly recorded by the three Evangelists, at the appointment of the Apostles, as the reason why he is invariably set at their head; Matthew, still more distinctly expressing in it his primacy, "the first, Simon, who is called Peter." And their whole mode of mentioning him, and exhibiting his relation to the other apostles, shews that this Primacy was, when they wrote, ever in their minds. It comes out in the most incidental way, as when Mark writes, "Simon, and they that were with him, followed after" Christ; or Luke, "Peter, and they that were with him, said;" as naturally as they write, "David, and those that were with him: " or of our Lord Himself, and the Apostles, "those that had been with Him."¹⁷⁵ Again this preference of Peter is shewn by our Lord, both at the Transfiguration and the Agony: where, even when the two next favoured of the Apostles are associated with Him as witnesses, yet there is evidence of Peter's superiority in the mode with which the Evangelists mention him. Great as the dignity was of the two sons of thunder, they are yet ranged under Peter by Luke, with that same phrase which we have just been considering. "Peter, and they that were with him were heavy with sleep." And our Lord, at the agony, says to Peter, "could not you," that is, all the three, "watch with Me one hour?"¹⁷⁶ Again, how incidentally, yet markedly, does Matthew shew that this superiority of Peter over others was apparent even to strangers, when he writes, that the officers who collected the tribute for the temple, came to him, and said, "does not your master" (the master of all the Apostles,) "pay the didrachma?"¹⁷⁷ Much more significant is the incident immediately following, when our Lord orders him to go to the sea, to cast a hook, and to bring up a fish, which shall have a stater in his mouth, adding, "take that, and give it to them for Me, and for thee: " a token of preference so strong, and of association so singular, that it set the Apostles on the immediate enquiry, who should be the greater among them: the answer to which we will revert to presently.

And this designation of Peter to his high and singular office becomes even more striking, if we contrast what our Lord did and said to him with what He did and said to another Apostle, who in another way is even in some respects preferred to Peter himself. For "the disciple whom Jesus loved," who lay on His breast at supper, to whom was committed at the most sorrowful of all moments the domestic care of the Virgin Mother, has in the affection of our Lord his own unapproachable sphere. But as Peter does not come into competition with him here, so neither in another view he with Peter. His distinction is private, and in the nature of personal affection: Peter's is public, and in the nature of Church government. To one is committed the Mother of the Lord, the living symbol of the Church, the most blessed of all creatures, and that, when her full dignity and blessedness stood at length revealed in the full Godhead of her Son, yet whose throne was intercessory, apart from rule on earth: to the other is committed the Church herself, her championship in the time of conflict, the rudder of the vessel on the lake, till with Christ it should reach the shore. Each of these, so eminent and unapproachable in his way, has that way apart; and when Peter, on receiving his final commission, turned about and saw his best-loved friend following, and ventured to ask, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" our Lord replied with something like a reproof, "what is that to thee? Follow thou Me." These distinct preferences of the two Apostles were indicated by Tertullian, when he wrote, "Was anything concealed from Peter, who was named the rock on which the Church should be built, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth? Was anything, too, concealed from John, the most beloved of the Lord, who lay upon His breast, to whom alone the Lord foresignified the traitor Judas, whom He committed in His own place as Son to Mary?"¹⁷⁸

But to return. Our Lord, after encompassing Peter during His whole ministry with such tokens of preference, and a preference specially belonging to his office, and designating it, appears to him first of all the Apostles after His resurrection. And yet all the proofs which we have been here summing up of Peter's pre-eminence, are but collateral and subordinate: though by themselves ten-fold more than any other can claim, yet Peter's authority does not rest mainly on them. And this likewise is true of another class of facts concerning Peter, which yet carries with it much force, and when once remarked, never leaves the thoughtful mind. It is his great predominance in the sacred history over the rest of the Twelve. A single incident or expression distinguishing him, is perhaps all that falls to the lot of another Apostle, as when "Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us;" and the Lord replies, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip?" Or as Thomas, at a moment of danger, "said to his fellow disciples, Let us also go that we may die with Him."¹⁷⁹ But Peter's name is wrought into the whole tissue of the Gospel history; he is perpetually approaching the Lord with questions: "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?" The rest suffer the Lord in silence to wash their feet, but Peter is overcome at the sight. "Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? Thou shalt never wash my feet;" "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head."¹⁸⁰ Thus in the whole New Testament, John, who is yet mentioned oftener than the rest, occurs only thirty-eight times; but in the Gospels alone, omitting the Acts and the Epistles, Peter is mentioned twenty-three times by Matthew, eighteen by Mark, twenty by Luke, and thirty by John.¹⁸¹ More especially it is the custom of the Evangelists, when they record anything which touches all the Apostles, almost invariably to exhibit Peter as singly speaking for all, and representing all. Thus when Christ asked them all equally, "But whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter answered and said." He told them all equally "That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven,"¹⁸² whereupon "Peter answering said to Him, Behold, we have left all things, and followed Thee: what therefore shall we have?" And when "Jesus said to the twelve, Will you also go away?"¹⁸³ at once we hear, "Simon Peter answered and said, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." And a very remarkable occasion occurs where our Lord had been telling to His disciples the parable of the watchful servant, upon which Peter said to Him, "Lord, dost Thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?"¹⁸⁴ And the reply seems by anticipation to express the very office which Peter was to hold. "Who, then, is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family, to give them their measure of wheat in due season?" Now it looks not like an equal, but a superior, to anticipate the rest, to represent them, to speak and act for them. S. Chrysostome drew the conclusion long ago. "What then says Peter, the mouth-piece of the Apostles? Everywhere impetuous as he is, the leader of the band of the Apostles, when a question is asked of all, he replies."¹⁸⁵ No other cause can be assigned for the care of the Evangelists in setting before us so continually his words and acts, in bringing him out, as the second object, after Christ. But though his future place in the Church is a reason for this, and this again, a token of that singular pre-eminence, its decisive proof rests on declarations from our Lord's own mouth, expressly circumscribed to him, of singular lucidity, and of force which nothing can evade; declarations which set forth, under different but coincident images, a power supreme and without equal, and of its own nature belonging to but one at a time. The proofs which we have hitherto mentioned take away all abruptness from these declarations, and show that they embody a great design which runs all through the Gospel; but the office itself rests upon these, and by these is most clearly and absolutely defined.

Thus, when our Lord, in answer to a great confession of His Apostle, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," replies, "and I too, say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church: " every one must feel how it adds to the cogency of the reply, that the name, which He is explaining, was not the person's natural name, but first promised, and then given, by that same Lord, who now attaches other promises and prophecies to it. This fact serves, among others, to fix the whole which follows to Peter individually, and to introduce what follows, as part of a design, which before had been intimated: for what follows no more belongs to the other Apostles, than the name, Peter, belongs to them: and a name, on the other hand, so promised, and so given, naturally looks, as it were, to such a result. To say solemnly of a man, when first seen, "Thou art called Simon, but thou shall be called The Rock," and to make nothing of him when so called, would be, if ascribed to any one, a dull and pointless thing; but what shall we say, when the speaker is God? It is a new thing for God the Word to speak with little meaning, or to speak, and not to do: and so now He does what He had long designed. And what is it that He does? He sets up a governor who is never to be put down. He inaugurates a Church against which Hell shall rage, but in vain: He establishes a government at which the nations shall rage, the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, for ever, but to their own confusion. He does what He alone could do, and so the answer is worthy of the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

"Blessed ¹⁸⁶art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I, too, say unto thee, in return for what thou hast said to Me, and to shew, like My Father, My good will towards thee, and what I say, as the Almighty Word of the Father, by My power I fulfil, that thou art Peter, the Rock, and so partaker with Me of that honour whereby I am the chief Rock and Foundation; and upon this Rock, which I have called thee, I will build My Church, which, therefore, with Me for its architect, shall rest on thee, to thee adhere, and from thee derive its conspicuous unity: and the gates of hell, even all the powers of the enemy, shall not prevail against it, nor take that, which, by My Godhead, is established upon thee, but rather yield to it the victory. And to thee, whom, as Supreme Architect, I have marked out for the Rock and Foundation of My Church, as King and Lord I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the supreme authority over My Church, and will make thee sharer with Me in that dignity, by which I hold the keys of heaven and of earth, and whatsoever, in virtue of that authority and as associated in My dignity, thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, and there shall be no matter relating to My Church, and the kingdom of heaven, but shall be subject to thy legislative and judicial power, which shall reach the heaven itself: for it is a power at once human, and divine; human, as entrusted to a man, and administered by a man; divine, as a participation of that right by which I am, in heaven and on earth, Supreme Lawgiver and Judge; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

Thus it is that the most famous Fathers and Bishops, the most distinguished Councils, the most various nations, have understood our Lord's words, and this is their meaning, according to the fixed laws of grammar, of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of logic, as well as by the testimony of history, and in accordance with the principles of theology. Let us mention certain consequences which follow from them.

These words¹⁸⁷ of Christ are, in the most marked manner, addressed to Peter only among the Apostles, and are, therefore, with their meaning, peculiar to him. And they designate pre-eminence in the government of the Church. They have, therefore, the two qualities which render them a suitable testimony to establish his Primacy among the Apostles.

Now, if persons differ in rank and pre-eminence, they must be considered not equals, but absolutely unequal. And such pre-eminence Peter had, deriving from Christ, the Founder, a superior rank in the Church's ministry. Therefore, the college of the Apostles must be termed absolutely unequal, and all the Apostles, compared with Peter, absolutely unequal.

But as inequality may be manifold, as of age, calling, honour, order, jurisdiction and power, its nature and its degree must be sought in that property which belongs to one over the rest. So that we must determine, by the authority of the Scriptures, from those gifts which were promised to Peter alone, the nature and the degree of that inequality which subsisted between him and the other Apostles.

The gifts promised to Peter alone, are contained in these words of Christ, recorded by Matthew: and therefore, from their nature and inherent qualities, we must judge of the sort, and the extent of inequality, put by Christ between Peter and the rest.

These are summed up in the four following: I. That Peter is the rock, on which the Church was to be built by Christ, the Chief Architect. II. That the impregnable strength which the Church was to have against the gates of hell, depended on its union with Peter, as the divinely laid foundation. III. That by Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, Peter is marked out as next to Him, and after Him, the Bearer of the keys in the Church's heavenly kingdom: IV. And that, accordingly, universal power of binding and loosing is promised to him, leaving him responsible to Christ alone, the supreme Lawgiver and Judge. Therefore the nature of the prerogatives expressed in these four terms must be our standard both of the character and degree of inequality between the Apostles and Peter, and of the power of the Primacy promised to Peter.

But these terms mark authority, and plainly express jurisdiction and power; the inequality, therefore, is one relating to jurisdiction and power; and Peter's pre-eminence likewise such.

That these terms, which contain Peter's prerogatives really do express jurisdiction and authority, may be thus very briefly shown. The first, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," is drawn from architecture, exhibiting between Peter and the Church, which includes also the Apostles, the relation which exists between the foundation and the superstructure. This is one of dependence, by which accordingly the Apostles must maintain an indivisible union with Peter. Which relation of dependence, again, cannot be understood without the notion of superior jurisdiction in Peter, for these are correlative. The second term corroborates this; for it is a plain duty, and undoubted moral obligation, to be united to him, if severed from whom, the words of Christ do not entitle you to expect stability or victory over the gates of hell. Now, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," most plainly express that perseverance and victory are promised to no one by Christ, who does not remain joined with Peter. So much for the duty which binds all Christians, and the Apostles among them, to avoid separation from Peter as their destruction. But such duty involves the faculty and authority on Peter's part of enjoining on all without exception the maintenance of unity, and of keeping from the whole body the sin of schism, which, again, expresses his superior jurisdiction. Yet plainer and more striking is the third; for in the words, "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," it is foretold that Peter, in regard to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore to all Christians, whether teachers or taught, subjects or prelates, shall discharge the office of the bearer of the keys; with which jurisdiction and authority are indivisibly united. But in the fourth, there is no matter relating to the heavenly kingdom, which is not subjected by this promise to Peter's authority. "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," "whatsoever thou shalt loose;" but this is in its own kind without limit, a full legislative and judicial power. Thus these four terms exactly agree with each other, and express, severally and collectively, prerogatives by which Peter is admitted to a singular and close association with Christ; and therefore is pre-eminent among the Apostles by his Primacy, and his superior authority over the whole Church.

CHAPTER V.
S. PETER'S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE ACTS

The ²⁰⁴purpose of S. Luke in writing the Acts seems to have been to set before us the labours and sufferings of the Apostles in planting and propagating the Church. But he has divided the book very distinctly into two portions; the latter, from the thirteenth chapter to the end, with one short exception, is wholly occupied with the labours of S. Paul, "the vessel of election," in spreading the faith among the Gentiles, and so contains the particular history of that Apostle, and the churches founded by him. The former, from the beginning to the end of the twelfth chapter, embraces the history of the Apostles in common, and of the whole Church, as it rose at Jerusalem, and was spread first in Judea, then in Samaria, and finally extended to the Gentiles. The former history, then, is universal; the latter, particular.

Moreover, to use the words of ²⁰⁵S. Chrysostome, "we may here see the promises which Christ made in the Gospels carried into execution, and the bright light of truth shining in the very actions, and a great change in the disciples, arising from the Spirit that had entered into them. – You will see here Apostles speeding on the wing over land and sea, and men once timid and unskilled suddenly changed into despisers of wealth, and conquerors of glory and all other passions; you will see them united in the utmost harmony, without jealousy, which once they had, without contention for the higher place."

We may say, then, in a word, that the Gospels are a history of the Head, and the Acts of the mystical Body. Hence both issue forth from one and the same fountain and source. The history of the Head begins with the descent of the Holy Ghost, whereby Christ was conceived, and ²⁰⁶"the race of God and of man became one. For just as the union of man with woman joins two families, so upon Christ assuming flesh, by that flesh the whole Church became of kin with Christ, Paul became Christ's kinsman, and Peter, each one of the faithful, all we, every holy person. Therefore, says Paul, ²⁰⁷'being the offspring of God,' and again, 'we are the body of Christ and members in particular,' that is, through the flesh, which He has assumed, we are His kinsmen." Now the history of the Body, proceeding from the same fountain-head, sets before us the Holy Spirit, who, by descending first on the teachers, and afterwards on the disciples, exalts and advances all, and by imparting Himself, imparts "the proportional deification of man," that is, "the utmost possible assimilation and union with God."²⁰⁸ For "the Spirit works in us by His proper power, truly sanctifying, and uniting us to Himself into one frame, and making us partakers of the divine nature:"²⁰⁹ "becoming as it were a quality of the Godhead in us, and dwelling in the saints, and abiding for ever."

Now it is ²¹⁰manifest that if the first twelve chapters of the Acts contain the history of the Church from its beginning, and what the Apostles did for its first formation, its growth, and its form of government, all this has the closest connection with the question as to Peter's prerogatives. For the historical accounts in the Acts, which exhibit the execution of Christ's promises and intentions, naturally tend to set in the fullest light, and to reveal distinctly, whatever as to the administration of the Church may be less clearly foretold in the Gospels. For in itself the execution is declaratory of the enactment, and supplies a safe rule for understanding and determining the words of institution. Now, if we apply this rule to the present question, it will be apparent that those expressions of the Gospel, which we assigned to the divine institution of the Primacy, cannot be otherwise received without making the execution in the Acts at variance with what the Gospels record.

For, take it as a still doubtful hypothesis whether there exist evangelical testimonies of Peter's institution to be head and chief of the Apostles. What needs it to turn this hypothesis into certainty? What should we expect of Peter, if he really had received from Christ the charge of leading the other Apostles? What but that he should never follow, but always be at the head; should close dissensions, weigh and terminate controversies, punish emergent offences, maintain the general discipline, give the support of his counsel and authority in need, and leave undone none of those functions which accompany the office of head and supreme ruler? Hence it is plain that there are two ways, the one absolute, the other hypothetical, by which a decisive judgment may be drawn from the history of the Acts, as to whether Peter's Primacy was instituted in the Gospels. Critics and philosophers are perpetually using both these tests. Thus, the former, "if a certain work – say the epistles of the martyr Ignatius – be genuine, it ought to contain certain characteristics. But it does contain these, and so is genuine." Or absolutely, "a certain work, the Epistles of Ignatius, contains all which we should expect in a genuine work, therefore it is genuine." The latter infer, "If bodies be moved by the law of gravitation, they would pass through a certain space under such and such a condition. But this they do, and accordingly are moved by gravitation." Or absolutely, "Bodies left to themselves pass through space under such conditions as they would follow, if impelled by gravitation. Accordingly they are so impelled." Now in the parallel case, "If Christ in the Gospels pre-ordained a form of Church government, which gathered up the supreme power and visible headship into Peter's hands, the exercise of such institution ought to be found in the Acts. But it is so found. Therefore," &c. – or again, "No one would expect certain acts from Peter, unless he were the head of all the Apostles; and all would fairly expect those acts of Peter, if they recognised him as so set over all by Christ. Now in the general history of the Apostles we find such acts recorded of Peter, and that not partially, here and there, but in a complete series. Accordingly the history of the rising Church, exhibited in the first part of the Acts, demands Peter's Primacy for its explanation; and if we deny that Primacy, and take in another sense the words recording its institution in the Gospel, the history becomes unintelligible."

Now this reasoning is conclusive in either way, provided only that what we have asserted be really found in the Acts. The proof of this may be either general, or piecemeal and particular. We will take both in order, beginning with the former.

1. First, ²¹¹then, we must repeat, as concerns that whole portion of the Acts containing the history of the universal Church, and all the Apostles, viz. the first twelve chapters, a remark before made as to the Gospels, which is, that Peter simply is more often mentioned than all the rest put together. For Peter's name occurs more than fifty times, the others very seldom, and those who are found the oftenest, John and James, are recorded, the former seven or eight, the latter three or four times. Yet this is a history of them all: Luke is recording the common exertions of all the Apostles in building up the Church. This is the very distinction between the former and the latter portion of his book, which is confined to the labours of S. Paul, leaving aside the rest of the Church. What then is the reason that Peter, in a general history, is so often brought forward, and the rest, either singly or in conjunction, so seldom? Because after our Lord's glorious ascension Peter stood to the eleven in an analogous position to that held by our Lord, so long as He was visible, towards the whole college: because Peter was become the head, and the rest, as members, were ranged under him.

2. Such subordination on their part, such pre-eminence on his,²¹² Luke shows yet more clearly, whenever he groups Peter with the rest, by assigning to him the leading place. It frequently happens to him to speak of Peter and the rest together, but on no one occasion does he give Peter any but the first place, and the leading part. Just as the evangelists do with regard to Christ, and the Apostles and disciples, so Luke prefers Peter to the rest, to mark a difference between the rank and office of Peter, and that of the others.

3. Luke seems to confirm his readers in such a conclusion by the form which he follows of mentioning Peter directly, and the rest obliquely or in a mass. These are instances: "In those days Peter, rising up in the midst of the brethren, said" – "Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice" – "They said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles" – "Peter with John fastening his eyes upon him said, Look upon us." – "Peter and the Apostles answering, said."²¹³ Now what form of writing could Luke choose to refute an opinion about the universal equality of the Apostles? Or to show Peter as set over the rest, and to satisfy in this even the most unreasonable? Either the form which he did choose is calculated to do this, or none such can be found.

4. Add to this that Peter is represented as speaking and answering, when the occasion would suggest that all the Apostles, equally, should disclose their mind. The reproaches of the unbelieving Jews affected not Peter singly, but all alike; but he alone stands forth, he alone lifts up his voice, and in a long speech brings them to sound reflection. The multitude, struck with compunction, asked not Peter only, but the rest likewise, "What shall we do, men and brethren?" Yet it is forthwith added, "But Peter said to them." Upon the miracle by which one who had been lame from his mother's womb was healed, "all the people ran together to them," both Peter and John, but Peter alone speaks, and takes on himself the defence of the common cause: "Peter seeing, made answer to the people."²¹⁴ Fresh instances may be found in chs. iv. 6-7, and v. 2-3. The result of the whole is that Peter is continually "the mouth-piece of the Apostles,"²¹⁵ always takes the lead, and gives his own mind, as conveying that of the rest.

On what ground does he do this? Was it from natural fervour of disposition? But it was the same after he was filled with the Holy Spirit as before. Was it the result of superior age, or first calling? but the facts refute this. What other cause can be suggested save that Primacy which the Gospels record, and the Acts confirm?

5. To this we must likewise refer it that Luke, while he amply describes actions which belong to Peter, rather hints at than narrates what concerns the other Apostles. Thus he leaves it to be understood that the others spoke, while he gives Peter's discourses entire, and seems to have chosen them as the principal material of his history. He simply suggests that miracles were wrought by the rest, but records particularly what Peter did for the establishment of the faith. He relates but very little of those who became Christians by the exertion of others, but notes at large the abundant fruit of Peter's teaching. Take an ancient author's summary of the Acts, "this whole volume is about the ascension of Christ after the resurrection, and about the descent of the Holy Spirit on the holy Apostles, and how and where the disciples announced Christ's religion, and all the wondrous deeds which they did by prayer and faith in Him, and about Paul's divine calling from heaven, his apostleship, and fruitful preaching, and in a word about those many great dangers which the Apostles underwent for Christ:"²¹⁶ follow, out of this, all which concerns the universal Church in the first twelve chapters, and Peter will be found not only the principal, but well nigh the only, figure in the foreground.

6. Hence as the Gospels may be called the history of Christ, so this first part of the Acts may be called the history of Peter; for as Christ occupies each page of the Gospels, so Peter here. Nothing can be more emphatic or more just than S. Chrysostome's words: "Behold him making his rounds on every side, and the first to be found; when an Apostle was to be chosen, he was the first; when the Jews were to be told that they were not drunken; when the lame man was to be healed; when the multitude was to be addressed, he is before the rest; when they had to do with the rulers, it is he; when with Ananias, when healings took place from the shadow, still it is he. Where there was danger, it is he, and where there was dispensation; but when all is tranquil, they act in common. He sought not the greater honour. But again, when miracles are to be worked, he comes forth before the rest."²¹⁷ What can prove Peter's pre-eminence if this does not? But his words on another occasion deserve mention. Alluding to the title "Acts of the Apostles," which seems to promise their common history, he observes, "Yet if you search accurately, the first part of the book exhibits Peter's miracles and teaching, but little on the part of the other Apostles; and after this the whole account is spent on Paul." But he adds, "How are they the acts of all the Apostles? Because, according to Paul, when one member is glorified, all the members are glorified with it, the historian did not entitle them, the Acts of Peter and of Paul, but the Acts of the Apostles; the promise of the writer includes them all."²¹⁸ Now every one must feel the very high distinction given to Paul in the latter part of the book, when the historian turns away from the general history of the Church to record his particular labours, in which, no doubt, the object was to show the progress of the Church among the Gentiles; but with regard to the part which is common to the whole Church, another thought is suggested. The history of what Peter taught and did, to build up and extend the Church, is considered the common history of the Apostles, and so inscribed as their Acts. But can this be called an accurate expression, unless Peter had been the head of the Apostles? It is very plain that the acts of a head are imputed to the whole body; to a college of brethren, what its chief executes; to a city or kingdom, the deeds of its prince. But it is not plain how this can be, if the actor be one of a number, and do not exceed his brethren in honour or dignity. Therefore the Acts of Peter could be called, generally, the Acts of the Apostles, only because they were considered the Acts of their head.

Now let us pass from the general view to that in detail.

I. After ²¹⁹the Lord's ascension a most important point immediately arose, whether, that is, the number of the Twelve was to be filled up by the election of a new Apostle to take the place of Judas. The will of Christ on this matter was to be learnt; a witness was to be chosen who should participate in the mission of Christ Himself, according to the words, "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you," and carry the light of the Gospel to the ends of the world; and one was to be elected to the dignity of the Apostolate, the highest rank in the Church. It was, therefore, so important a matter, that no one could undertake it save he who had received the vicarious headship of our Lord Himself. Now the history in the Acts tells us that Peter alone spoke on the subject of substituting a fresh Apostle for Judas; Peter alone proved from Scripture the necessity of the election, defined the conditions of eligibility, and appointed the mode of election, and presided over and directed the whole transaction.

For Luke begins thus: "In those days," the interval between the Ascension and Pentecost, "Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said." Here the important prerogative of initiation is shown to belong to Peter, and by the phrase, "in the midst of the brethren," or "disciples," – which is often used of Christ in respect of the Apostles – his pre-eminence over the disciples is shown. "Brethren, it behoved that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus, who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry," that is, of the Apostolate. Then having mentioned the miserable end of the traitor, he applies to him the prophecy: "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein:' and, adding another prophecy from another Psalm, 'his bishopric let another take.'"²²⁰ Whence he concludes, "Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of His resurrection." In these words Peter plainly points out the necessity of the matter in question, confirms it by the Holy Scriptures, speaking in the character of their highest interpreter, and as the appointed teacher of all; and, while proposing it to their deliberation, yet requires their consent; for the phrase, "wherefore, one must," means, "I am not proposing what may be done or left undone, but declaring and prescribing what is to be done." So he determines the conditions of eligibility, and the form of election. Whereupon his hearers – "the number of persons together about an hundred and twenty" – instantly agree unanimously to Peter's proposition, follow its conditions, and complete the election.

No one can reflect on the above without concluding, that if Peter presided over the rest by the authority of a divinely chosen headship, no course could be more becoming, both for Peter and for the disciples, than this; and if, on the contrary, Peter was only one out of many, not having yet even received the Pentecostal gifts of the Holy Spirit, and had been entrusted by Christ with no pre-eminent office in the ministry, nothing could be more unfitting for both. We have therefore to infer that Peter "stood in the midst of the disciples," as a superior among inferiors, not as an equal among equals, and conceived that the charge of supplying an Apostle, and filling up the Apostolic college, belonged in chief to himself, because he and they alike were conscious, that he was the steward set in chief over the Lord's family.

But, clear as this is on the face of the narration itself, fresh light is shed on it by the fact that S. Chrysostome observed and recorded this very conclusion. For why did Peter alone arise? Why was he the first and the only one to speak? "Both²²¹ as fervent, and as one entrusted by Christ with the flock, and as the first of the choir, he ever first begins to speak." Why does he allege prophecy? First, that he might not seem with human counsel "to attempt a great matter, and one fitted for Christ: " next to imitate his Master, "he always reasons from the Scriptures." "Why did he not singly ask of Christ to give him some one in the place of Judas?" Because "Peter had now improved," and overcome his natural disposition. But "might not Peter by himself have elected? Certainly: but he does not so, that he may not seem partial." "Why does he communicate this to them," the whole number of the names? "That the matter may not be contested, nor they fall into strife: for" (he alludes to the contention of the Apostles for the primacy,) "if this had happened to themselves, much more would it to the others," that is, the candidates to succeed Judas. Then he points out to our admiration "Peter doing this with common consent, nothing²²² with authority, nothing with lordship," where we must note that the abuse of a power is only to be feared from one who really has that power. For again he says, "he first acts with²²³ authority in the matter, as having himself all put into his hands, for to him Christ said, 'And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren.'"

The college of the Apostles completed, it followed that the head, if such there were, would on every occasion of danger, be the first to protect it, and to defend its reputation. Now there ensues the miracle of the Holy Spirit's descent, and the gift of tongues, whereupon Luke describes the various opinions of the astonished multitude, some of whom "mocking,²²⁴ said, These men are full of new wine." That is, they blasphemed the working of the Spirit, and by the most monstrous calumny were destroying the good name of the Apostles. Whereupon, "Peter, standing up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day: but this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." Now here, both the form of the words, and the matter, establish Peter's primacy. For the phrase, "Peter standing up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them," portrays Peter as the leader of the band, the master of the family. So S. Chrysostome,²²⁵ "What means with the Eleven? They uttered a common voice, and he was the mouthpiece of all. And the Eleven stand beside him, bearing witness to his words." And as to the matter, Peter alone fulfils the part of teacher, by interpreting scripture, and declaring the agreement of both covenants: Peter alone maintains the common cause: Peter alone, representing all, addresses the multitude in the name of all. "Observe, too, the harmony of the Apostles: they give up to him the office of speaking:"²²⁶ that is, they yielded to him who was the Head, and who, as he says, showed here "the courage," as before "the providential care" of the Head.

After refuting the calumny, Peter goes on in a noble discourse to explain prophecies, and then coming to the dispensation of Jesus, gives the strongest proofs of His resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of the Father, and finally sums up with great force and authority. "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ this same Jesus whom you have crucified."

Now, what²²⁷ is here to our purpose? It is this, that Luke seems only to dwell on what concerns Peter: that Peter, first of all, and in the name of all, performs the office of a witness, laid both on himself and the rest, ("ye shall be witnesses to Me;" "and you shall give witness,")²²⁸ saying, "this Jesus hath God raised up, of which we all are witnesses: " that first of all, he publicly and solemnly discharges the duty of instruction with authority: that, first of all, he fulfils the charge set by Christ on all the Apostles, "make disciples – teach: " that, first of all, he promulgates the necessity of believing in Jesus as the divinely appointed Lord and Christ. Now these are things which, so far from allowing an equality between Peter and the rest of the Apostles, point out in him a headship over them.

Thereupon, the hearers, struck with compunction for having crucified, not merely a just man, but the Anointed of the Lord, "said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles" – here again he alone is singly named – but of all alike they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Whereupon, S. Chrysostome²²⁹ notes, "here again, where all are asked, he alone replies." For, as Luke goes on, "Peter said to them: " As the leader, he performs what belongs to all: he alone sets forth the law of Christ. "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: " he alone encourages them with the promised gifts of the Holy Spirit, "and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: " he alone continues at length the instruction of the hearers, "and with very many other words did he testify and exhort them: " he alone declares the fruit of Christian profession, "save yourselves from this perverse generation," and he alone it is, of whose ministry Luke adds, "They, therefore, that gladly received his word were baptized, and there were added, in that day, about three thousand souls."

And here we see how fitting it was that Peter, whom Christ had set as the foundation and rock of the Church, should labour with all his might, as the chief architect after Him, to build up the structure. But what, in the meantime, of the other Apostles? Were not they also architects? Yes, but with Peter, and under Peter, whom accordingly, they attend and support. The subsequent additions to the Church's structure, and the course consistently pursued by Peter, will bring this out yet more clearly. For, of fresh accretions, Luke writes, "Many of them who had heard the word, believed, and the number of the men was made five thousand."²³⁰ Now, whose word was this? Still the word of Peter, who speaks for the third²³¹ and fourth time, as he had for the first and second.

For, as to the third²³² occasion, Luke, after mentioning Peter and John together, introduces Peter alone as urging the children of Abraham to embrace the faith of Christ, and persuading them that Jesus is the Prophet, promised by God through Moses in Deuteronomy. And as to the fourth,²³³ he writes, "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them – " But was he alone present? not so, for the council "setting them," not him, but John as well as Peter, "in the midst, they asked," on which Chrysostome²³⁴ observes, "See how John is on every occasion silent, while Peter defends him likewise." That is, John was silent, as knowing that the lead belonged to Peter, and Peter spoke, because the Head defends not himself only, but the members committed to him.

Now, reviewing these first four chapters of the Acts, let us ask these questions. Had Peter held the authority of head among the Apostles, what would he have done? He would have filled up the Apostolic college, carefully watched over it, protected its several members. But this is just what he did. Again, had Christ made him the supreme teacher and doctor, what would he have done? He would have disclosed, first to the Apostles themselves, and to the disciples, and then to the multitude, who were to be converted, the secrets of the divine will laid up in the Scriptures; he would have shown the agreement between the dispensation of Christ, and the oracles of the Old Testament, and so have proved that Jesus was the Messiah. But this he repeatedly did. Once more, had Christ made him the chief among the builders of the Church, what would have been his office? He would have been the very first to set his hand to the work, and to construct the building with living stones; he would have held the other workmen under his control, so that the edifice might rise worthy of Christ, and exactly answering to His promises. But does not the history give precisely this picture of him, and does not the Church which Peter raised answer exactly to the archetype prescribed by the Lord? "All they that believed were together, and had all things common: " "the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: " what is this but the counterpart of that divine prayer, "that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent²³⁵ Me."

II. To take another point. The office of²³⁶ authoritative teaching is in the New Testament closely connected with the power of working miracles, so that Christ not only said of Himself, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin: " but likewise added, "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father:"²³⁷ to shew that, while faith depended on preaching, and authoritative instruction, these also needed the power of works to conciliate conviction. In accordance with which, when He first sent out His Twelve to preach, He not only charged them what to say, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand,"²³⁸ but added the fullest miraculous power, "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils." And when more solemnly sending them, not to one people, but to all nations, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature," He adds their warrant, "these signs shall follow them that believe. In My name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents: " and the Evangelist subjoins, "They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed."²³⁹

Remembering, then, this very close connexion between the authority of Apostolic teaching and the power of working miracles, we may fix a criterion for recognising the exercise of the supreme office in teaching. Suppose any one of the Apostles to have been invested at the commencement of the Church with this office, how may he be ascertained? If any one is found invariably the first to announce the word of truth, and likewise to confirm it with miracles, you may suppose him to be that one. Suppose, again, that Luke intended to represent one of the Apostles as the supreme teacher. How may it be safely inferred? If, in the course of his narration, he continually exhibits one as eminent above all the rest in preaching the Gospel and guaranteeing it by signs. These are not tests arbitrarily chosen, but naturally suggested. And both exactly fit to Peter, and to Peter alone. For he, in this history of the universal Church, is the first, nay, well nigh the only one, both to preach and to support his preaching by miracles. And Luke takes pains to relate no less his miracles than his discourses, and scarcely describes with any detail either the one or the other, of any but Peter.

Nay, his mode of writing suggests a parallel between himself and S. John in his Gospel, as if it were no less Luke's intention to show Peter invested with the supreme office, than John's to set forth Christ as the head and teacher of the Apostolic college; and no less Luke's purpose to accredit the Church by Peter's miracles, than²⁴⁰ John's by the miracles of Christ to establish faith in Him as the true Son of God. For the circumstances of each narration point to this similarity of design. As S. John subordinates the group of Apostles entirely to the figure of Christ, so Luke, very slightly sketching the rest, is profuse in detail of what concerns Peter, and marks him as set over all. As John in recording the miracles of Christ dwells on the points which prove His divine mission and origin from the Father, so Luke directs his narration to exhibit the beginning, the growth, and the authority of the Church, as due to Peter's miracles. We will mark two further resemblances. First, the miracles which Luke records of Peter seem cast in the same type as those of Christ. Compare the first one with that told by John, ch. v.

But is this affected by other persons likewise speaking and voting, as Paul and Barnabas? or by S. James likewise giving his sentence, as an Apostle? or by the whole matter being settled by common consent? As little as to be head involves being all; as to preside over the rest takes from them the power of deliberation, and resolution. Rather it is the office of the Head and the President to take the initiative, and point out the course which others are to follow.

For those here present were teachers, and had the prerogative of hearing and judging, as well as Peter; they were bound to weigh the matter in controversy to the best of their power, and to decide on it according to the proportion of faith. They stood to Peter in a relation, not of simple obedience, as the ordinary members of the flock, but of judges, who, though responsible to his superintendence, yet are really judges, pass sentence, and decree by inherent authority. It is no part of the idea of a judge, that he should be supreme and irresponsible: this is the special privilege of the one supreme judge. Objections such as these, therefore, do not take from Peter his Primacy, and quality of Head, but claim for Paul, Barnabas, James, and the other Apostles, the judicial authority and office, which they undoubtedly possessed.

Nor again, that, not Peter only, but all, passed the decree in common, as it is written: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;" and as Paul and Timothy "delivered to the cities the decrees to keep that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients."²⁷⁵ For a decree made in common by many shews not an equality of power in each, but a competent authority to join in that decree. Such acts proceed, not only from equal, but from unequal assemblies. A question, therefore, terminated by common decision, and laws established by common consent, do indeed prove a power to deliberate and decree common to all participating, but do not prove that all, and every, of the judges were equal in their privileges, for who gives to the Ancients the same authority as to the Apostles?

This inequality is elsewhere established, and rests on its own proof, but bearing it in mind, we shall see that Peter is the first and chief author of this common decree, and that laws passed by common consent depend on him primarily as Head. Most unsuspicious witnesses of this are the ancient writers, and this is the very conclusion which they drew from the account of this council. Thus, Tertullian, in the second century, speaking of Peter's singular prerogatives, says, "On him the Church was built, that is, through him: it was he who hanselled the key. This is it. 'Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, &c.' He, too, first by Christian baptism opened the approach of the heavenly kingdom, by which offences, heretofore bound, are loosed, and those not loosed are bound, according to true salvation. And Ananias he bound with the chain of death: and him that was weak in his feet he delivered from his disease. But likewise, in that discussion as to maintaining the law, Peter, first of all, instinct with the Spirit, and preluding with the vocation of the Gentiles, says, 'And now why tempt ye the Lord, by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which neither we, nor our fathers have been able to bear? But by the grace of Christ we believe that we shall be saved, as also they.' This sentence both loosed what was given up of the law, and kept binding what was reserved."²⁷⁶ As clearly, S. Jerome, in the fourth century, writes, that Peter "used his wonted freedom, and that the Apostle James followed his sentence, and all the ancients at once acceded to it, and that the decree was drawn upon his wording."²⁷⁷ A little later Theodoret wrote to S. Leo, thus: "If Paul, the preacher of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to carry from him the solution to those at Antioch, at issue about living under the law; much more do we, poor and humble, run to your Apostolic throne, to receive from you healing for the wounds of the Churches."²⁷⁸ Why does he here call Peter, the great, or say that Paul hastened to him for solution of a grave contention? Did not Paul go to all the Apostles? But Peter was the head among them, and had a power in chief – a power above the rest, a "more special" power – of binding and loosing.

VIII. One other ²⁷⁹instance there is of Peter's superior dignity, and therefore importance, in the Apostolic college, which if, perhaps, less direct than some of the foregoing, is even more persuasive. For there was an Apostle associated, as we have seen, by our Lord with Peter and John in several favours not granted to the rest; one who with John received from Him the name Boanerges; the elder brother of John, who with him had once asked to sit on the Lord's right hand and on His left in His kingdom. Now Luke is led in the course of his narrative to mention the martyrdom of this great and favoured Apostle; the first likewise of the Apostolic choir who drank, as he had promised, of His Lord's baptism, and sealed his labours and trials with his blood. The occasion was a great and striking one. It is thus recorded by Luke. "And at the same time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict some of the Church. And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword." This is the first and the last time that he is mentioned by himself in Luke's inspired history of the universal Church. Great as he was, so eminently favoured by his Lord, the elder brother of John, nothing is said of the Church's anxiety for his danger, her prayers for his release, her sorrow at his loss, or her exultation at his triumph by witnessing unto blood. He passed to his throne in heaven with this short record. The more emphatic is the contrast following. "And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the azymes. And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending after the pasch to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him." That is, by the instinct of self-preservation she prayed for her head. A few years later another Apostle, after glorious labours by land and sea, and missions of unrivalled success, was seized and imprisoned in this same city of Jerusalem, and in danger of his life. But we do not hear of prayers being offered up without ceasing even for Paul, the doctor of the nations. The Church's safety was not bound up with his, any more than with that of James, and therefore not even of the great preacher "in labours more abundant than all," are we told that in the hour of danger "prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him." James and Paul were most distinguished members, but Peter was more. This was an honour reserved for the Head alone, as the life of the Head was peculiarly precious to the whole body. Thus S. Chrysostome explains it. "The prayer is a proof of affection: they all sought for a Father, a kind Father."²⁸⁰ And then Luke proceeds to give at length Peter's delivery out of prison by the angel, and his departure in safety to another place. But there is no other solution of such a difference in recording what happened alike to James, to Peter, and to Paul, but that Peter held the place of father in the Lord's family, of commander in His army, of steward in His household, delivering to each of His servants their measure of wheat in due season.

The result,²⁸¹ then, of our particular enquiry in the Acts is to demonstrate two things, that Peter discharged the office of Father and Head in the Lord's family, and that the Church received and admitted him when so acting, with a consciousness that such was the will of Christ.

Now this office did not consist in "lording it" over his brethren, in assuming high titles, and interfering with the ministry of others when exercised in its due course, in rejecting their assistance, or impeding the unanimous exercise of their counsel. On the contrary, the Lord had before prescribed that "the greater" among them should be as the younger, and "the leader" as he that ministers, proposing to them Himself as the great model, who had exercised the highest power with the utmost gentleness, and, being "the Lord," had become "the servant of all." What, then, did this office of Primate consist in? We may say that Peter was undoubtedly such, if he constantly exercised the power of a head in building up the Church, in maintaining discipline, in reconciling dissensions, and in general administration. Now it would be doing Peter wrong to suppose that he usurped as peculiar to himself what equally belonged to all the Apostles; or that, having received the special power of the Holy Ghost, he did not fulfil his own advice to others, "not to lord it over the clergy, but to be made a pattern of the flock."²⁸² And the four points just mentioned may be reduced to a triple authority, a Primacy magisterial, judicial, and legislative. Let us take in at one glance what has been said of Peter in regard to each of these.

As to the magisterial, or power of authoritative teaching, and general administration, Peter is constantly taking the lead, he is the mouthpiece of the Apostles: he alone, or he first, by teaching plants the Churches; he alone, or he in chief, completes them when planted; he it is who by divine revelation given to himself, discloses to the rest the dispensation of God; and he in words full of power sets forth to these assembled in council the course which they are to pursue.

As to the judicial, none other judgments are found in that portion of the Acts which contains the history of the whole Church, save those of which he was either the sole or the chief author. Alone he took cognisance of Ananias and Sapphira, and alone he punished them. And Simon he censured in chief, and excommunicated.

As to the legislative, Peter alone promulged the law as to receiving the Gentiles; alone he prescribed that for abrogating the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances; and he was the chief author of the decree which expressed in terms his own previous act, and was put forth in common by the Apostles and Ancients.²⁸³

Again, compare the institution of the Primacy with its exercise. Its institution consisted in three things. 1. That Peter was named by Christ the foundation of the Church, with whom its whole fabric was most intimately to cohere, and from whom it should derive visible unity and impregnable strength: 2. That the authority of universal pastor, and the care of the whole fold, was committed to him: 3. That to him belonged the confirmation of his brethren, and a power of the keys to which all were subject. Now consider the execution.

As foundation of the Church, he gathers up to himself congregations from the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles.

As universal pastor, he collects from these three the flock, nourishes, defends, inspects it, and fills up one place of highest rank in the ministry forfeited by the traitor.

As confirmer of the brethren, he disclosed to them the heavenly vision signifying the universal calling of the Gentiles, and the abrogation of the Mosaic law. He acts in the Lord's household as the bearer of the keys, going to all parts, defending and inspecting all. By himself he binds and looses, calling Ananias and Sapphira to his tribunal, and excommunicating the first heretic.

So exactly, then, do the institution of the Primacy and the acts of Peter fit into each other, that from the former you may predict the latter, and from the latter prove the former. They are like cause and effect, or an à priori and an à posteriori argument. They are a reciprocal confirmation to each other; just as if by time you calculate the sun's rising, and see the diffusion of his light, from his having risen you infer his light, and from his light conclude that he has risen.

Nor in the Apostolic Church does any one appear to resist or question this office of Peter. Rather upon him all eyes are fixed, for him all are anxious; no Abiram rises up against him with the words of rebellion; "Thou takest too much upon thee, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, wherefore then liftest thou up thyself above the congregation of the Lord?"²⁸⁴ No Aaron in a moment of delusion cries, "Did the Lord speak by Moses only? hath He not spoken also by us?"

Yet Peter acts not like one out of a number, and occasions of contention are not wanting, strong prepossessions and keen feelings.²⁸⁵ He is everywhere; his pre-eminence and his control are universal: he can act with severity, and there are some impatient even of a just control. When Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at his feet, none murmured. When he exclaimed, in full council, "now, therefore, why tempt you God?" the whole multitude was silent. When he explained the reception of the Gentiles, those who had murmured "held their peace, and glorified God."²⁸⁶

But had Peter not possessed, by divine commission, the authority which he exercised, it is clear, from the conduct of Paul, that he would have met with opposition from each in proportion to his advance in Christian perfection. Paul's censure of his indulgence to the prejudices of the circumcision, proceeding as it did from charity, shews this. But what would Paul, and what would the other Apostles have done, had they seen Peter perpetually taking the lead, and exercising the power of a head, without any special title thereto? Would they not have resisted him to the face, and before all, and declared that there was no difference of authority between them? Yet, not a trace of such resistance appears, while on numberless occasions the Apostles, and the whole assembly of the faithful, yield to him the Primacy, a sign truly that they recognized in him one who had received the place of Christ as visible Head among them.

The place of Christ as visible Head, for infinite indeed is the distance between Christ and Peter, as to the headship of mystical influx and the source of grace. Neither he nor any creature has part with Christ as to this latter, of which Paul writes, "that God hath set all things under His feet, and given Him to be Head over all to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all;" of which again, "from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity;" and "the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Saviour of His body: " and all this "to present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing."²⁸⁷ In this sense Headship belongs to Christ, not only first and chiefly, but absolutely and solely. But, as to the Headship of external government and visible unity, though here also the same Apostle calls Him, "the head of the body the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things He may hold the primacy,"²⁸⁸ to this Christ Himself has in a measure associated Peter by saying to him specially, "Feed My sheep – follow thou Me."

And observe how that divine injunction was fulfilled. For as following our Lord with loving gaze through the Gospels we see every object grouped about that heavenly figure of His; as our eyes rest ever upon Him in the synagogue, in the market-place, among the crowd, before the Pharisees, the elders, the chief priests, healing the sick, raising the dead, supporting and animating His disciples – so turning to the Acts we see a human copy indeed of that Divine portrait, but still one wrought by the Holy Spirit out of our redeemed flesh and blood. We see the fervent Apostle treading in his master's steps, the centre and the support of his brethren, the first before the Council, and before the people, ready with his words and his deeds, uttering to the dead, as the echo of his Lord, "Arise," and healing the sick with his shadow. With reason, then, do the inspired writers use of Peter and of Christ similar forms of speech, and as they write, "Jesus, and His disciples," "there went with Him His disciples," "there He abode with His disciples," so they write, "Peter standing up with the Eleven," "they said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles," "Peter and the Apostles answering." What above all is remarkable is to observe the same proportion between the figure of Peter and the Apostles in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, as between the figure of our Lord and the Apostles in the Gospel. Such was the power and the will of the Divine Master when He said, "Feed My sheep; follow thou Me." Such the truth of the disciple, answering, "Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee."

CHAPTER VI.
TESTIMONY OF S. PAUL TO S. PETER'S PRIMACY

In leaving the Gospels and the Acts we quit those writings in which we should expect, beforehand, that divine government to be set forth, which it pleased our Lord to establish for His church. In exact accordance with such expectation we have seen the institution of the apostolic college, and of S. Peter's Primacy over it, described in the Gospels, and the history in the Acts of its execution and practical working. Both institution and execution have been complete in their parts, and wonderfully harmonise with each other. But in the other inspired writings of the New Testament, comprising the letters of various Apostles, and specially of S. Paul, we had no reason to anticipate any detailed mention of Church government. The fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were written incidentally on different subjects, no one of them leading him to set forth, with any exact specification, that divine hierarchy under which it was the pleasure of the Lord that His Church should grow up. Moreover, it so happened that the ²⁸⁹circumstances of S. Paul's calling to be an Apostle, and the opposition which he sometimes met with from those attached to Jewish usages, caused him to be a great defender of the Apostolic dignity, as bestowed upon himself, and continually to assert that he received it not of men, but of God. Had there, then, been no recognition at all of S. Peter's superior rank in the Apostolic College to be found in his writings, it would not have caused surprise to those who consider the above reasons. And proportionably strong and effective is the recognition of that rank, which, though incidental, does occur, and that several times. If, then, S. Paul, being so circumstanced, selected expressions which seem to indicate a distinction of dignity between the Apostles and S. Peter, they claim a special attention, and carry a double force. Now on putting these together we shall find that they show not merely a distinction of dignity, but a superior authority, in Peter.

The first are four several passages in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in all of which S. Peter holds the higher place, and in two is moreover mentioned singly, while the rest are mentioned only in mass. These are the following, "Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Again: "All things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, for all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." Again, "Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" And once more: "That He was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven."²⁹⁰ First, we may remark that the place of dignity in a sentence varies²⁹¹ according to its nature: if it descends, such place is the first; but if it ascends, it is the furthest point from the first. Now in the first instance the discourse ascends, for what can be plainer than that it terminates in Christ, as in the supreme point? "Every one of you saith, I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ;" so S. Chrysostome observes, "It was not to prefer himself before Peter that he set him last, but to prefer Peter even greatly before himself. For he speaks in the ascending scale: " and Theodoret: "They called themselves from different teachers: now he mentioned his own name and that of Apollo: but he adds also the name of the chief of the Apostles."²⁹² As plain is this in the second instance, where S. Paul, developing his thought, "all things are yours," adds, "whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas," or if that be not sufficient, "the world" itself, which, carried away in a sort of transport, he seems to divide into its parts, "or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all," I repeat, "are yours: " but only, you are not your own, "you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." In all which, from human instruments, who plant and water, he rises up to God, the ultimate source, the beginning and the end. Stronger yet is the third passage, for being in the very act of setting forth the dignity of his own Apostolate, "have we not power," he says, "to lead about a sister, a woman, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Now, whether "the rest of the Apostles" here means, those who, in the looser signification are so called, as "the Apostles of the Churches," and "Andronicus, and Junias – who are of note among the Apostles,"²⁹³ or the original Twelve, the ascending scale is equally apparent. For why is Peter distinguished by name from all the rest? Why alone termed by his prophetical name? S. Chrysostome, again tells us why. "Look at Paul's wisdom. He puts the chief the last. For there he puts that which was strongest among the principal. For it was not so remarkable to shew the rest doing this, as him that was chief, and had been entrusted with the keys of heaven. But he puts not him alone, but all, as if he would say, whether you look for inferiors, or superiors, you have examples of all. For the brethren of the Lord, being delivered from their first unbelief,²⁹⁴ were among the principal, though they had not reached the height of Apostles, and, therefore, he put them in the middle, with the highest on the two sides:"²⁹⁵ words in which he seems to indicate that Peter was as excellent among the Apostles, as they among the rest of the disciples, and the Lord's brethren.

Of the superiority contained in the fourth passage, we have spoken above, under another head: and, therefore, proceed to much more remarkable testimonies of S. Paul.

In the epistle to the Galatians, S. Paul has occasion²⁹⁶ to defend his Apostolic authority, and the agreement of the Gospel which he had preached with that of the original Apostles. After referring to his marvellous conversion, he continues, "immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood; neither went I to Jerusalem to the Apostles, who were before me, but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to visit Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord." At length, then, S. Paul goes to Jerusalem, and that with a fixed purpose, "to visit Peter." But why Peter only, and not the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord?²⁹⁷ Why speaks he of these, and of James himself, besides, as if he would intimate that he had little care of seeing them? No other answer can be given to such queries, than is shadowed out in the prophetic name of Peter, and contained in the explanation of it given by Christ Himself, "Upon this Rock I will build My Church."

For, to prove this, let us go back once more to witnesses beyond suspicion, who wrote a thousand years before the denial of Peter's Primacy began. The Greek and Latin Fathers see here a recognition of his chief authority. Thus Theodoret, "Not needing doctrines from man, as having received it from the God of all, he gives the fitting honour to the chief." Theodoret follows S. Chrysostome, who had said, "After so many great deeds, needing nothing of Peter, nor of his instruction, but being his equal in rank, for I will say no more here, still he goes up to him as to the greater and elder: " his equal in the Apostolic dignity, and the immediate reception of his authority from Christ, but yet his inferior in the range of his jurisdiction, Peter being "greater and elder." And he goes on, "he went, but for this alone, to see him and honour him by his presence. He says, I went up to visit Peter. He said not to see Peter, but to visit Peter, as they say, in becoming acquainted with great and illustrious cities. So much pains he thought it worth only to see the man." And he concludes, "This I repeat, and would have you remember, lest you should suspect the Apostle, on hearing anything which seems said against Peter. For it was for this that he so speaks, correcting by anticipation, that when he shall say, I resisted Peter, no one may think these words of enmity and contention. For he honours the man, and loves him more than all. For he says that he came up for none of the Apostles, save him." Elsewhere, S. Chrysostome, commenting on the charge, Feed My sheep, asks, "Why, then, passing by the rest, does He converse with him (Peter) on these things?" And he replies, Peter "was the one preferred among the Apostles, and the mouth-piece of the disciples, and the head of the band: therefore, too, Paul then went up to visit him rather than the rest."²⁹⁸ Tertullian, the most ancient of the Latins, says, "then, as he relates himself, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of becoming acquainted with Peter, that is, according to duty, and the claim of their identical faith and preaching:"²⁹⁹ the duty, which Paul had to Peter; the claim which Peter had on Paul. In the fourth century, Marius Victorinus observes: "After three years, says he, I came to Jerusalem; then he adds the cause, to see Peter. For if the foundation of the Church was laid in Peter, as is said in the Gospel, Paul, to whom all things had been revealed, knew that he was bound to see Peter, as one to whom so great an authority had been given by Christ, not to learn anything from him."³⁰⁰ The writer called Ambrosiaster, as his works are attached to those of S. Ambrose, and contemporary with Pope Damasus, (A. D. 366-384) remarks, "It was proper that he should desire to see Peter, because he was first among the Apostles, to whom the Saviour had committed the care of the Churches." S. Jerome, more largely, says, "not to behold his eyes, his cheeks, or his countenance, whether he were thin or stout, with nose straight or twisted, covered with hair, or as Clement, in the Periods, will have it, bald. It was not, I conceive, in the gravity of an Apostle, that after so long as three years' preparation, he could wish to see anything human in Peter. But he gazed on him with those eyes with which now he is seen in his own letters. Paul saw Cephas with eyes such as those with which all wise men now look on Paul. If any one thinks otherwise, let him join all this with the sense before indicated, that the Apostles contributed nothing to each other. For even in that he seemed to go to Jerusalem, in order that he might see the Apostle, it was not to learn, as having himself too the same author of his preaching, but to shew honour to the first Apostle."³⁰¹ Our own S. Thomas sums up all these in saying, "the doctor of the Gentiles, who boasts that he had learnt the Gospel, not of man, nor through man, but instructed by Christ, went up to Jerusalem, conferred concerning the faith with the head of the Churches, lest perchance he might run, or had run, in vain."³⁰²

These last words lead us attentively to consider the passage which follows in S. Paul. At a subsequent period the zealots of the law had raised against him a report that the Gospel which he preached differed from that of the Twelve. At once to meet and silence such a calumny, he tells us that "after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and," assigning the particular purpose, "conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart with them who seemed to be something; lest, perhaps, I should run, or had run, in vain." Then, having proved the identity of his doctrine with that of those who "seemed to be something," that is, Peter, James, and John, though to him they "added nothing," he specifies Peter among these, and proceeds to draw a singular parallel between, on the one hand, Peter, as accompanied by James and John, and himself, as working with Barnabas and Titus. If we set the clauses over against each other, this will be more apparent: —

Примечание 1³⁰³

where it would appear that James and John stand in the like relation to Cephas, as Barnabas and Titus, just before mentioned, to Paul. And S. Chrysostome, who, it must be remarked, reads Cephas, and not James, first, as do some manuscripts and many Fathers, observes, "where it was requisite to compare himself, he mentions Peter only, but were to call a testimony, he names three together and with praise, saying, 'Cephas, and James, and John, who seemed to be pillars.'" And further, Paul "shows himself to be of the same rank with them, and matches himself not with the rest, but with the leader, showing that each of them enjoyed the same dignity,"³⁰⁴ that is, of the Apostolic commission, and the divine cooperation. And Ambrosiaster explains the parallel: "Paul names Peter only, and compares him to himself, as having received the Primacy for the founding of the Church, he being in like manner elected to hold a Primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles, yet so that Peter, if occasion might be, should preach to the Gentiles, and Paul to the Jews. For both are found to have done both." And presently, "by the Apostles who were the more illustrious among the rest, whom for their stability he names pillars, and who were ever in the Lord's secret council, being worthy to behold His glory on the mount," (where Ambrosiaster confuses James, the brother of the Lord, with James the brother of John,) "by these he declares to have been approved the gift which he received from God, that he should be worthy to hold the Primacy in the preaching of the Gentiles, as Peter held it in the preaching of the circumcision. And as he assigns to Peter for companions distinguished men among the Apostles, so he joins Barnabas to himself; yet he claims to himself alone the grace of the Primacy as granted by God, like as to Peter alone it was granted among the Apostles.³⁰⁵

Now Baronius proves that the above words cannot be taken of a division of jurisdiction, and that the singular dignity of Peter is marked in them. "For as a mark of his excellence Christ Himself, who came to save all men, with whom there is no distinction of Jew and Greek, was yet called 'minister of the circumcision,' by Paul, (Rom. xv. 8,) a title of dignity, according to Paul's own words, for theirs was 'the adoption of children, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,' while 'the Gentiles praise God for His mercy,' But just as Christ our Lord was so called minister of the circumcision, as yet to be the Pastor and Saviour of all, so Peter too was called the minister of the circumcision, in such sense as yet to be by the Lord constituted (Acts ix. 32,) pastor and ruler of the whole flock. Whence S. Leo, 'out of the whole world Peter alone is chosen to preside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the Apostles, and the collected Fathers of the Church, so that though there be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter rules all by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules by Sovereign power.'"³⁰⁶

The parallel, then, drawn by Paul between himself and Peter, distinctly conveys that as he was superior to Barnabas and Titus, and used their cooperation, so was Peter among the Apostles, and specially the chief ones, James and John, as their leader and head. For what is the meaning of the words, "He who wrought in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision?" Was the Apostleship of the circumcision entrusted to Peter only? It needs no proof that it was also entrusted to James and John, nay, Paul himself immediately says so, "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision." Why then does Paul so express himself as to intimate that the Gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter only? For the same reason that he said that to himself "was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision," and that God "wrought in me also among the Gentiles." Now Barnabas likewise had been³⁰⁷separated by the Holy Ghost Himself for the Gentile mission; Barnabas, too, and Titus were discharging the office of ambassadors for Christ among the Gentiles: "that we," Paul says, not I, "should go to the Gentiles." The terms, therefore, used by Paul both of himself and Peter, do not exclude the rest, but express the superiority of the one named singly before the rest, as if he alone held the charge. Their fittest interpretation, then, will be, "The Apostles saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was no less given to me above the rest, than the Gospel of the circumcision to Peter above the rest; for He who wrought in Peter above the rest in the Gospel of the circumcision, wrought also in me above the rest in the Gospel of the uncircumcision." But what can set forth S. Peter's dignity more remarkably than to exhibit him in the same light of superiority among the original Apostles, as S. Paul was among S. Barnabas and his other fellow-workers?

Further confirmation of this is given by the argument with which he refutes the calumny urged against him of disagreement with the Apostles. For while he appeals to them in general, and to his union with them, he likewise specifies the point which favoured that union. It was the parallel between himself and Peter, as we have seen; it was the exact resemblance between his mission and that of Peter, which was the cause of their joining hands: they approve Paul's Apostleship because they see that it follows the type of Peter's.

And other words of Paul which follow, prove not only the point of his own cause, but the source of Peter's singular privileges. "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed: for before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?" For why did Paul here censure Peter only? By his own account not only Peter, but the rest, and Barnabas himself amongst them, set apart as he was by the Holy Ghost to preach to the Gentiles, did not defend Christian liberty, as they ought to have done. Why, then, does he single out Peter among all these, resist him to the face, and so firmly censure all, in his person? No answer can be given but one: that by this dissembling of Peter the zealots of the law gathered double courage to press against Paul their calumny of dissension from Peter, and to infer that he had run in vain, from the indulgence which Peter showed; that Peter's authority with all was so great that his example drew the pastors and their flocks alike to his side, and that it was requisite to correct the members in the head. From this S. Chrysostome proves that it was really the Apostle Peter, which some, as we shall soon see, denied: "For to say, that I resisted him to the face, and to put this as a great thing, was to show that he had not reverenced the dignity of his person. But had he said it of another, that I resisted him to the face, he would not have put it as a great thing. Again, if it had been another Peter, his change would have not had such force as to draw the rest of the Jews with him. For he used no exhortation, nor advice, but merely dissembled, and separated himself, and that dissembling and separation had power to draw after him all the disciples, on account of the dignity of his person."³⁰⁸ Again, another writer of the fourth century tells us this: "Therefore he inveighs against Peter alone, in order that the rest might learn in the person of him who is the first."³⁰⁹ It was, then, Peter's primacy, and the necessity of agreeing with him thence arising, which led Paul to resist him publicly, and, disregarding the conduct of the rest, to direct an admonition to him alone. "So great," S. Jerome tells us, on these two passages, "was Peter's authority, that Paul in his epistle wrote, 'Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.' And again in what follows, 'After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,' showing that he had no security in preaching the Gospel, unless it were confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those who were with him."³¹⁰

But this passage,³¹¹ concerning the reprehension of S. Peter by S. Paul, has afforded so signal an instance "of the unlearned and unstable wresting Scripture to their own proper destruction,"³¹² that we must dwell a little longer upon it. First, the Gnostics and the Marcionites quoted it to accuse the Apostles of ignorance, and to favour their own claim to a progressive light. In Peter, they would have it, there was still a taint of Judaism. Next Porphyry, who "raged against Christ like a mad dog,"³¹³ tried by this passage to weaken the authority of the Apostles, and to convict Paul of ambition and rashness, who censured the first of the Apostles and the leader of the band, not privately, but openly before all, as S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome tell us. Julian the apostate succeeded these, and tried, by means of Paul's contention with Peter, to bring discredit on the religion itself. For who, he asked, could value a religion whose chief teachers were guilty of hypocrisy, ignorance, and ambition? And in complete accordance with the spirit of these, all, who, since the sixteenth century, have attempted to impugn S. Peter's prerogatives, have rested their chief effort on the exaggeration and distortion of this reprehension. "This," says Baronius, "is the stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, on which a great number have dashed themselves. For those, who without any diligent consideration have superficially interpreted a difficult statement, have gone so far in their folly as either to accuse Paul of rashness for having inveighed against Peter not merely with freedom, but wantonness, or to calumniate Peter as a hypocrite, for acting with dissimulation; or to condemn both, for not agreeing in the same rule of faith."³¹⁴

In most remarkable contrast with these stand out three several interpretations, which prevailed in early times, all differing from each other in points, but all equally careful to maintain the dignity of Peter, and to clear up the conduct of Paul. First, from S. Clement of Alexandria in the second century up to S. Chrysostome in the fourth, we find a number of Greek writers asserting that it was not the Apostle Peter, who was here meant, but another; S. Jerome gives their reasons thus: "there are those who think that Cephas, whom Paul here writes that he resisted to the face, was not the Apostle Peter, but another of the seventy disciples so called, and they allege that Peter could not have withdrawn himself from eating with the Gentiles, for he had baptized Cornelius the centurion, and on his ascending to Jerusalem, being opposed by those of the circumcision who said, 'why hast thou entered in to men uncircumcised, and eaten with them?' after narrating the vision, he terminates his answer thus: 'If, then, God hath given to them the same grace as to us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should withstand God?' On hearing which they were silent, and glorified God, saying: 'Therefore to the Gentiles, also, God hath given repentance unto life.' Especially as Luke, the writer of the history, makes no mention of this dissension, nor even says that Peter was at Antioch with Paul; and occasion would be given to Porphyry's blasphemies, if we could believe either that Peter had erred, or that Paul had impertinently censured the prince of the Apostles."³¹⁵

But this interpretation, contrary both to internal evidence and to early tradition, and suggested only by the anxiety to defend S. Peter's dignity, did not prevail. Another succeeded, supported by S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, and the greatest Greek commentators, and for a long time by S. Jerome, even more remarkably opposed to the apparent sense of the passage, and only, as it would seem, dictated by the same desire to defend the dignity of S. Peter, and the conduct of S. Paul. Admitting that it was really Peter who was here mentioned, they maintained that it was not a real dissension between the two Apostles, but apparent only, and arranged both by the one and the other, to terminate the question more decidedly. S. Chrysostome³¹⁶ sets forth at great length this opinion: "Do you see," says he, "how S. Paul accounts himself the least of all saints, not of Apostles only? Now he who was so disposed with respect to all, both knew how great a prerogative Peter ought to enjoy, and reverenced him most of all men, and was disposed towards him as he deserved. And this is a proof. The whole earth was looking to Paul; there rested on his spirit the solicitude for the Churches of all the world. A thousand matters engaged him every day; he was besieged with appointments, commands, corrections, counsels, exhortations, teachings, the administration of endless business; yet giving up all these, he went to Jerusalem. And there was no other occasion for this journey save to see Peter, as he says himself: 'I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter.' Thus he honoured him, and preferred him to all men." Suspecting, too, that an accusation against Peter's unwavering faith, might be brought from the words, "fearing those of the circumcision," he breaks out, 'What say you? Peter fearful and unmanly? Was he not for this called Peter, that his faith was immovable? What are you doing, friend? Reverence the name given by the Lord to the disciple. Peter fearful and unmanly! Who will endure you saying such things?'"

Now compare³¹⁷ together these two interpretations of the Greek Fathers with that of the reformers and their adherents since the sixteenth century. A more complete antagonism of feelings and principles cannot be conceived. I. There is not a Greek Father who does not infer the singular authority of Peter from the first and second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. There is not an adherent of the reformers who does not trust that he can draw from those same chapters matter to impugn S. Peter's Primacy. II. The Greek Fathers anxiously search out every point which may conduce to Peter's praise. The adherent of the reformers suppresses all such, and seems not to see them. III. If anything in Paul's account seems at first sight to tell against Peter's special dignity, the Greek Fathers are studious carefully to remove it; the adherents of the reformers to exaggerate it. IV. The Greek Fathers prefer slightly to force the obvious meaning of the words, and to desert the original interpretation, rather than set Apostles at variance with each other, or admit that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, was not treated with due deference. The adherents of the reformers intensify everything, take it in the worst sense, and are the more at home, the more bitterly they inveigh against Peter.

Now turn to the third interpretation, that of the Latin Fathers. They admit both that it was Peter and that it was a real dissension, but they are as anxious as the Greek to defend Peter's dignity. Thus Tertullian:³¹⁸ "If Peter was blamed – certainly it was a fault of conduct, not of preaching." And Cyprian:³¹⁹ "not even Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disagreed with him respecting circumcision, claimed aught proudly, or assumed aught arrogantly to himself, saying that he held the Primacy, and that obedience rather was due to him by those younger and later." And Augustine: "Peter himself received with the piety of a holy and benignant humility what was with advantage done by Paul in the freedom of charity. And so he gave to posterity a rarer and a holier example, that they should not disdain, if perchance they left the right track, to be corrected even by their youngers, than Paul, that even inferiors might confidently venture to resist superiors, maintaining brotherly charity, in the defence of evangelical truth. For better as it is on no occasion to quit the proper path, yet much more wonderful and praiseworthy is it, willingly to accept correction, than boldly to correct deviation. Paul then has the praise of just liberty, and Peter of holy humility: which, so far as seems to me according to my small measure, had been a better defence against the calumnies of Porphyry, than the giving him greater occasion of finding fault: for it would be a much more stinging accusation that Christians should with deceit either write their epistles, or bear the mysteries of their God."³²⁰

Now, to see the³²¹ fundamental opposition between the Greek and Latin Fathers, and the reformers, let us observe that, though there are three ancient interpretations of this passage, differing from each other, the first denying that the Cephas so reprehended by Paul, was the chief of the Apostles, the second affirming this, but reducing the whole contention to an arrangement of prudence between the two Apostles, and the third maintaining the reality of the reprehension, yet all three have in common the reconciling Peter's chief dignity with the reprehension of him, and the two latter, besides, are much more careful to admire his modesty, than Paul's liberty, and make the most of every point in the narration setting forth Peter's Primacy. On the other hand the reformers use this reprehension as their sharpest weapon against his authority, praise Paul's liberty to the utmost in order to depress that authority, hunt out everything against Peter, and pass over everything for him. It is equally evident that their motive in this runs counter to the faith universal in the Church during the first four centuries; and that their inference cannot be accepted without rejecting all Christian antiquity, and the very sentiments expressed by Paul himself, as we have seen, towards Peter.

But as to the reprehension itself, it would seem to have been not on a point of doctrine at all, but of conduct. S. Peter had long ago both admitted the Gentiles into the Church, and declared that they were not bound to the Jewish law. But out of regard to the feelings of the circumcised converts, he pursued a line of conduct at Antioch, which they mistook to mean an approval of their error, and which needed, therefore, to be publicly cleared up. Accordingly, Peter's fault, if any there were, amounted to this, that having, with the best intention, done what was not forbidden, he had not sufficiently foreseen what others would thence infer contrary to his own intention. Can this be esteemed either a dogmatic error, or a proof of his not holding supreme authority? But the event being injurious, and contrary to the truth of the Gospel, why should not Paul admonish Peter concerning it? But very remarkable it is, that he quotes S. Peter's own example and authority, opposes the antecedent to the consequent fact, and maintains Gospel liberty by Peter's own conduct. S. Chrysostome remarked this. "Observe his prudence. He said not to him, Thou dost wrong, in living as a Jew, but he alleges his former mode of living, that the admonition and the counsel may seem to come not from Paul's mind, but from the judgment of Peter already expressed. For had he said, Thou dost wrong to keep the law, Peter's disciples would have blamed him, but now, hearing that this admonition and correction came not from Paul's judgment, but that Peter himself so lived, and held in his mind this belief, whether they would, or would not, they were obliged to be quiet."³²²

CHAPTER VII.
S. PETER'S PRIMACY INVOLVED IN THE FOURFOLD UNITY OF CHRIST'S KINGDOM

The doctrine³²³ of S. Paul has brought us to a most interesting point of the subject, what, namely, is the principle of unity in the Church. A short consideration of this will shew us how the office of S. Peter enters into and forms part of the radical idea of the Church, so that the moment we profess our belief in one holy Catholic Church, the belief is likewise involved in that Primacy of teaching and authority which makes and keeps it one.

The principle of unity, then, is no other than "the Word made flesh: " that divine Person who has for ever joined together the Godhead and the Manhood. Thus, S. Paul speaks to us of God "having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, to gather together under one head all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth:" at whose resurrection, "He set all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all." And again, "the head of every man is Christ; – and the head of Christ is God." "And we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another:"³²⁴ as, again, he sets forth at length in the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, calling that one body by the very name of Christ.

With one voice the ancient Fathers³²⁵ exult in this as the great purpose of His Incarnation. "The work," says S. Hippolytus,³²⁶ "of His taking a body, is the gathering up into one head of all things unto Him." "The Word Man," says S. Irenæus,³²⁷ "gathering all things up into Himself, that as in super-celestial, and spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is the chief, so also in visible and corporeal things He may hold the chiefship, assuming the Primacy to Himself, and joining Himself as Head to the Church, may draw all things to Himself, at the fitting time." And again, "The Son of God was made Man among men, to join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God;" or, as Tertullian says,³²⁸ "that God might shew that in Himself was the evolution of the beginning to the end, and the return of the end to the beginning." And Œcumenius, "Angels and men were rent asunder; God then joined them, and made them one through Christ." S. Gregory Thaumaturgus breaks out, "Thou art He that didst bridge over heaven and earth by Thy sacred body." And Augustine,³²⁹ "Far off He was from us, and very far. What, so far off as the creature and the Creator? What, so far off as God and man? What, so far off as justice and iniquity? What, so far off as eternity and mortality? See how far off was 'the Word in the beginning, God with God, by whom all things were made.' How, then, was He made nigh, that He might be as we, and we in Him? 'The Word was made flesh.'" "Man, being assumed, was taken into the nature of the Godhead," says S. Hilary:³³⁰ and S. Chrysostome,³³¹ "He puts on flesh, that He who cannot be held may be holden: " "dwelling with us," says Gregory³³² of Nazianzum, "by interposing His flesh as a veil, that the incomprehensible may be comprehended." "For since," adds S. Cyril,³³³ "man's nature was not capable of approaching the pure and unmixed glory of the Godhead, because of its inherent weakness, for our use the only-begotten one put on our likeness." "In the assumption of our nature," says S. Leo,³³⁴ "He became to us the step, by which through Him we may be able to mount unto Him: " "the descent of the Creator to the creature is the advance of believers to things eternal: " and, "it is not doubtful that man's nature has been taken into such connection by the Son of God, that, not only in that Man who is the first-born of all creation, but even in all His saints, there is one and the same Christ: and as the Head cannot be divided from the limbs, so neither the limbs from the Head. For though it belong not to this life, but to that of eternity, that God be all in all, yet even now He is the undivided inhabitant of His temple, which is the Church." For all the above is contained in our Lord's own words, "that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee," on which S. Athanasius³³⁵ says, "that all, being carried by Me, may be all one body and one spirit, and reach the perfect man: " – "for, as the Lord having clothed Himself in a body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word, being assumed through His flesh." S. Gregory,³³⁶ of Nyssa, has unfolded this idea thus: "since from no other source but from our lump was the flesh which received God, which, by the resurrection, was together with the Godhead exalted; just as in our own body the action of one organ of sense communicates sympathy to all that which is united with the part, so, just as if the whole nature (of man) were one living creature, the resurrection of a part passes throughout the whole, being communicated from the part to the whole, according to the nature's continuity and union." And another,³³⁷ interpreting the words, "that they all may be one," "thus I will, that they being drawn into unity, may be blended with each other, and becoming as one body, may all be in Me, who carry all in that one temple which I have assumed; the temple, namely, of His Body." And lastly, S. Hilary³³⁸ deduces this not only from the Incarnation, but from the Blessed Eucharist. "For, if the Word be really made flesh, and we really receive the Word as flesh, in the food of the Lord, how is He not to be thought to remain in us naturally, since, both in being born a man, He assumed the nature of our flesh, never to be severed from Him, and has joined the nature of His flesh to the eternal nature under the sacrament of the flesh to be communicated to us."

So deep in the junction of the divine and human natures in our Lord's adorable Person lies the root of unity for that humanity which He purchased with His blood. It is in virtue of this headship that the whole mystical body is one, and "we all members one of another." By this headship our Lord nourishes and cherishes the Church, and communicates to her incessantly that stream of grace by which she lives. And as this headship flows from the union of the Godhead and Manhood, so it is inseparable from His Person, and incommunicable. But He has Himself, in His parting discourse, recorded by S. John, dwelt upon the great sacrament of unity, the result of this headship, and set it forth as the sign and seal of His own divine mission, and the one convincing proof of His religion's superhuman origin. By following His words we shall see that this unity is not simple but fourfold, and we shall trace the mutual relation and subordination to the divine Headship of its several kinds.

1. And first, "In³³⁹ that day," says He, that is, after His own resurrection, "ye shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you," whereby He declares that, in the completion of the dispensation, the union between Himself and the faithful shall be such as to image out the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. Which again is further expressed, "I³⁴⁰ am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, He will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit… I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without Me you can do nothing. If any one abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you." In these words He sets forth that union of mystical influx, by cooperation with which His disciples keep His words and abide in His love, and of which He is Himself the immediate principle.

2. But He does not stop at this interior and invisible union between His disciples and Himself: He speaks likewise of a new and special command, and of a special gift, by which their union with each other should be known. "A³⁴¹ new command I give unto you, that you love one another: as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one to another." And again, "This³⁴² is My command, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this hath no man, that any one lay down his life for his friends. – These things I command you, that you love one another." But the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord was about to send forth, is the efficient principle of the love here enjoined, by His substantial indwelling, as we are told, "The³⁴³ charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us." From Him, therefore, bestowed by the Head of the Church, springs that unity of charity, which, being itself internal, is shown in outward signs, and constitutes that distinctive spirit of the Christian people, the spirit characterising it, and analogous to the national spirit in civil organization.

3. But our Lord likewise speaks of a third unity, springing from the direction of one and the same divine Spirit. "And³⁴⁴ I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever: the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him: but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you." "The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you." "It³⁴⁵ is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." "But when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak; and the things that are to come, He shall show you. He shall glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it to you." Of the nature of this unity we may judge by the gifts and offices assigned to that Spirit and Paraclete from whom it springs. Now He is repeatedly termed "the Spirit of truth," and His office, to suggest, to announce, to teach, and to lead into all truth. This unity, therefore, is opposed to the division produced by ignorance and error, and so is the unity of faith, or Christian profession. Thus our Lord promises, besides the unity of charity, that of faith, the efficient principle of which, as well as of the former, is contained in the communication of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true in the supernatural order of divine gifts, than in the order of nature, that the first cause produces its effects by means of second causes. And here, as often as the Lord promises the Spirit of truth, He promises Him to the Apostles, and assures His perpetual abidance with them and the successors in their charge, thus, "That He may abide with you for ever: " "He shall abide with you, and shall be in you: " "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind which I have said unto you: " "Whom I will send unto you from the Father: " "I will send Him unto you: " "He shall lead you into all truth: " "He shall show you the things that are to come." And so the unity of faith may be expected from its supreme cause, the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, through the medium of the Apostles and their legitimate successors: the Holy Spirit in its ultimate, but they its subordinate principle: He is the source, but they the channel. Thus to trust to the invisible action of the Spirit, but to despise the office and direction of the teachers ordained by Christ, in the very virtue of that Spirit, is to reject His divine institution, and to risk a shipwreck of the promised gift of faith and truth.

CHAPTER VIII.
SUMMARY OF PROOF GIVEN FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY

It would now seem to be made clear to all that the controversy on S. Peter's Primacy relates generally to the question of inequality in the Apostolic college, and specially to the question, whether Christ, the Founder of the Church, set any one of the Apostles, and whom of them in particular, over the rest. For as, on the one hand, there would have been no room for the superior dignity of the Primacy, had all the Apostles been completely equal, and undistinguished in honour and authority from each other; so, on the other hand, it is the nature of the Primacy to be incapable of even being contemplated, save as fixed on some certain definite subject.

But to determine the two questions, whether the Apostles stood, or did not stand, on a complete equality, and whether one of them was superior to the rest in honour and dignity, it seemed requisite to examine chiefly four points.

First, the words and the acts of Christ respecting the Apostles.

Secondly, His expressions which seemed to mark the institution of a singular authority.

Thirdly, the mode of writing and speaking usually and constantly employed by the Evangelists and other inspired writers.

Lastly, the history of the Church, from its beginning, from which might be drawn conjectures, or even certain proofs, of the power which either all the Apostles had exercised equally, or one had held above the rest.

For should it become plain, from the agreement of these four sources, that a certain one of the Apostles, and that one Simon Peter, had been distinguished from the rest by the acts and words of Christ, and set over the Apostles; had been invariably described by the inspired writers, as the Head and supreme authority; and in the history of the rising Church, been portrayed in a way which could only befit the universal ruler, no difficulty would remain, and there would be arguments abundant to prove that Christ was the author both of the inequality among the Apostles, and of Peter's Primacy.

Now we seem to have proved absolutely, what we proposed hypothetically. For we have shewn that Christ declared by His whole method of acting, and by solemn words and deeds, that He did not account Peter as one of the rest, but as their Leader, Chief, and Head.

We have shown it to have been the will of Christ to concentrate in Peter the distinctions which belong to Himself, as Supreme Ruler of the Church. For such must be deemed the properties of being the Foundation, the Bearer of the keys, the Holder of universal authority, the Supporter, and lastly, the Chief Shepherd. Of these there is no one which He did not promise to Peter singly, and confer on Peter singly: no one, with which He did not associate Peter, and Peter only, in making him the foundation of His Church, bestowing on him the keys, and universal power of binding and loosing, in setting him over his brethren to confirm them, and over His fold as universal Pastor.

We have shown that the Evangelists place almost the same distinction between the Apostles and Peter, as between Peter and Christ, while still among us. For as they set forth Peter as second after Christ, so do they subject the Apostles to Peter; as the acts and words of Christ occupy the foreground in respect to those of Peter, so do his in respect to those of the Apostles; as Christ, in their histories, is pre-eminent above Peter, so is Peter more conspicuous than the Apostles; and as the Gospels cannot be read without seeing in them Christ as the prototype, so neither can they without seeing that Peter approaches the nearest to Christ.

We have shown that S. Paul spoke of S. Peter in no other way than the Evangelists, and that his pre-eminence is evident in S. Paul's Epistles, as well as in the Gospels.

Lastly, we have shown that Peter shines as the superior luminary in the history of the rising Church. The lustre of his deeds in the Acts recalls that of Christ in the Gospels. In the Gospels Christ is named by far most frequently; in the Acts no one occurs so often as Peter. The discourses, the acts, the miracles of Christ occupy every page of the Gospels; and in that portion of the Acts which embraces the history of the whole Church, a very large part has reference to the discourses, the acts, and the miracles of Peter. In the Gospels, Christ leads, the Apostles follow; in the Acts, Peter takes the precedence, the Apostles attend him. In the Gospels, Christ teaches, and the Apostles, in silence, consent; in the Acts Peter alone makes speeches, and explains the doctrine of salvation; the Apostles by their silence consent. In the Gospels, Christ provides for the Apostolic college, guards it from injury, defends it when attacked; in the Acts, Peter provides for filling up the place of Judas, determines the conditions of eligibility, enjoins the election, and defends the Apostles before people, rulers, and chief priests, in quality of their head.

Moreover, he alone is pre-eminent in exercising the triple power of authoritative Teacher, Judge, and Legislator. Of authoritative Teacher, not only towards Jews and Gentiles, whom he is the first to join to Christ, so that the same person who was the Church's rock and foundation, also became its chief architect; but towards the Apostles likewise, who are taught by his ministry, that the time was come for the blessing of redemption to be extended no less to Gentiles than to Jews, and that the burden of legal rites could not be laid on the Gentile converts without tempting God. Of Judge, because, while the Apostles are silent, he is the first to hear the causes of the faithful, to erect a tribunal, to examine the accused, to issue sentence, and to support and confirm it by inflicting excommunication. Of Head and Supreme Legislator, both when he singly visits Christians in all parts, and provides for their needs, or when he uses the prerogative of first voting, and draws with authority the wording of the law to which the rest are to give an unanimous consent.

From this compendious enumeration we draw a multifold proof, both of inequality in the Apostolic college, and of Peter's superiority at once in rank and in real government.

I. For, first, a college cannot be considered equal, out of which Christ chose one, Simon Peter, whom, by His words and His actions, He showed to be set over all. Now Christ's whole course of speaking and acting, of which the Gospels give us the picture, tends to exhibit Peter as chosen out from the rest, and set over them. Accordingly, neither is the college of the Apostles equal, nor can Peter be accounted as one of the rest.

II. Again, one who has received all in common with the rest, but much besides peculiar to himself, special and distinguishing, must seem to be taken out of the common number. Now such must Peter have been among the Apostles, since Christ granted nothing to them which He denied to Peter, but did grant to Peter many most distinguishing gifts which He gave not to the rest.

III. And, further, it is apparent that the Foundation and the Superstructure, the Bearer of the keys, and those who inhabit the house or city whose keys he bears, the Confirmer, and those whom he is to confirm, the universal Pastor and the sheep committed to his charge, cannot be comprehended under the same order and rank. Now the distinctions expressed by the terms Foundation, Bearer of the keys, Confirmer, and universal Pastor, are Peter's official insignia in reference to, and over, the Apostles themselves. His distinction from them, therefore, and the inequality of the apostolic college, are plain.

Perhaps this may be put somewhat otherwise even more clearly. And so, IV. Let it first be considered, what is plain in itself, that a distinction carrying pre-eminence depends on distinction in perfection and gifts, and follows in a greater or less degree from the greater or less inequality of these, or in case of their parity exists not at all. Next, be what we hold both of reason and of faith remembered, that "every best gift and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights," that God is the fountain head of all good, and that all gifts whatsoever flow over from Him to His creatures. From both points it follows that the amount of the creature's dignity and perfection lies in the participation of divine goods, and is greater or less in proportion to the participation and association with divine goods. So, then, the controversy on Peter's Primacy and the inequality of the Apostolic college, comes ultimately to this: whether Christ, the God-man, associated Peter singly, above all, with Himself, in the possession of those properties on account of which He stands Himself related to the Church as its supreme Ruler. For let it be once evident that Christ did so, and it will of necessity be evident also, not only that Peter was preferred to all, but wherein his leadership and headship consisted. And since we have made the inquiry, there is abundant evidence to prove that Christ really did associate Peter singly in five properties, which, belonging to Himself primarily and chiefly, contain the special cause for which He is the Prince and Supreme Head of the Church.

For, in truth, it is specially due to the properties and distinctions of Foundation, Bearer of the keys, Establisher, Chief Shepherd, and Lord, who has received all authority from the Father, that the Church has an entire dependence on Christ, is subject to Him, and that He enjoys over the Church the right and authority of Supreme Lord and Ruler. But which of these properties did He not choose to communicate to Peter, according to the degree in which they were communicable? He bestowed them all upon Peter, and upon Peter alone, so that Peter also is termed the Foundation, the Bearer of the keys, the Confirmer, the universal Pastor, and the³⁵⁵ Chief of the whole Church. We see, therefore, a remarkable proof of Peter being distinguished from the rest of the Apostles, and set over them, in his singular and special association with these gifts.

Again, V., to this tends that disposition of divine wisdom which provides that Peter holds in the Church, and among the Apostles, a rank of dignity greatly resembling that which Abraham among the Patriarchs, and Judah among his brethren, received from God. The former of these relations has been exhibited, and shown not to be arbitrarily conceived, but grounded on due proof. The latter will be presently farther touched upon. Now who shall deny Abraham that superiority whereby he was made the Father and Teacher of all the faithful, or strip Judah of the dignity in which he excelled his brethren, and was in many points preferred to them? As little may any one strip Peter of his authority as supreme teacher, and take from him those singular endowments, which make him "the greater one" among his brethren the Apostles.

Especially as, VI., this authority of Peter is clearly confirmed by the mode of writing usual to the Evangelists. For it is monstrous and preposterous to confound with the rest one whom the Evangelists constantly distinguish and prefer to all. For what more could they do to show their purpose to distinguish Peter, select him from the rest, and place him at all times before all the Apostles? We may venture to say that they omitted nothing to this end. And so it is absurd to doubt of Peter's prerogatives, or set him on the same footing with the rest.

For, indeed, VII., no one would endure it to be denied, from the usual mode of writing of the Evangelists, that Christ was pre-eminent among the Apostles as their Supreme Head, and was removed from them in dignity by an infinite interval. Now though the Evangelists do not give Peter all things, nor in the same degree, yet they do give him much, and in a degree not dissimilar, to distinguish him from the rest, showing him, as in a nearer relation to Christ, so proportionally exalted above the other Apostles.

And this proof, VIII., is the more persuasive because S. Paul follows the very same mode of speaking as the Evangelists. For in repeatedly mentioning S. Peter in his epistles, he always gives him the place of honour, and joins him as near as may be with Christ. Who then can doubt that Peter held a certain pre-eminent rank?

And the more, IX., because what is read in the Acts, and the view of primitive history therein contained, looks the same way, and seems set forth with the same purpose. For if you compare together the Acts and the Gospels, the mind at once suggests that the position of Prototype which Christ holds in the Gospels, belongs to Peter in the Acts, and that Peter seems distinguished above the rest of the Apostles in the Acts, as Christ is pre-eminent far above all in the Gospels. Now what is the result of so apparent a likeness? What is it fair to deduce from such a bearing in the Evangelical and Apostolical history? Those who are obedient to reasoning, and follow the bright torch of the Scriptures, must confess with us that in this parallelism of both histories, and so of Christ and Peter, is contained a mark and sign, proving that Peter follows next after Christ in dignity and authority.

In authority, X., I repeat, and, therefore, that kind of superiority which very far surpasses the limits of precedence and order. For what are the grounds on which we see Peter's eminence in the Acts, or a resemblance between the Acts, when speaking of Peter, and the Gospels when speaking of Christ? Chiefly these, that Peter is set forth as remarkable, singly, above all, for the use and exercise of the triple power, of Judge, Legislator, and authoritative Teacher. Now, the superiority herein asserted, not merely distinguishes Peter from the rest, but attaches to him a greater authority over the rest.

XI. And, indeed, propose an hypothesis which is necessary to solve a complex and undoubted series of facts: is such an hypothesis thereby made a certainty. At least these are the principles of philosophy, from which the laws of reasoning will not allow us to depart. Now, Peter's pre-eminence and supremacy are such an hypothesis, without which you can render no sufficient cause of the facts narrated in the first twelve chapters of the Acts. Accordingly, this supremacy of Peter may be considered as proved.

XII. Or to put the argument somewhat differently, thus: As the existence of causes is deduced, à posteriori, from effects, so it is perfectly established, à priori, whenever the series and sum of effects, of which the senses are cognisant, are foretold from it with certainty. We deduce the force of gravity necessarily from its effects, à posteriori, but we likewise determine it to exist, with a judgment no less invariable, à priori, when it is such that we do not merely guess at, but certainly anticipate, its sensible effects. Now Peter's supremacy is not inaptly compared with this very force of gravity. For it is a characteristic of each to be, in its proper order of things, the source and principle in which effects are involved, which afterwards become apparent, whether in this physical universe, or in the supernatural region of the Church.

Suppose, then, Peter to have held the dignity which we claim for him. What happens in the Acts which might not, nay, which should not, have been anticipated? Is it his being mentioned above all, his speaking in the name of all, his constantly taking the lead, and his eminence, as if he were the head? But it could not be otherwise if he alone received from Christ a higher dignity than all the rest. Is it his discharging the office of supreme Judge, Legislator, Teacher, and Doctor? Is not this just what was to be expected from the rank of Head and universal Pastor? The Primacy, then, the larger authority, and the unshared majesty of Peter, belong to that class of truths which are indubitably believed on the strength of deduction, and rational anticipation.

Having noted, if not all, at least the greater number of those arguments which we have alleged hitherto in favour of our cause, we approach the question which was secondly to be cleared up, what, namely, is the force and nature of that Primacy, which the same arguments prove to belong to Peter. For I know that all Protestants are possessed with the notion that no other pre-eminence should be ascribed to Peter, on scriptural authority, than one limited to a certain precedency of honour and order. That precedency should be granted Peter they are not unwilling to admit, but supremacy, they stoutly maintain, must not and cannot be allowed him. As to which their opinion I consider, that it would be much the shorter way to strip Peter utterly of every prerogative, than to attenuate the distinctions applied to him in Scripture to a sort of shadowy precedency. I consider that nothing is so foreign to truth and the Scriptures, as on their testimony to allow that Peter was distinguished from the rest of the Apostles, but to confine that superiority within the very narrow bounds of honour and order.

For, first, whence do we most evidently and chiefly draw the greater dignity which Peter clearly possessed above the others? We draw it from the endowments separately bestowed upon him, whereby he became the Foundation of the Church, the Supreme Bearer of the keys, the Confirmer of his brethren, and the universal Pastor. But are these names, images, signs, expressing a naked superiority of honour and order, or rather designating an authority of jurisdiction and power? I cannot hesitate to assert either that these forms are most fitted of all to express a singular authority, or that none such exist in language. For, secondly, their force is to ascribe to Peter the main sway, and to mark him as set for the head and leader of all. Who that hears them can, without perverting the natural force of words, or disregarding the laws of interpretation, imagine anything merely honorary, or figure to himself Peter with a mere grant of precedency?

Especially as, thirdly, he is named in Scripture not only the First, but, comparatively, the Greater, and absolutely, the Superior.³⁵⁶ Now these terms do, of themselves, and far more if you consider the context of the discourse in which they occur, express a singular authority, and one without rival. An authority, fourthly, kindred to that with which Christ, while yet in His mortal life, presided over the Apostolic college, and administered as supreme Head, the company which He had formed. For we can never sufficiently urge a point which, being in itself most true, is of itself abundantly sufficient completely to set at rest the present controversy. It is this, that Peter's Primacy proceeds from a singular association with those distinctions, in virtue of which Christ is considered the Head and Chief, and Supreme Ruler of the Church. So that the more his Primacy is depressed, the more Christ's prerogatives and dignity are lowered; nor can he be confined to a precedency of honour and order, without Christ's superiority being shut within well nigh the same limits.

Besides, fifthly, are tokens wanting in Scripture which disclose the nature of Peter's Primacy? Are there not effects which unfold the force and quality of the cause from which they spring? Such tokens there are in abundance, and such effects manifold. These are, the care with which Peter guarded the Apostolic college; the authority with which he visited Christians in every part; the singular exercise of judicial power, by which he established Church discipline, and provided for its maintenance; his acts of authoritative teaching; his drawing the form of laws which were to rule the universal Church; and, in short, the wonderful regard with which that Church followed Peter as its Head, and the Steward of all the Lord's family. What Primacy is it which these tokens set forth? What cause which these effects demonstrate? Is it one limited to a precedency of honour and order? or one pre-eminent by an inherent jurisdiction and authority? It is a point which needs no further words. For if any there be whose minds are not struck by a candid and sincere exposition of facts, you will in vain attempt to persuade them by arguments.

Unless, indeed, sixthly, they allow themselves to be forced out of their prejudice by the Scriptures exhibiting such a Primacy of Peter as compels all others to profess one and the same faith with him, and to maintain one and the same society. For such an obligation could proceed neither from titles of honour, nor from precedency. It demanded a stronger cause – none other, in fact, but that supreme authority by which Peter is made head of all.

But we shall feel much more at home in the truth of this deduction, if we enquire a little more deeply into the reasons for selecting one among the rest, namely Peter, and instituting the Primacy. For the purpose, and end proposed in a work, have the force of a negative rule by which we may judge with certainty what ought to be done, or could not be left undone. I know well that it does not follow, if anything has been instituted for a certain purpose, that it ought to be endowed only with those properties which appear necessary for the end to be gained; for it may be much more munificently established than the absolute need required. But at the same time I know that there would be a failure in prudence and wisdom in one who, desiring a certain work for a specific end, did not provide it with everything that could be deemed necessary. Thus the knowledge of the intention and purpose is equivalent, if not to a positive rule, determining all and singular the powers bestowed on any institution, at least to a negative, ascertaining what must be given to it, and what cannot be denied to it.

Now is the purpose for which Christ instituted the Primacy, and honoured Peter with its dignity, unknown, or is it most truly ascertained? The end which moved Christ to make the college of Apostles unequal, and to set Peter as head over it, is it secret, or very conspicuous? There are in all three classes of reasons which enable us to form, not a mere guess, but an ascertained judgment, as to the purpose of Christ in instituting the Primacy. There are typical reasons, drawn from previous shadowings forth of it: there are analogical, derived from relations of resemblance; and there are real, inherent in the testimonies themselves, and the Church's endowments. Let us briefly exhibit these in order.

I. By, then, that signal agreement wherewith the two dispensations, the old and the new, correspond to each other, the first in outline, and the last as filled up, this rudimental, and that complete, we are plainly instructed that it was Christ's purpose for Peter, in the new dispensation, to bear the character, whose lineaments had been traced before in Abraham, and to be eminent among the Apostles, for the prerogative which Abraham had possessed among the Patriarchs. Now Abraham's special prerogative, and pre-eminence, was this, that no one could share either promise, whether carnal or spiritual, which is expressed in Scripture, by "the Blessing," who was not joined with Abraham by a double, that is, a carnal and spiritual, a physical and moral, bond. For to him and to his seed were the promises made, with the condition, that only by conjunction with him, and with his seed, they could flow over to the rest. Since, then, in the new dispensation, Peter was to sustain the character of Abraham in the old, and since the only-begotten Son of the Father, having put on the form of a servant, granted to Peter the prerogative which, in prelude of His future order, He had given to Abraham, it is plain that Simon was chosen, honoured with the name of Cephas, and preferred above all, in order that from him as supreme minister of Christ, and by union with him as visible head, all the members of the Church's body might enjoy the blessings and fruits of the Christian institution.

The deductions from this are easy to see. For two things chiefly follow, specially declarative of the nature of the Primacy, and shewing its intent, to be the cause and efficient principle of that unity by which the Church of Christ is one visible body. First, there follows the duty laid upon all the faithful, of being joined with Peter, if they would not fall from those promises with which Christ has most bountifully enriched His mystical Body, being no other than that which reverences Peter as its visible head. Secondly, there follows Peter's jurisdiction, in virtue of which he enjoins all to form one communion and society with him, as well as effects, defends, and maintains it. Now, nothing can be stronger than this ordinance of Christ, either to prove a Primacy of supreme jurisdiction, or to unfold its purpose of effecting and maintaining unity.

The same is the bearing of another type no less remarkable, and no less adopted to explain the whole matter. For, as Israel, "according to the flesh," was the shadow of the "Israel of God," which was "according to promise:"³⁵⁷ and as the kingdom of Israel was a type and ensample of the kingdom of heaven, the approach of which Christ proclaimed in these words, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand: " so the twelve sons of Israel, the heads of the Israelitish race, represented and imaged out those Twelve whom Christ chose, made princes in His Church, and endowed with supreme authority to build up that Church's structure, and enrich it day by day with new accessions of spiritual children. Of this type our Lord's words are the strongest guarantee: "Amen, I say unto you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His Majesty, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And, again, in the very discourse where He sets forth the future Superior, "I dispose to you, as My Father disposed to Me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at My table, in My kingdom; and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."³⁵⁸

But now, though all the sons of Israel in the former typical kingdom were chiefs, and heads of tribes, yet one of them, that is Judah, had a special prerogative, which the Scriptures set forth, and which was called the right of the first-born. In virtue of this, on the one hand, Judah was esteemed the Lord of his brethren, whom they were to reverence as the parent of the whole family, and on the other, it was only by union with him, and with the seed that was to spring from him, that the other chiefs could promise to themselves the divine blessing. And so the tribe of Judah had a great pre-eminence over the other eleven. It was its prerogative to take the³⁵⁹ lead: it had received from God the promise of an[6] authority which was not to terminate before the old covenant should be transformed into the new: from it was the seed³⁶⁰ to be expected, which should be the source of blessing to all nations, prefigured as they were by the twelve tribes; the other tribes were bound³⁶¹ to union with it, and to the profession of its religion, on pain of falling into schism, and forfeiting the divine covenant. All this was expressed by Jacob in prophetic inspiration, when he addressed Judah as the head and root of his line: "Judah (praise) art thou, thy brethren shall praise thee: thy hand is on the neck of thine enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee." It remains, then, to ask, who was to represent Judah's person in the new kingdom, and on whom Christ bestowed the prerogative, the type and image of which had gone before in Judah. It is most plain that this was Simon Peter, for whom we have, therefore, to claim a double prerogative, the one of being the source and origin, from which no one may be separated without severance from the kingdom and promises of Christ: the other of being the first-born, as betokening excellence, by which he was pre-eminent in the possession of special rights among his brethren, the Apostles.

The former prerogative was expressed by the Fathers of Aquileia, when, in the words of S. Ambrose, they stated their belief in S. Peter's chair, "For thence, as from a fountain head, the rights of venerable communion flow unto³⁶² all." The latter is confirmed and illustrated by the solemn expressions so often recurring in Christian records, wherein Peter is called, "³⁶³the Bishop of Bishops," "³⁶⁴the Pastor of Pastors," "³⁶⁵first prelate of the Apostles," "³⁶⁶Patriarch of the whole world," "³⁶⁷universal bishop," "[14]father of fathers," "[14]having the dignity of pastoral headship," "³⁶⁸the most divine head of all heads, arch-pastor of the Church."

II. To these reasons, which, as we think, may be called typical, succeed the analogical, which prove with equal evidence the purpose of the Primacy as instituted, and its inherent powers. If we ask what are these reasons from analogy, and to what they point, one only answer can be given commended by any show of truth, that the Primacy was instituted in order that the Church of Christ might seem to be moulded after the analogy of one human body, one house, one kingdom, one city, and one fold. But whence the need that so very remarkable and clear an analogy should be obtained by the institution of the Primacy? Doubtless because the Primacy was created as a principle, by whose virtue and efficiency what was various and manifold should be gathered up into unity, because it was to be a head in which all the diverse members of the ecclesiastical body should be joined, the centre of the Church's circle.

Therefore the reasons drawn from analogy show that the unity of the Church is to be considered the special end for which the Primacy was instituted, and the Primacy itself a principle abundantly provided with all those means by which so admirable a blessing as unity may be first produced and then maintained.

And this is confirmed by another analogy, well worthy of close attention. This consists in the double and reciprocal relation in which the universal Church stands to particular Churches, and the institution of the Primacy to the institution of bishops, who, by Christ's appointment, govern those particular Churches: an agreement which ought to have especial force with those who believe in the divine institution of bishops. For as the whole society of true believers, and the particular congregations of which it is made up, are called in Holy Scripture and the Christian records by one and the same name of the Church, so is there the very closest analogy between the bond which connects the universal Church and that which connects its several parts.

For two properties are continually recurring in Christian records, one of which may be called negative, the other affirmative. The force of the former is to expel from the circle of the one true Catholic Church all sects of heretics and Schismatics: of the latter, that this Church consist in one single communion and society, whose members cohere together by hierarchical subordination.

But is it true that both these points are so plainly and constantly inculcated? To remove all doubt we will quote the authors who most distinctly assert the one and the other. As to the first, there are ⁴⁵⁷Clement of Alexandria, ⁴⁵⁸Tertullian, ⁴⁵⁹Alexander of Alexandria, ⁴⁶⁰Celestine, ⁴⁶¹Leander, the Emperor Justinian;⁴⁶²then again the Councils of Nice,⁴⁶³ Sardica,⁴⁶⁴ and the third of ⁴⁶⁵Carthage; nay, the heretics⁴⁶⁶ themselves; and all these agree in asserting that there is one only ancient Catholic Church, outside of which the divine patience endures and bears with heresies, which are as thorns. Thus in language ecclesiastical and Christian nothing can be considered as more certainly proved than that the epithet of Catholic is distinctive, and shows the communion which rejects from its bosom all heresies and all schisms. It was with great reason, therefore, that⁴⁶⁷Pacian wrote what⁴⁶⁸Cyril of Jerusalem, and⁴⁶⁹Augustine very frequently repeated, "Our people is divided from the heretical name by this appellation, that it is called Catholic."

Moreover this unity, which we have said may be called negative, is necessary indeed to the understanding of the Church as Catholic, but is by no means sufficient to complete the idea of Catholicity. To it therefore must be added the affirmative unity, by which Catholicism is not only divided from heretics and schismatics, but becomes in itself a coherent body with members and articulations. It is to the assertion and maintenance of this unity, which is the soul of Catholicity, and without which it cannot even be conceived, that has reference what we so often read in the monuments of antiquity about the ⁴⁷⁰necessity of communion among the members of the Church and the ⁴⁷¹tokens and means of that communion. There are very distinct and innumerable testimonies about it in the ancient Fathers,⁴⁷² declaring its necessity, and setting forth its mode of composition and coherence.

For to set forth the mode of this is the plain drift of what ⁴⁷³Irenæus writes in confutation of heretics by the tradition of the Apostolical churches: "For since it would be very long in the compass of our present work to enumerate the successions of all the Churches, taking that Church which is the greatest, the most ancient, and well known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, by indicating that tradition which it has from the Apostles, and the faith which it announces to men, which has reached even to us by the succession of bishops, we confound all those, who, in whatsoever manner, either through self-pleasing, or vain glory, or blindness and evil intention, ⁴⁷⁴gather otherwise than they ought. For to this church on account of its superior chiefship, it is necessary that every Church should come⁴⁷⁵ together, that is, the faithful who are everywhere; for in this Church the tradition which is from the Apostles has been ever preserved by those who are everywhere. …By this ordination and succession, the tradition and preaching of the truth, which is from the Apostles in the Church, has reached down to us. And this proof is most complete, that it is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved, and handed down in truth, in the Church from the Apostles to the present day."

The churches, therefore, which are everywhere diffused, derive that strength and harmony of parts, out of which the whole body of the Catholic Church is made up, from the fact of their agreeing in the unity of faith and preaching with that Church of Peter, which is the greatest, the chief, and the more powerful. It follows that the Primacy of Peter, and the authority inherent in it to effect unity, is that principle which Christ selected, that the Church which He had set up might be Catholic, and bear the note of Catholicity on its brow.

And Cyprian would set forth the same mode of communion, when he speaks of the coherence of bishops, by which both the Catholic episcopate is made one, and the Church one and Catholic. For as the several communities draw the unity of the body from the unity of the prelates to whom they are subject; so all prelates, and the communities subject to them, constitute one Catholic episcopate and one Catholic Church, because they cohere with the principal church, the root and matrix, which is the Church of Peter, upon whom the Lord founded the whole building, and whom He instituted to be the fountain and source of Catholic unity.⁴⁷⁶

These words are a clue to understand ⁴⁷⁷Tertullian's meaning, when, already become a Montanist, he called the Catholic Church, whose discipline he was attacking, the Church near to Peter– "Concerning your opinion, I now enquire whence you claim this right to the Church. If because the Lord said to Peter, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church,' 'to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' or 'whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven,' you, therefore, pretend that the power of binding and loosing is derived to you, that is, to all the Church near to Peter; how do you overthrow and change the manifest intention of the Lord in conferring this on Peter⁴⁷⁸ personally, 'Upon thee I will build My Church,' and 'I will give to thee the keys,' not to the Church, and 'whatsoever thou bindest or loosest,' not what they bind or loose." Now he used this mode of speaking because it was customary with Catholics, who were wont to exhibit nearness with Peter as the characteristic of the Church, and the necessary condition for sharing that power, whose plenitude and native source Christ had lodged in Peter.

This certain and undoubting judgment of Catholics, Tertullian himself, before his error, had clearly expressed in his book, De Scorpiace, c. x., where he says, "For if you yet think the heaven shut, remember that the Lord here (Matt. xvi. 19) left its keys to Peter, and through him to the Church." Nearness, then, with Peter, and ⁴⁷⁹consanguinity of doctrine thence proceeding, are no less necessary to the Church, that it may be the Catholic Church which Christ founded and built upon Peter, than that it be partaker in those gifts which, again, He Himself granted only to unity, as it is effected in Peter and by Peter.

Now not only the most ancient Fathers, as Irenæus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, but the whole body of them, assign the origin of this to Peter. This they make the vivifying principle of agreement, society and unity, without which the Church can neither be intrinsically Catholic, nor the mind conceive it as such. It is so stated by ⁴⁸⁰Pacian, ⁴⁸¹Ambrose, the ⁴⁸²Fathers of Aquileia, ⁴⁸³ Optatus, ⁴⁸⁴Gregory Nazianzen, ⁴⁸⁵Jerome, ⁴⁸⁶Augustine, ⁴⁸⁷ Gelasius, ⁴⁸⁸Hormisdas, ⁴⁸⁹Agatho, ⁴⁹⁰Maximus Martyr, and, to shorten the list, by Leo⁴⁹¹ the Great. It is in setting forth the unity of the Catholic episcopate that he writes what ought never to be forgotten by Christian minds: "For the compactness of our unity cannot remain firm, unless the bond of charity weld us into an inseparable whole, because, as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. For it is the connection of the whole body which makes one soundness and one beauty; and this connexion, as it requires unanimity in the whole body, so especially demands concord among bishops. For though these have a like dignity, yet have they not an equal jurisdiction; since even among the most blessed Apostles, as there was a likeness of honour, so was there a certain distinction of power, and the election of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to one, from which mould, or type, the distinction also between bishops has arisen, and it was provided by a great ordering, that all should not claim to themselves all things, but that in every province there should be one whose sentence should be considered the first among his brethren; and others again, seated in the greater cities, should undertake a larger care, through whom the direction of the universal Church should converge to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree from its head."

And, if I do not deceive myself, the direct drift of all this is to answer the question, whether the doctrine of Peter's Primacy, and its virtue, as the constituent of unity and Catholicity, is contained in the most solemn standard of faith, the creed. For although there are unimpeachable testimonies to prove that the creeds were not published and explained to Catechumens, in order to convey to them a full and complete Christian instruction; and though it be proved further to have been the purpose of the Church's ancient teachers to omit many points in the creeds which were to be set before the initiated at a more suitable season afterwards, it may nevertheless be said that the most commonly received articles of the creed may be regarded as so many most fruitful germs, from which the remaining doctrines would spontaneously spring. And so, to keep within our present point, what is more plain than that the sum of doctrine concerning Peter's Primacy, contained in the Bible, illustrated by the Fathers, and defined by Councils, is involved in that article of the creed in which we profess that the Church is one and Catholic? No doubt there nowhere occurs in the creeds, expressed in so many words, mention of Peter, or of the Primacy bestowed on him, or of hierarchical subordination; yet it is most distinctly stated that the Church is one and Catholic. What meaning, then, were the faithful to give to those epithets? What were they to intend in the words, I believe one Catholic Church? What but the meaning of the words themselves, which they received from the Church's teachers together with the creeds? But they could not form the conception of one Church and that Catholic, without thinking likewise of one Catholic principle of the Church; nor could they assign the dignity of that one Catholic principle to any other but Peter, whom alone they had invariably been taught to have been set over all. For what S.⁴⁹² Bernard wrote in mediæval times, "For this purpose the solicitude of all Churches rests on that one Apostolic See, that all may be united under it and in it, and it may be careful in behalf of all to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," must be considered nothing but a repetition of the faith which resounded through the whole world, from the very beginning of the Christian religion.

Unless, therefore, any can be found who prefer asserting either that true believers never understood what they believed, in professing the Church to be one and Catholic, or that they understood this otherwise than it had been universally and constantly explained by the Church's teachers; it must be admitted, that faith in Peter's Primacy, and in the power bestowed upon it for the purpose of making the visible kingdom of Christ one and Catholic, is coeval with that profession of the creeds which sets forth the Church as one and as Catholic.⁴⁹³

CHAPTER IX.
THE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY

¹As the natural end of all proof is to give assurance, every kind of it must be considered a mean to persuade and determine the mind. Not but that there are different kinds, and that in great variety. If we refer these to their respective topics, some are internal and artificial, others external and inartificial; some belong to the philosopher, others to the theologian, the former having their source in nature, the latter in revelation; another sort, again, rests on witnesses, and another on documents. But if we consider their persuasive force, they may be conveniently ranged under the two classes of probable, and certain or demonstrative.

But if it be asked what sort of proof we have hitherto used, and drawn out to the best of our ability, we must distinguish between the principal and prevailing proof, and this in form is inartificial, theological, and drawn from the inspired documents; and the proofs occasionally inserted and confirmatory of the principal: these, it will be evident, are sometimes artificial and internal, such as those drawn from analogy, and the harmonious coherence of doctrines, from the unity and Catholicity of the Church, and the institution of bishops to rule particular flocks; and sometimes derived from witnesses, for such we may deem the ancient Fathers, whose importance and force, as testimonies, no prudent mind will reject. To embrace, then, the full extent of our proof, it ranges over all forms and modes, is artificial and inartificial, and rests not only on documents, but on witnesses. Now two things follow from this mixed and manifold character of our proof, of too great importance to be passed over in silence.

The first of these is, the standard and criterion of resistance which our proof presents to opponents. For consisting, as it does, of so many elements, confirmed, as it is, by the absolute harmony of so many various parts, that only can be a satisfactory answer, which meets at once every particular proof, and the whole sum of it. For it would be to small purpose to give another sense, with some speciousness, to one or two points, if the great mass of matter and argument remain untouched. The only valid answer would be to reject and deny the Primacy of supreme authority, presenting at the same time a sufficient cause for all those results of which the proof consists. For so long as the institution of the Primacy is necessary to supply a sufficient cause for these results, so long the force of our proof remains untouched, and the institution of the Primacy unquestionable. We can therefore demand of our opponents this alternative, either to acquiesce in our proof, or, rejecting the Primacy, to find, and when they have found to establish, an hypothesis equal to the explanation of all that is contained in our arguments artificial and inartificial, in our documents and our witnesses.

The second point is one which all will admit. The proof we have given is such that unless it be deceptive, the institution of the Primacy is demonstrated to be not only true, but also revealed, not only tenable, but matter of faith. For although we have interwoven testimonies and artificial arguments, this was to confirm what was already demonstrated, and to shed fresh light on what was already clear; but the proper source from which we have drawn our proofs, was the documents of the Holy Scriptures themselves. Now what is thence drawn is ²revealed, and enters into the number of things which, being revealed, are matter of faith.

These two points are clear, but a third may be somewhat less so. Many will ask, what is the force of the proof, its power to persuade, and whether it carry complete certitude, or be defective. Now to this we shall reply, that the proof which we have presented is not only probable, but altogether decisive. It wants nothing to produce the fullest assurance. This is a subject which I have judged fit for special and separate investigation, as due both to myself, my readers, and the cause which I am defending. For it is not a happiness of our nature to catch the whole and the pure truth at a single glance. This requires repeated acts of the mind; we have to make the effort again and again, and only terminate our examination when we have submitted our supposed discovery to reiterated reflection. Thus it is that truth comes out in full light, imposition is detected, the line drawn between doubt and certainty, and every point located in its due place. This enquiry, then, into the proof itself I consider due not only to myself and my readers, but to a cause, which requires the utmost attention as being of the highest importance, and the source of the deepest dissensions; for it is not too much to say that the origin of all those divisions which we see and lament in the Christian name, may be referred to the reception or the denial of this doctrine concerning the Primacy.

Now we shall best reach the subject by first considering the inherent force of the proof in itself, and absolutely, and then comparatively with those arguments to which the most distinguished Protestant sects ascribe a full and complete demonstrative power.

I. First, then, as to the force of proof absolutely. We must reflect that two conditions complete a proof derived from documents; first, the authenticity of the document; secondly, either the immediate and unquestionable evidence of the testimonies quoted from it, or their meaning being rendered certain by argument. If these two conspire, nothing is wanting to produce assurance. Now, as to the documents, whence our proof is derived, no Christian doubts their authenticity; and as to the testimonies drawn from them, part³ belong to a class of such evidence as to admit of no doubt; and part,⁴ being equally clear, and marked in themselves, have had to be defended from false interpretations. Accordingly, our proof is peremptory in both particulars.

Moreover, our proof was not restricted to one or two passages of holy Scripture, but extended over a great series, all tending to support and consolidate the argument. We have set forth, not a naked institution of the Primacy, but multifold foreshadowings and promises of it, its daily operation and notoriety. From its first anticipation we went on to its progressively clearer expression, its promise, its institution, its exercise, and the everywhere diffused knowledge of it in the primitive Church. So far, then, as I see, nothing more can, with reason, be asked, to remove all doubt as to Peter's prerogative of Primacy; for, when the bestowal of certain privileges can be proved by documents, all question as to their existence is terminated. But here we find in documents, not their bestowal merely, but antecedents and consequences, a beginning, a progress, and a manifold explanation, which stand to the Primacy as signs to the thing signified.

Accordingly, the demonstration which we have given of the Primacy, considered in itself, and absolutely, needs nothing to challenge assent.

For, suppose it disputed whether Cæsar surpassed the other Roman Senators in honour and power. Could it be proved by undoubted records, that he so conducted himself as gradually to smooth his path to the supreme power; that he next gained from the senate and Roman people, the title of Emperor and Prince; that he exercised these powers at home and abroad, and received universal testimony to the dignity he had acquired; in such case the judgment would be unanimous that he was emperor, and head of the Roman Senators. Now, substitute Peter for Cæsar, the Apostles for the Senators; Christ, the Evangelists, Luke and Paul, for the senate and people; and you will see all the proofs enumerated for Cæsar, to square exactly with Peter. For we learn from Scripture the steps by which he rose to the Primacy, the time when he received it, how he exercised it, and the lucid testimonies to it which he received from Christ, the Evangelists, the Apostolic Church, and Paul. Accordingly, his Primacy and supreme authority among the Apostles rests on a proof which gives complete assurance, and challenges assent. It is a consequence deduced, not from a single, but from manifold inference; not merely drawn from results, but foreseen in its causes; declared not merely in the words of institution, but in the very acts of its exercise; supported not only by sundry texts, but by a cloud of conspiring witnesses; proved by an interpretation, not obscure, and far-fetched, but clear and obvious. A thing of such a nature it is folly to deny and temerity to doubt.

But, further, reflect on the other arguments which come in collaterally to support that from the Holy Scriptures. Then it will be found that our proof consists in the harmonious concurrence of these four sources, 1. the authentic scriptural documents distinctly setting forth the promises, the bestowal, the exercise, and the everywhere diffused knowledge of the Primacy: 2. witnesses the most ancient, well nigh coeval with the Apostles, of great number, renowned for their holiness, or their martyrdom, excellent in learning, far removed from each other in situation, faithful maintainers of the Apostolic teaching, who, with one mouth, acknowledge the Primacy: 3. the analogy of doctrines, for the Church, which we profess to be one, and Catholic, can neither exist, nor even be conceived as such, without the Primacy: 4. the facts of Christian history, which are so entwined with the institution of the Primacy, that they cannot be even contemplated without it. For there are no less than fourteen distinct classes of facts in Christian history, all of which bear witness to the Primacy, and which cannot be studied without coming across that power. Such are, 1. the history of heresies, where, in ancient times alone, consider the acts and statutes of Pope Dionysius, in the causes of Paul of Samosata, and Dionysius of Alexandria; of Popes Sylvester and Julius, in the cause of Arius; of Pope Damasus in that of Apollinarius; of Popes Innocent and Zosimus in that of Pelagius; of Pope Celestine in that of Nestorius; and of Pope Leo in that of Eutyches; so that Ferrandus⁵ of Carthage wrote in the sixth century, "If you desire to hear aught of truth, ask in the first place the prelate of the Apostolic See, whose sound doctrine is known by the judgment of truth, and grounded on the weight of authority." 2. The history of schisms, which have arisen in the Church, when we consider the unquestionable facts about Novatian, Fortunatus and Felicissimus, the Donatists, and Acacius of Constantinople, so that Bede, in our own country, wrote in the seventh century, commenting on Matt. xvi. 10, "All believers in the world understand, that whosoever, in any way separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from the society of Peter, such can neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins, nor enter the threshold of the heavenly kingdom." 3. The history of the liturgy, as the contests about the paschal time, and what Eusebius, in the fifth book of his history, c. 22-5, says about Pope Victor. 4. The history of the summoning, the holding, and the confirming general councils, wherein the Acts of Synods, the letters of the supreme Pontiffs, and the writings of the Fathers, show the entire truth of what is stated by the ancient Greek historians, Socrates and Sozomen,⁶ that an ecclesiastical Canon had always been in force, "that the Churches should not pass Canons contrary to the decision of the bishop of Rome," which Pope Pelagius,⁷ in the sixth century thus expressed, "the right of calling councils is entrusted by a special power to the Apostolic See, nor do we read that a general council has been valid, which was not assembled or supported by its authority. This is attested by the authority of canons, corroborated by ecclesiastical history, and confirmed by the holy Fathers." And Ferrandus says, "Universal councils, more especially those to which the authority of the Roman Church has been given, hold the place of second authority after the canonical books."⁸ 5. The history of ecclesiastical laws, for the regulation of discipline, a summary of which, enacted by the successors of Peter from Victor I. to Gregory II., may be found in Zaccaria's Antifebronius, Tom. ii., p. 425, and his Antifebronius Vindicatus, Diss. vi., c. 1. 6. The history of judgments, specially the most remarkable in the Church, of which, if we are to believe history, we can only repeat what Pope Gelasius wrote at the end of the fifth century, to the Bishops of Dardania, "We must not omit that the Apostolic See has frequently, to use our Roman phrase, more majorum, even without any council preceding, had the power to absolve those whom a council had unjustly condemned, or to condemn, without any council, those who required condemnation: " and as he wrote to the Greek emperor, Anastasius, "that the authority of the Apostolic See has in all Christian ages been set over the Church universal, is established by the series of the canons of the Fathers, and by manifold tradition."⁹ 7. The history of references, which were wont to be made to the chair of Peter, in the greater causes of faith, and in those respecting Catholic unity. Thus, Avitus, bishop of Vienne, A. D. 500, said, "It is a rule of synodical laws, that, in matters relating to the state of the Church, if any doubt arises, we, as obedient members, recur to the priest of the Roman Church, who is the greatest, as to our head."¹⁰ To the same effect is the letter of Pope Innocent I., to S. Victrice, of Rouen, at the beginning of the fifth century, and again, the African Fathers to Pope Theodore; or again, S. Bernard, writing to Pope Innocent II., against the errors of Abelard, "All dangers and scandals emerging in the kingdom of God, specially those which concern faith, must be referred to your Apostolate: for I esteem it fitting that the injuries done to faith should be repaired there in particular, where faith cannot fail. That is the prerogative of this See." 8. The history of appeals, of which a vast number of remarkable instances exist. Take, as the key, the words of Pope Gelasius once more: "It is the canons themselves which have ordered the appeals of the whole Church to be carried to the examination of this See. But from it they have allowed of no appeal in any case; and, therefore, they enjoin that it should judge of the whole Church, but go itself before the judgment of none: nor do they allow of appeal from its sentence, but rather require obedience to its decrees."¹¹ And Pope Agatho, in the Roman Council, pronouncing on the appeal of our own S. Wilfrid, of York, the contemporary of Bede, A. D. 688, declares that "Wilfrid the bishop, beloved of God, knowing himself unjustly deposed from his bishopric, did not contumaciously resist by means of the secular power, but with humility of mind sought the canonical aid of our founder, blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and declared in his supplication that he would accept what by our mouth, blessed Peter, our founder, whose office we discharge, should determine."¹² 9. The history of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,¹³ and of the rights possessed by certain episcopal Sees over others, of which we may take an instance in the grants of Pope Gregory the Great, and his successors, to the See of Canterbury, which alone made it a Primacy. For the bishops of Canterbury had no power whatever over the other bishops of this country, save what they derived from S. Peter's See. And the documents, and original letters conferring these powers still exist, giving the fullest proof that Pope Pius only did in 1850, what Pope Gregory did in 596. 10. The history of the universal propagation of the Christian religion.¹⁴ 11. The history of those tokens and pledges,¹⁵ such as letters of communion, whereby Catholic unity was exhibited and maintained. 12. The history of Christian archæology,¹⁶ inscriptions, paintings, and other monuments of this kind. 13. The history of the emperors, as, for instance, what Ammianus Marcellinus¹⁷ says of Constantius; the letter of the Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo, entreating him to confirm the council of Chalcedon; that of Galla Placidia, the 130th novel of Justinian, and the remarkable constitution of Valentinian III., A. D. 445. "Since the merit of S. Peter, who is the chief of the episcopal coronet, and the dignity of the Roman city, moreover, the authority of a sacred synod" (that of Sardica, A. D. 347) "have confirmed the Primacy of the Apostolic See, let presumption not endeavour to attempt anything unlawful, contrary to the authority of that See: for, then, at length, the peace of the Church will everywhere be preserved, if the whole (universitas) acknowledge its ruler." And, 14. lastly, the history of codes, in which is contained the legislation of Christian kingdoms, wherein we may refer to the capitulars of the Franks, and the laws of the Lombards.

Now from these concordant proofs thus slightly sketched, it follows that the institution of the Primacy belongs to that class of facts which is most certain, and which is absolutely demonstrated. For would it be possible to find a concurrence of proofs so various in case it had never been instituted? Is it possible to imagine so many various results of a cause which never existed? So many various tokens of reality in a fiction? What are the chances for letters thrown at random forming themselves into an eloquent speech? Or a beautiful portrait coming out from a mere assemblage of colours? Or a whole discourse in an unknown tongue being elegantly rendered by a guess? If these be sheer absurdities, although a few letters have sometimes tumbled at random into a word, or a single clause been decyphered, though in ignorance of the alphabet, then we may be sure that the Primacy, attested by so vast a variety of convergent results, can no more be untrue, than effects can exist without a cause, splendour without light, or vocal harmony without sound. Accordingly an institution established by such a union of proof, carries prisoner the assent. It may indeed be disregarded by a resolution of the will, but can neither be passed by, nor refuted, by a judgment of the reason.

And¹⁸ having on the one hand this vast amount of positive proof, from sources so various, in its behalf, so that without it the whole Christian history of eighteen centuries, in all its manifold blendings with secular history, becomes unintelligible, a snarl which it is impossible to arrange, when we come on the other hand to consider what its opponents allege of positive on their own side, we find nothing. They content themselves with objections to this or that detached point, with historical difficulties, and obscurations of the full proof, such, for instance, as the conduct of S. Cyprian in one controversy, the occasional resistance of a metropolitan, the secular instinct of an imperial government stirring up eastern bishops to revolt, and fostering an Erastian spirit in the Church, the ambition of thoroughly bad men, such as Acacius or Photius, and the like. But what we may fairly ask of opponents, and what we never find the most distant approach to in them is, if, as they say, S. Peter's Primacy be not legitimate, and instituted by Christ for the government of the Church, what counter system have they, which they can prove by ancient documents, and whereby they can solve the manifold facts of history? In all their arguments against the Primacy they are so absolutely negative, that the grand result, if they were successful, would be to reduce the Church to a heap of ruins, to show that she, who is entrusted with the authoritative teaching of the world, has no internal coherence either of government or doctrine, in fact, no message from God to deliver, and no power to enforce it when delivered. In the arguments of Greeks and Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists, and all the Protestant sects, the gates of hell have long ago prevailed against the Church, and the devil has built up at his ease a city of confusion on the rock which Christ chose for her foundation. If we listen to them, never has victory been more complete than that of the evil one over the Son of God: the promised unity he has scattered to the winds: the doctrine of truth he has utterly corrupted: the charity wherewith Christians loved one another he has turned into gall and wormwood. That is, the opponents of S. Peter's Primacy are one and all simply destructives; they inspire despair, and are the pioneers of infidelity, but are utterly powerless to build up. Ask the Anglican what is the source of spiritual jurisdiction, and the bond of the episcopate which he affects to defend? He makes no reply. All he can say is, it is not S. Peter. Ask the Greek, if bishops and patriarch disagree, and come to opposite judgments on the faith, or to schisms in communion, which party make the Church? He has no solution to offer, save that it is not the party which sides with S. Peter's successor. Ask the pure Protestant, who maintains the sole authority of the written word, if you disagree about the meaning of Scripture in points which you admit to touch salvation, who is to determine what is the true meaning of the word of God? He has nothing to reply, save that he is sure it is not the Pope. Contrast, then, on the one side, a complete coherent system, fully delineated and set forth in the Bible, attested by the Fathers, corroborated by analogy, and harmonising the history of eighteen hundred years in its infinitely numerous relations, with, on the other side, a mere heap of objections and denials, with shreds of truths held without cohesion, with analogy violated, history thrown into hopeless confusion, and to crown the whole, Holy Scripture incessantly appealed to, yet its plainest declarations recklessly disregarded, and its most consoling promises utterly evacuated. Choose, upon this, between within and without.