{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38147/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38147","id":"gutenberg_38147","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38147","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Peter, the Apostle, Saint"],"text":"Produced by Steven Giacomelli, Dianne Nolan, Jeannie Howse\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  ST. PETER,\n\n  HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE,\n\n  AS SET FORTH IN\n\n  HOLY SCRIPTURE.\n\n  BY\n\n  THOMAS W. ALLIES, M.A.\n\n  AUTHOR OF \"THE SEE OF ST. PETER, THE ROCK OF THE CHURCH,\"\n  \"A JOURNAL IN FRANCE,\" &c.\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  RICHARDSON AND SON, 172, FLEET STREET;\n  9, CAPEL STREET, DUBLIN; AND DERBY.\n  MDCCCLII.\n\n  TO PETER,\n\n  PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES,\n\n  THE ROCK OF THE CHURCH,\n\n  AGAINST WHICH THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL,\n\n  THE BEARER OF THE KEYS,\n\n  THE BINDER AND LOOSER ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN,\n\n  THE CONFIRMER OF HIS BRETHREN,\n\n  THE SHEPHERD OF THE FOLD.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe present work took its rise, and is largely drawn, from the very\nlearned Father Passaglia's \"Commentary on the Prerogatives of St.\nPeter, Prince of the Apostles, as proved by the authority of Holy\nWrit,\" which was published in Latin, in 1850. The eighth and ninth\nchapters are, indeed, translations, respectively, of the\ntwenty-seventh of his first book, and the first of his second book.\nAnd as to the rest, my obligations are more than I can specify. I\nowe, on the other hand, many excuses to Father Passaglia, for while\nI have only partially observed his order in treating the subject, I\nhave considered his whole work as a treasure-house of learning,\nwhence I might draw at my pleasure \"things old and new,\" adapting\nthem, as I thought good, to the needs of the Protestant mind, as\nfamiliar to me in England. Thus I have not scrupled to translate, to\nomit, or to insert matter of my own, according to my judgment. It\nseemed to me of paramount importance to present to the English\nreader the whole chain of scriptural evidence for the Primacy and\nprerogatives of St. Peter. This chain of evidence is so strong,\nthat, when I first saw it completely drawn out, it struck my own\nmind, brought up in the prejudices of Protestantism, with the force\nof a new revelation. I put to myself the question; is it possible\nthat they who specially profess to draw their faith from the written\nWord of God, would refuse to acknowledge a doctrine set forth in\nHoly Scripture with at least as strong evidence as the Godhead of\nour Lord itself, if they could see it not broken up into morsels,\nlike bits of glass reflecting a distorted and imperfect image,\naccording to the fashion of citing separate texts without regard to\nthe proportion of the faith, but presented in a complete picture on\nthe mirror of God's Word? This picture is thus complete and perfect\nin Father Passaglia's work. Yet the form of that work, no less than\nits bulk, the scrupulous minuteness with which every opposite\ninterpretation of so many adversaries in modern times is answered,\nas well as the fulness with which every part of the subject is\ntreated, made me feel that a simple translation would not be\ntolerated by the impatience of a population, which has little time\nand less mind for studies of this character. I have pursued,\ntherefore, the humble task of _popularising_, so far as I could,\nFather Passaglia's work, omitting, as I trust, no essential part of\nthe argument, and grouping it under different combinations, each of\nwhich might be in turn presented to the eye, and so more readily\nembraced.\n\nThe importance of the argument, as it affects the Papal Supremacy,\nwhich is but a summary of the whole cause at issue between\nProtestantism in every shape, and the Church of Christ, cannot be\noverrated. If St. Peter be already set forth in Scripture as the\nHead and Bond of the Apostolic College, if he be delineated as the\nsupreme Ruler who succeeds our Lord Himself in the visible\ngovernment of His Church on earth, there becomes at once the\nstrongest ground for expecting that such a Ruler will be continued\nas long as the Church herself lasts. Thus a guiding clue is given to\nus among all the following records of antiquity. Tradition and\nhistory become illuminated with a light which exhibits all objects\nin their due proportion and true grouping, when they are shown to be\nbut the realisation of what the Incarnate Word, His Church's one\nonly Lawgiver, decreed from the beginning, set forth not only in\nprophetic image, but distinct command, and stored up in words of\nsuch exceeding power, that they bear the whole weight of the kingdom\nof God, stretching through all ages and nations, without effort or\npressure. And if ancient writers speak in no doubtful tone of St.\nPeter's prerogatives, yet clearer, more emphatic, and soul-piercing,\nas we should expect, are the words of God Himself, appealing in\nman's form to the mind and heart of man, whom He had created, and\nwas come to redeem, and to knit into one eternal monarchy.\n\nA subsequent part of the argument, namely, that the Bishop of Rome\n_is_ successor of St. Peter, has been treated by the author in\nanother work, \"The See of St. Peter the Rock of the Church, the\nSource of Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity,\" specially in the\nfifth section, which ought, logically, to be preceded by this\ntreatise. It is there proved that not only the Christian Fathers, as\nindividual writers and witnesses, but the ancient Church in her\nuniversal Councils, did, with one voice, from age to age, regard the\nPope as sitting in St. Peter's chair, which is proof enough, and all\nthat can in reason be demanded, that the prerogatives given to St\nPeter as Head of the Church were, in the belief of the Church, and\nin full accordance with our Lord's own promise,[A] continued on to\nhis successors, and are as imperishable as the life of the Church\nherself.\n\n21, North Bank, Regent's Park,\nSeptember, 1852.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] Matt. xvi. 18.--\"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build\nmy Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,\" _i.\ne._, as founded on that rock. The foundation and the superstructure\ncoexist for ever.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n                                                                    PAGE.\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE NAME OF PETER PROMISED, CONFERRED, AND EXPLAINED.\n\n  The Church the finished work of the Word Incarnate                   1\n\n  Unity and visibility enter into the Church's idea, as set\n  forth in its several types                                           2\n\n  Visible headship also part of this idea                              5\n\n  Christ on earth in two capacities, as founder and\n  ruler,--Double selection among the disciples, first of\n  twelve, then of one                                                  6\n\n  Statement of the question at issue in this treatise                  7\n\n  First mention of Peter, the name promised                            8\n\n  Meaning of the name, stone                                           9\n\n  The name conferred                                                  11\n\n  Name explained, and promises attached                               12\n\n  Classes of names given in Scripture                                 16\n\n  Parallel between Abraham and Peter                                  17\n\n  Source of pre-eminence in both, association with Christ             23\n\n  Instances of such association                                       26\n\n  Interpretation of S. Chrysostome                                    27\n\n  Summary                                                             28\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nEDUCATION AND FINAL DESIGNATION OF PETER TO BE THE RULER\nWHO SHOULD CONFIRM HIS BRETHREN.\n\n  Education of Peter in the Theology and Economy                      29\n\n  Preference shown to him in witnessing the Transfiguration           30\n\n  Also in the Agony; and the raising the daughter of Jairus           32\n\n  The receivers of the didrachma come to Peter                        34\n\n  The answer of Christ, and what is involved in it                    35\n\n  Interpretation of our Lord's action by Origen and S. Chrysostome    36\n\n  Question of the Apostles to which it leads                          37\n\n  Answer of our Lord, designating a thief                             38\n\n  Our Lord in two capacities;\n  1, as Founder, 2, as Ruler of the Church                            43\n\n  The Church unchangeable in her form                                 44\n\n  She had one ruler from the beginning.--Immense and\n  continually growing importance of this our ruler                    45\n\n  The Primacy which He designated, one of real power                  47\n\n  Translation of the discourse to Peter                               48\n\n  Confirming used of the three Divine Persons                         51\n\n  Nature of the charge, Confirm thy brethren                          52\n\n  Meaning of the term confirm                                         53\n\n  Scope and harmony of our Lord's discourse in Luke xxii              56\n\n  Corollaries from the charge to confirm the brethren               59-63\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE INVESTITURE OF PETER.\n\n  What our Lord had done up to His resurrection                       64\n\n  Further disposition of powers after His resurrection                65\n\n  Special care to prove the resurrection to Peter                     66\n\n  Fulfilment of the Lord's promises to the Twelve, in the\n  bestowal of their legislative, judicial, and executive powers       68\n\n  Subsequent exercise of these powers by the Twelve                   69\n\n  Fulfilment of the special promises to Peter in the bestowal of the\n  legislative, judicial, and executive powers of the Primacy          70\n\n  Force of the Lord's title, the Shepherd                             72\n\n  Importance and extent of the charge conveyed by this title          74\n\n  Force of the circumstances under which it is conveyed               76\n\n  S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, Theophylact, S. Leo, and S. Basil\n  on the text                                                         79\n\n  S. Cyprian adds the Primacy to the Apostolic equality               81\n\n  Force of Follow thou Me                                             82\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nCORRESPONDENCE AND EQUIVALENCE OF THE GREAT TEXTS CONCERNING PETER.\n\n  Difference in the mode of speaking of persons indicates a\n  difference of rank--The phrase, a person \"and they that were\n  with him.\"                                                          84\n\n  S. Peter first in all the Apostolic catalogues                      86\n\n  Synthetical view of the whole evidence                              89\n\n  Distinct spheres of S. Peter and S. John                            91\n\n  Peter wrought into the whole Gospel history                         92\n\n  The Primacy defined by the three great texts: first,\n  Matt. xvi. 18                                                       94\n\n  Paraphrase of Matt. xvi. 18                                         95\n\n  Corollaries from it                                                 96\n\n  Our Lord's answer to the question, who was the greatest?           100\n\n  The text, confirm thy brethren                                     101\n\n  Our Lord's conduct to Peter, after His resurrection, the\n  counter part to that before it.--Comparison of what is given to\n  the Apostles, and what to Peter                                    102\n\n  The joint force, identity, and reciprocal relations\n  of the three texts                                                 104\n      1. They are appropriated to Peter only.\n      2. Priority of time is assigned to him.\n      3. Their equivalence.\n      4. They indicate a sovereign and independent authority.\n      5. Their definiteness.\n      6. The ordinary government of the Church contained in them.\n      7. Peter made in them the _continuous_ principle of power.\n      8. Peter made the type and efficient cause of visible unity.\n\n  These conclusions borne out by Cassian in Gaul                     111\n\n  By Maximus of Turin, in Italy                                      112\n\n  By S. Isidore in Spain, and summed up by Pope Gregory II.          113\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nPETER'S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE ACTS.\n\n  Division of the Acts into history of the Church universal, and\n  of S. Paul in particular                                           114\n\n  Gospels, history of the Head; Acts, of the Body                    115\n\n  Execution of Christ's promises declaratory of their enactment      116\n\n  General proof of this as to the Primacy in the Acts                117\n      1. Peter oftener mentioned than all the rest put together.\n      2. The leading part assigned to him.\n      3. Peter mentioned directly; the rest obliquely                118\n      4. Peter answers for all the Apostles                          119\n      5. Luke records Peter's actions and speeches in full.\n      6. The first part of the Acts may be called the\n         history of Peter                                            120\n\n  I. Particular proof--Election of a new Apostle                     122\n\n  S. Chrysostome's comment on this                                   124\n\n  Peter's conduct in defending the rest on the day of Pentecost      125\n\n  Third and fourth speech of Peter.--Summary of the first\n  four chapters                                                      128\n\n  II. Proof from junction of authoritative teaching and miracles     129\n\n  Resemblance between Peter's miracles and Christ's                  131\n\n  Peter the chief figure among the Apostles as Christ before         133\n\n  III. Peter presides over the different steps in propagating\n  the Church                                                         134\n\n  Peter's part in the conversion of Samaria                          135\n\n  IV. Peter receiving the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius        137\n\n  Things to be noted in this reception concerning Peter.--Peter\n  murmured against by some of the circumcision                       142\n\n  S. Chrysostome and S. Gregory upon his conduct                     143\n\n  V. S. Peter exercising supreme judicial power over Ananias         144\n\n  VI. S. Peter exercising supreme visitatorial power                 145\n\n  VII. S. Peter's supreme legislative authority in council           147\n\n  The consent and joint action of others do not impugn the\n  supremacy                                                          148\n\n  Tertullian's testimony as to his authority here, and that of\n  S. Jerome and Theodoret                                            150\n\n  VIII. Contrast between the mode in which the imprisonment of\n  Peter, and that of James and Paul is mentioned                     151\n\n  Summary of the testimony to Peter in the Acts                      153\n\n  His Primacy magisterial, judicial, and legislative.--Its\n  institution compared with its exercise                             154\n\n  No opposition offered to it                                        155\n\n  The mystical headship contrasted with the visible                  157\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTESTIMONY OF S. PAUL TO S. PETER'S PRIMACY.\n\n  Detailed mention of the Primacy not to be expected in S. Paul's\n  Epistles: but an incidental one occurs often                       159\n\n  Four notices of Peter in 1 Ep. to Cor.                             160\n\n  Paul's visit to Peter Gal. i. 16                                   162\n\n  Theodoret, Chrysostome, Tertullian, Mar. Victorinus,\n  Ambrosiaster, S. Jerome, S. Thomas Cant. on this passage           163\n\n  Paul's second visit.--Parallel between Peter with James and John\n  on the one hand, and Paul with Barnabas and Titus on the other     165\n\n  The censure of Peter by Paul, Gal. ii.                             169\n\n  S. Chrysostome's and S. Jerome's remarks                           170\n\n  Misuse of this passage by ancient and modern heretics              171\n\n  Contrast of the three ancient interpretations with those of\n  modern heretics                                                    172\n\n  Fundamental opposition between the Fathers and the Reformers       176\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE PRIMACY OF PETER INVOLVED IN THE FOURFOLD UNITY OF CHRIST'S KINGDOM.\n\n  The person of the God-man the principle of headship\n  in the Church                                                      178\n\n  Testimony of the Fathers to this                                   179\n\n  Fourfold unity resulting from this headship                        181\n\n  First unity of mystical influx                                     182\n\n  The second unity of charity, whose efficient principle is the\n  Holy Spirit.--Third unity of faith, whose efficient principle\n  is the Holy Spirit acting through the visible hierarchy            183\n\n  Set forth by S. Paul also                                          185\n\n  Headship of mystical influx does not obviate the creation of an\n  external hierarchy                                                 188\n\n  Fourth unity of visible headship.--This the root and efficient\n  principle of the visible hierarchy                                 190\n\n  The one body is complete                                           192\n\n  The unity of a college not sufficient to express our Lord's\n  personal unity                                                     193\n\n  Positive teaching corresponds to the inherent notion of\n  the Church                                                         194\n\n  The Father in the holy Trinity what Peter's see is in the\n  Church                                                             195\n\n  Summary of this fourfold unity                                     196\n\n  Importance of S. Peter's office hence resulting                    197\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSUMMARY OF THE PROOF GIVEN FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.\n\n  Points in question, _generally_, inequality in the Apostolic\n  College: _specially_, the appointment of one over the rest;\n  resolution of these tried by four examinations:--1. Into the words\n  and acts of Christ; which relate to the Apostles.--2. Into those\n  which seem to mark the institution of a singular authority.--3. Into\n  the mode of writing used by the evangelists.--4. Into the\n  history of the rising Church.--A concurrence of these four\n  points would prove the two questions                               200\n\n  The analysis of what has been written shows this concurrence       201\n\n  Twelve arguments from what has been written, proving the\n  inequality of the Apostolic college, and Peter's Primacy           203\n\n  What is the force and nature of the Primacy.--Six proofs\n  establishing this to consist in superior jurisdiction              209\n\n  Enquiry into the end and purpose of the Primacy: for the\n  knowledge of the intention and purpose equivalent at least to\n  a _negative_ rule, ascertaining what _must_ be given to it         212\n\n  Three classes of reasons, typical, analogical, and real,\n  ascertain for us this purpose.--1. Typical. Parallel of Peter\n  with Abraham and its results                                       213\n\n  Parallel of Peter with Judah and its results                       214\n\n  ii. Analogical. Analogy of body, house, kingdom, city, and fold,\n  and its results.--And of universal, and each particular Church on\n  one hand, and Primate and bishops on the other                     217\n\n  iii. Real, whether educed from texts containing the institution\n  of the Primacy, or from the inherent properties of the Church.\n      1. Educed from texts                                           219\n      2. Educed from properties of the Church; _first_, its\n      _identity_; _secondly_, its _unity_; _thirdly_, its\n      _catholicity_; scriptural setting forth of unity               220\n\n  Further illustration from Protestant opinions of the Church's\n  unity.--\n\n  A. First, that of Anglicans, of unity in particular Churches,\n  but not in the universal Church, represented by Dodwell            222\n\n  B. Second opinion, set forth by Vitringa, of distinction between\n  the necessity of internal and that of external unity               225\n\n  C. Third opinion, of agreement in fundamentals                     232\n\n  Two causes of this being held, one theoretical, the other\n  practical.--The former stated                                      233\n\n  The practical cause                                                234\n\n  Reasons educed, _thirdly_, from the _Catholicity_ of the\n  Church, with which the Primacy is bound up.--Catholicity has\n  two parts, one _material_ and one _formal_                         236\n\n  The _material_ part, amplitude and extension.--The _formal_\n  part, not only negative, but affirmative.--_Negative_, as\n  expelling from the one true Church all heretics and schismatics:\n  testimonies to it                                                  237\n\n  _Affirmative_, at making a coherent body with members and\n  articulations                                                      238\n\n  Testimonies to the _mode_ of this coherence, in Irenaeus,\n  Cyprian, and Tertullian, and the other Fathers, summed up\n  in S. Leo                                                          239\n\n  Hence answers to the question whether the doctrine of\n  S. Peter's Primacy is contained in the creed.--It is involved\n  in one Catholic Church                                             243\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.\n\n  Different sorts of proof.--1. The principal here used, and the\n  subsidiary.--Their joint force                                     246\n\n  Hence, I. The nature of the answer required to it.--2. The\n  proof, if unanswered, demonstrates the Primacy to be revealed      247\n\n  3. Enquiry into the _certitude_ of the proof used                  248\n\n  I. Force of the proof _in itself_ and _absolutely_.--Two\n  conditions requisite, and here found, authenticity of the\n  documents, and clearness of their evidence.--Number\n  and harmony of scriptural testimonies to the Primacy               249\n\n  The parallel of Julius Caesar                                       250\n\n  Collateral proof, supporting that of the holy Scriptures, so\n  that the whole consists in the harmony of these four:--1.\n  Scriptural documents.--2. Ancient witnesses.--3. Analogy.--4.\n  Facts of Christian history, in fourteen distinct classes           251\n\n  Prodigious force of this compound proof                            256\n\n  No counter religious system producible by Greek, Anglican,\n  or pure Protestant, but mere negation and objection                257\n\n  II. Force of the proof _comparatively_ with other doctrines:\n  comparison with the texts on which Anglicans, Lutherans,\n  and Calvinists severally rely                                      259\n\n  Retort that all but Catholics are opposed to our interpretation;\n  answer, that from Catholics alone we are to gather the truth       260\n\n  Yet all protestants not agreed in opposing our interpretation\n  and reasons why their opposition is of little moment               261\n\n  Compare, likewise, opposition to the Church in the fourth,\n  fifth, and sixth centuries                                         264\n\n  And again the conduct of Lutherans and Anglicans in maintaining\n  their own distinctive texts.--But what, then, are the true\n  criteria of documentary evidence? They are four:--\n\n  Internal    {and immediate     {4. Verbal.\n              {                  {2. Real.\n              {and remote         3. Analogical.\n  External                        4. Agreement of witnesses          265\n\n  1. Comparison carried through _verbal_ criterion, between the\n  texts alleged by us, and those of Lutherans, Anglicans,\n  and Calvinists                                                     266\n\n  2. And through the _real_ criterion, or that of the subject\n  matter, greater in the proofs for Peter's prerogatives than in\n  those for the real presence, or the Divinity of Christ, on\n  account of the difficulty of grasping the object in the\n  latter cases                                                       267\n\n  As to the superiority of bishops over presbyters, the proof\n  severed from that of the Primacy sinks into nothing: considered\n  with it, it is of the same character, but weaker                   268\n\n  Accordingly, the criterion from the subject matter is\n  stronger for Peter's Primacy, than for the superiority of\n  bishops over presbyters, for the real presence, and for the\n  Divinity of Christ.--Sum of both these criteria, verbal and\n  real, in favour of Peter's Primacy, over these three doctrines     270\n\n  Appeal hence arising to Lutherans, Anglicans, and\n  Calvinists.--Comparison with the inferior evidence for other\n  received doctrines                                                 271\n\n  3. The third _criterion_ of analogy: force of this in favour\n  of Peter's Primacy from three heads:--1. The divine institution\n  of bishops.--2. The unity of the Church.--3. The Catholicity\n  of the Church                                                      272\n\n  4. Fourth criterion of witnesses.--Immense force of this\n  criterion, both as stated by the fathers, and shewn by\n  Protestants in their own conduct                                   274\n\n  Witnesses unanimous in favour of the Primacy                       277\n\n\n\n\n\nST. PETER,\n\nHIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE,\n\nAS SET FORTH\n\nIn Holy Scripture.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE NAME OF PETER PROMISED, CONFERRED, AND EXPLAINED.\n\n\nOur Lord tells us that He came upon earth to \"finish a work;\" and He\nlikewise tells us what that work was, the setting up a living\nsociety of men, who should dwell in Him and He in them; on whom His\nSpirit should rest, with whom His presence should abide, until the\nconsummation of all things. For, the evening before His passion,\n\"lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said: Father, the hour is come. *\n* * I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work\nwhich Thou gavest Me to do. * * I have manifested Thy name to the\nmen whom Thou hast given Me out of the world. Thine they were, and\nto Me Thou gavest them; and they have kept Thy word. * Holy Father,\nkeep them in Thy name, whom Thou has given Me; that they may be one,\nas We also are. While I was with them I kept them in Thy name.--And\nnow I come to Thee.--I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of\nthe world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from evil. * * As Thou\nhast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.\nAnd for them do I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified\nin truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for those also who\nthrough their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one, as\nThou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us;\nthat the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory\nwhich Thou hast given to Me, I have given to them, that they may be\none, as We also are one. I in them, and Thou in Me; that they may be\nmade perfect in one; and the world may know that Thou hast sent Me,\nand hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me. * * And I have made known\nThy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith\nThou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them.\"[1]\n\nIn these terms the Eternal Word condescends to declare to us that\nthe fruit of His Incarnation, the \"finished work\" which His Father\nhad given Him to do, was the establishment of a society whose unity\nin \"truth\" and \"love\" should be so perfect, that He exemplifies it\nby the indwelling in each other of the Divine Persons; which should\nbe perpetual and visible for ever, so that the world by it and in it\nshould recognise His own mission, and believe in the Sender; and\nthat the dowry of this society, thus perpetually visible, should be\nthe equally perpetual possession of truth--the revelation of God's\nwill--and of love, which is conformity to it. And He based these\nunexampled promises on no less a guarantee than the Almighty Power\nand ineffable Goodness of His Father, witnessed by His own dwelling\namongst us in our flesh.\n\nElsewhere He termed this society His Church, declared that He\nwould [2]\"build it on a rock, and that the gates of hell should not\nprevail against it.\"\n\nHe told those whom He had set over it to go forth in His name, and\nto teach all nations whatsoever He had commanded them, adding the\nsolemn engagement on His own part, [3]\"Behold, I am with you all\ndays, even to the consummation of the world.\"\n\nHis whole teaching is full of reference to it, setting forth its\nnature with every variety of illustration, enfolding it, as it were,\nwith an exuberance of divine charity.\n\nBut two conceptions run through every illustration, and are involved\nin its primary idea, nay, as this was the finished work of His\nIncarnation, so are they found in His adorable Person, from which\nHis work springs. These conceptions are Unity and Visibility.\n\nAs the mystery of the Incarnation consists in the union of the\ndivine and human natures, in one Person, and in the assumption of a\nbody, that is, matter, by the one uncreated, incomprehensible, and\ninvisible Being, whereby He becomes visible, so Unity and Visibility\nare the unfailing marks of His Church, and enter into every image of\nit, in such a manner that without them the image loses its point and\nsignificancy.\n\nAccordingly He proclaims the Church which He was founding to be \"the\nKingdom of God,\" and \"the Kingdom of Heaven,\" thus bringing before\nus the conceptions of order, government, power, headship on the one\nhand, dependence on the other, and a host of mutual relations\nbetween the Sovereign and the people, significantly remarking that\n\"a kingdom which is divided against itself must fall.\" Now, a\nkingdom without unity is a contradiction in terms, and a kingdom of\nGod on earth, which cannot be seen, would be for spirits and not for\nmen.\n\nSo He calls it a [4]\"city seated on a mountain,\" which \"cannot be\nhid,\" answering to His prophet's words, \"the city of the great\nKing,\" \"His rest, and His habitation for ever.\" Here again are\nembodied the notions of order, government, conspicuous majesty,\nimpregnable strength.\n\nThus He inspires His apostle to call it[ 5]\"the house of God, the\npillar and ground of the truth.\" The house must have its head, the\nfamily their father; the knowledge of that father's will is the\ntruth which rests upon the family as its support and pillar. Outside\nof the family that knowledge may be lost, together with the will to\nobey the father and to love him; but within it is a living\ntradition, \"familiar to the ear as household words.\" As long as the\nMaster and the Father is there, a perpetual light from His face is\nthere too upon His children and His servants. Divide the house, or\ncorrupt its internal life, and the idea of the house is destroyed;\nwhile an invisible house is an absurdity.\n\nAgain, the Lord, calling Himself [6]\"the Good Shepherd, who giveth\nHis life for the sheep,\" terms His Church the sheepfold, and\ndeclares that as there is one shepherd, so there must be one fold.\n\nBut, rising yet in nearness to the Divine Person of the Word\nIncarnate, from whose side sleeping on the cross she is moulded, the\nChurch is called His Spouse, as united to Him in eternal wedlock,\n[7]\"a great Sacrament,\" or mystery; and even yet more, His Body, as\nsupported by the continual influx of her Head; and all her members\nare called \"flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bones.\"\n\nIt is evident, then, that in these promises and illustrations are\nset forth, as belonging to their object, a visible unity, a\nperpetual possession and maintenance of the truth, and the closest\nunion with God, founded upon a most supernatural indwelling of the\nGodhead in a society of men on earth, the founding of which was the\n\"finished work\" of God the Word Incarnate. _Were these promises to\nfail in any respect_, which is utterly impossible, for while heaven\nand earth shall pass away, no word of their Maker can pass away--_it\nis plain that our ground for trusting in any promises of Holy Writ\nwhatsoever would be demolished_. The whole Christian revelation\nrests on the imperishable life of the Church; because the corruption\nor division of the Church would falsify the written records of our\nfaith, in which, after the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and the\nGodhead of our Lord, no truth is so deeply embedded as the perpetual\nexistence and office of the Church.\n\nWe have seen the idea of King, Lord, Master, Father, Shepherd,\nHusband, and Head, running through the delineation of the Church.\nAnd no society is complete without its ruler. Such was our Lord,\nwhile on earth--the _visible_ ruler of a _visible_ Church. \"While I\nwas with them I kept them in Thy name.\" He went forth from His\nbaptism to win souls. The water became wine in His presence. He bade\nmen follow Him, and they followed. Power went forth from Him, and\nhealed diseases. Grace flowed from His lips and conquered hearts. An\ninnumerable multitude surrounded Him, of all ages and conditions.\n[8]\"And going up into a mountain He called unto Him whom He would\nHimself; and they came to Him. And He made that twelve should be\nwith Him, and that He might send them to preach.\"\n\nHere, then, the true Israel chooses the future princes of His house,\nwho should sit with Him on thrones, judging the twelve tribes.\nAlready, while yet with His Church, He is preparing for her future\ngovernment, when His visible presence shall be taken from her. In\nthree years all should be accomplished, but when [9]\"the covenant\nshould have been confirmed with many in one week, and in the half\nof the week the victim and the sacrifice should fail;\" when His\nApostles should see Him no longer; was any one ordained to take that\nall-important place of supreme ruler which He had filled? For upon\nearth He had been in two relations to His Church, her Founder, and\nher Ruler. The former office belonged to His single Person; in its\nnature it could not pass to another; the work was finished once and\nfor ever. But the latter office was, in its nature likewise,\nperpetual. How, then, should the charge of visible ruler, as man\namong men, be executed, when His Person was withdrawn, when He\nascended up on high, when all power in heaven and earth was indeed\ngiven into His hands, and so the headship of spiritual influence and\nprovidential care; but when, nevertheless, that sacred Body was\nwithdrawn into the tabernacle of God, and the Bridegroom was taken\naway for a time, and the voice and visible presence [10]\"what they\nhad seen, and heard, and handled, of the word of life,\" \"was with\nthem and kept them\" no longer. Should His Church, which had been\nunder one visible ruler from the beginning, now have her government\nchanged? Or had He marked out any one among the Twelve to succeed to\nHis own office of visible headship, and to be [11]\"the greater,\" and\n\"the ruler\" among His brethren. His own special representative and\nvicar?\n\nTo answer this question, we must carefully observe and distinguish\nwhat is said and what is given to the Apostles _in common_, and what\nto any one of their number _in particular_; the former will instruct\nus as to their equality, the latter as to the pre-eminence which any\none enjoyed over the rest, and in what it consisted.\n\nJust, then, as at a certain period of His ministry, our Lord, out\nof the multitude who followed Him, selected twelve, to be His\nspecial attendants upon earth, and, when He should be taken up, to\nbe the heralds of His Gospel among all nations, so out of the twelve\nHe from the beginning distinguished one, marked him out for a\npeculiar and singular office, connected him with Himself in a\nspecial manner, and after having through the whole of His ministry\ngiven him tokens and intimations of his future destination, at last\nexpressly nominated him to take His own place, and preside among his\nbrethren. His dealing with this Apostle forms one connected whole,\nin which there is nothing abrupt or inharmonious, out of keeping, or\nopposed to what He said to others. What is at first obscurely\nintimated is afterwards expressly promised, again in fresh terms\ncorroborated, and at last, in yet other language, but of the like\nforce, most significantly [12]conveyed, while it is attested by a\nnumber of incidental notices scattered through the whole Gospel\nhistory. Thus [13]it becomes necessary to consider each particular,\nas well as the whole sum of things said, _proper_ and _peculiar_ to\nthis Apostle; to weigh first their _separate_ and then their _joint_\nforce, and only at last to form an united judgment upon all.\n\nWe are searching into the will of the Divine Founder of our faith,\nwhich He has not only communicated to His Church in a living\ntradition, but in this case likewise ordered to be set forth in\nauthentic written documents. These alone we are here considering,\nand the point in question is whether He decreed that all the Twelve\nshould share equally in that divine mission and authority which He\nhad received from the Father, or whether while bestowing on them all\nvery high and distinctive powers, He yet appointed one, namely\nSimon, the son of Jonas, to preside over the rest in His own place.\nWe have, then, to consider all in these documents which is said\npeculiar to such apostle, pointing out singular gifts and\nprerogatives, and carrying with it special authority of government.\nAnd we must remember that where proofs are numerous and complex,\nsome which in themselves are only probable and accessory, yet have\ntheir force on the ultimate result. But this result must be drawn\nfrom a general view of the whole, and will collect in one the sum of\nproof both probable and certain.\n\nAgain, where many various causes concur, some more and some less, to\nproduce a certain effect, the force of such effect is the force of\nall these causes put together, not of each by itself alone. Or where\nmany witnesses are examined, whose evidence differs in value,\nalthough the testimony of some be in itself decisive, yet the\nverdict must be given after a consideration and review of all.\n\nNow the first mention which we have of the Apostle Simon is full of\nsignification. Our Lord had only just begun His ministry; he had\nbeen lately baptized, and as yet had called no disciples. But two of\nJohn the Baptist's disciples hearing their master name Jesus \"the\nLamb of God,\" follow Him, are kindly received by Him, and one of\nthem being Andrew, Simon's brother, finds Simon, and says to\nhim, [14]\"we have found the Messias. And he brought him to Jesus.\nAnd Jesus looking on him said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas; thou\nshalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter:\" as if He would\nsay, by birth thou art Simon, son of John; but another and a higher\nlot is in store for thee. I will give thee another name which thou\nshalt bear, a name in itself signifying the place which thou shalt\nhold in my Church. Thou shalt be called, and thou shalt be, the\nRock.\n\nFor why, when a vast multitude of our Lord's words and actions have\nbeen omitted, was this recorded for us, save that a deep meaning lay\nin it? Or what could that meaning be when our Lord, for the first\ntime looking on Peter, promised to him and to him alone, a new name,\nand that a name given in prophecy to Himself, a name declaring by\nits very sound that he should be laid by the builder, as a\nfoundation of the structure about to be raised? So in the fourth\ncentury S. Chrysostome comments on the text, calling him \"the\nfoundation of the Church, he that was really Peter\" (the Rock) \"both\nin name and in deed:\"[15] and a little after S. Cyril, of\nAlexandria, \"with allusion to the rock He transferred His name to\nPeter, for upon him He was about to found His Church.\" The Creator\nof the world does not give a name for nothing. His word is with\npower, and does what it expresses. Of old, \"He spake and they were\nmade; He commanded and they were created.\" Now, too, He speaks, at\nthe first dawn of His great spiritual restoration. When as yet\nnothing has been done, and not a stone of the divine building\nreared, He who determines the end from the beginning looks upon what\nseemed a simple fisherman, and at first beholding him, He takes\nSimon, the son of Jonas, out of the roll of common men; He marks him\nfor a future design; He wraps him in a prophetic title; He\nassociates him with His own immovable power. Of Himself it had been\nsaid,[16] \"Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion, a\ntried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded on the\nfoundation. He that believeth, let him not hasten.\" And again, \"the\nstone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of\nthe corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is wonderful in our\neyes.\" And again, \"A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands;\nand it struck the statue upon the feet thereof that were of iron and\nclay, and broke them in pieces. But the stone that struck the statue\nbecame a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.\" And again,\n\"Behold the stone that I have laid before Jesus: upon one stone\nthere are seven eyes; behold I will grave the graving thereof, saith\nthe Lord of Hosts; and I will take away the iniquity of that land in\none day.\" In reference to which S. Paul said of Christians, that\nthey are \"built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,\nJesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the\nbuilding, being framed together, groweth up into a holy temple in\nthe Lord.\" It is plain, then, that our Lord \"both by the Old and New\nTestament,[17] is called a stone.\"\n\nBut this which He had of Himself, and by virtue of His own divine\npower, as the Word of God, He would communicate in a degree, and by\ndependence on Himself, to another. This is no modern interpretation,\nbut the very words of St. Ambrose, \"Great is the grace of Christ,\nwho bestowed almost all His own names on His disciples. I, said He,\nam the light of the world, and yet He granted to His disciples the\nvery name in which He exulted, by the words, Ye are the light of the\nworld. Christ is the Rock, but yet He did not deny the grace of this\nname to His disciple, that he should be Peter, because he has from\nthe Rock firm constancy, immovable faith.\"[18]\n\nIn the third century, Origen, on this very text, observes: \"He said\nhe should be called Peter, by allusion to the Rock, which is Christ,\nthat as a man from wisdom is termed wise, and from holiness holy, so\ntoo Peter from the Rock.\" And in the fifth, S. Leo paraphrases the\nname thus: \"While I am the inviolable Rock, the Corner-stone, who\nmake both one, the foundation beside which no one can lay another;\nyet thou also art the rock, because by My virtue thou art\nestablished, so as to enjoy by participation the properties which\nare peculiar to Me.\"[19]\n\nHere, then, we have three facts: i. That our Lord having twelve\nApostles whom He chose, loved, and honoured, above all His other\ndisciples, yet promised to one[20] only a new name; and, ii., this a\nname in the highest degree significative, and most deeply\nprophetical of a particular office; and, iii., a name peculiar to\nHimself, as the immovable foundation of the Church. This happened in\nthe first year of His ministry, before, as it would appear, either\nPeter or any other apostle was called.\n\nThe promise thus emphatically made to Simon, \"Thou shalt be called\nthe Rock,\" our Lord fulfilled in the second year of His ministry,\nwhen He distinguished the twelve Apostles from the rest of His\ndisciples, giving them authority to teach, and power to heal\nsicknesses and to cast out devils. Then, says S. Mark \"to[21] Simon\nHe gave the name of Peter;\" and S. Matthew, \"the names of the Twelve\nApostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter;\" and S.\nLuke, \"Simon whom also He named Peter.\" And by this name He marked\nHim out from amongst all his brethren, and united him to Himself.\n\"He changes, too,\" says Tertullian, \"Peter's name from Simon,\nbecause also as Creator He altered the names of Abraham, Sara, and\nOshua, calling the last Jesus, and adding syllables to the others,\nbut why did He call him Peter? If for the strength of his faith,\nmany solid substances would lend him a name from themselves. Or was\nit because Christ is both the Rock and the Stone? Since we read that\nHe is set for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. I omit the\nrest. And so it was His pleasure to communicate to the dearest of\nHis disciples, in a peculiar manner, a name drawn from the figures\nof Himself, I imagine, as being nearer than one drawn from figures\nnot of Himself.\"[22]\n\nIt is, then, setting a seal on His former acts, drawing out and\ncorroborating their meaning, that He once more, and in the most\nemphatic way of all, recurs to this name, attaching to it the most\nsignal promises, and establishing its prophetic power. In the third\nyear of His ministry our Lord \"came into the quarters of Cesarea\nPhilippi: and He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that\nthe Son of Man is? But they said, Some John the Baptist, and others\nElias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to\nthem, But whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, Thou\nart Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to\nhim, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jonas, because flesh and blood hath\nnot revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say\nto thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my\nChurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I\nwill give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever\nthou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and\nwhatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in\nheaven.\"\n\nWhen we reflect that the first act of our Lord to Peter was to look\nupon him, and to promise him this name, a token of His omnipotence\nto Simon yet knowing him not, as that seeing him under the fig-tree\nwas to Nathaniel of His omniscience; and that when He chose His\ntwelve apostles, it is said markedly \"to Simon He gave the name of\nPeter,\" the force of His reply cannot well be exceeded. The promise\nof our Lord answers part by part to the confession of His apostle.\nThe one says: \"Thou art the Christ,\" that is, the anointed one; the\nother, \"Thou art Peter,\" that is, the Rock, the name which I gave\nthee myself: my own title with which I invested thee. The one adds,\n\"the Son of the living God;\" the other, \"And upon this rock I will\nbuild my Church,\" that is, as it is true what thou confessest, that\nI am \"the Son of the living God,\" so my power as such shall be shown\nin building my Church upon thee whom I have long named the Rock,\n\"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.\" Not only this,\nbut I will unfold to thee the full meaning of thy name, and declare\nthe gifts which accompany it. \"And[23] I will give to thee the keys\nof the kingdom of heaven.\" That is, \"The root and the offspring of\nDavid,\" \"the holy one and the true one, He that hath the key of\nDavid; He that openeth and no man shutteth; shutteth and no man\nopeneth;\" as He gave to thee to share His name of the Rock, so He\nshall give to thee to bear in His name His own symbol of supreme\ndominion, the key which opens or shuts the true city of David; all\nages shall own thee, all nations acknowledge thee, as _The Bearer of\nthe Keys_; as long as my Church shall last, against which the gates\nof hell shall not prevail, thy office shall last too; as long as\nthere are souls to be saved, they shall pass by thy ministry into\nthe gate of the Church. And further, as long as there need in my\nspiritual kingdom laws to be promulgated, precepts issued, sins\nforgiven, \"whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound\nalso in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall\nbe loosed also in heaven.\"\n\nWho, indeed, can adequately express the gifts which the world's\nCreator and Redeemer here promises to His favoured servant? Thus in\nthe fourth century S. Chrysostome labours to set them forth. \"See\nhow He raises Peter to a higher opinion of Himself; and reveals and\nshews Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises. For what\nbelongs to God alone, to loose sins, and to render the Church\nimmovable in such an assault of waves, and to make a fisherman more\nsolid than any rock, when the whole world was at war with him, these\nare what He promises to give him; as the Father addressing Jeremias,\nsaid: 'I have made thee an iron pillar and a wall,' but him to one\nnation, whereas the other to the whole world. Willingly would I ask\nthose who wish to diminish the dignity of the Son, which are the\ngreatest gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which\nthe Son. For the Father bestowed on Peter the revelation of the Son;\nbut the Son disseminated that of the Father and of Himself through\nthe whole world; and _put into the hands of a mortal man power over\nall things in heaven, when He gave the keys to him_ who extended the\nChurch through the whole world, and showed it to be firmer than the\nheaven.\"[24] And not many years later S. Leo says, \"That which the\nTruth ordered remains; and blessed Peter persisting in that strength\nof the rock which he received, has not deserted the guidance, once\nundertaken, of the Church. For thus was he set before the rest, that\nwhile he is called the Rock, while he is declared to be the\nfoundation, while he is appointed the door-keeper of the kingdom of\nheaven, while he is advanced to be the judge of what shall be bound\nand what loosed, with the condition that his sentence shall be\nratified even in heaven, _we might learn through the very mysteries\nof the names given to him, how he was associated with Christ_.\"[25]\nThis association passed, indeed, into the very mind of the Church,\nfor among all the titles given by fathers and councils and liturgies\nto Peter, and expressing his prerogatives, the one contained in this\nname is the most frequent. Thus he is termed, [26]\"the rock of the\nChurch,\" [27]\"the rock of the Church that was to be built,\"\n[28]\"underlying the building of the Church,\" [29]\"receiving on\nhimself the building of the Church,\" [30]\"the immovable rock,\"\n[31]\"the rock which the proud gates of hell prevail not against,\"\n[32]\"the most solid rock,\" [33]\"he to whom the Lord granted the\nparticipation of His own title, the rock,\" [34]\"the foundation\nsecond from Christ,\" [35]\"the great foundation of the Church,\"\n[36]\"the foundation and basis,\" [37]\"founding the Church by his\nfirmness,\" [38]\"the support of the Church,\" [39]\"the Apostle in whom\nis the Church's support,\" [40]\"the support of the faith,\" [41]\"the\npillar of the Church,\" and by an authority sufficient alone to\nterminate all controversy, the great Council of Chalcedon,[42] \"the\nrock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the basis of the\northodox faith.\"[43]\n\nThus, then, we have the name of Peter first promised, next\nconferred, then explained. And further light will be shed on this by\nthe consideration of the purpose for which names in Holy Writ were\nbestowed by divine command on individuals, or their former names\nchanged.\n\nNow[44] of names imposed in Scripture there would seem to be three\nclasses. The first and most common are _commemorative_, and are for\nthe purpose of recording and handing down to posterity remarkable\nfacts. Such are Peleg, \"because in his days the earth was\n_divided_;\" Isaac, from the _laughter_ of his father and mother;\nIssachar, a _reward_; Manasseh, \"God hath made me to _forget_ my\nlabours;\" Ephraim, \"God hath made me to _grow_;\"[45] and a multitude\nof others.\n\nThe second class may be termed _significative_, being imposed to\ndistinguish their bearers from others by some quality. Such are\nJacob, the supplanter; Esau; Edom, the red; Moses, the taken or\nsaved; Maccabaeus; Boanerges.[46]\n\nThe third and highest class are _prophetic_, and as such evidently\ncan be imposed by God alone, who foresees the future. They are\ntwo-fold: i. Those which foresignify events concerning not so much\ntheir bearers as others; such are Shear-jashub, \"the remnant shall\nreturn;\" Jezrael \"I will visit;\" Lo-ruhamah, \"not pitied;\" Lo-ammi,\n\"not my people.\" ii. Those which point out the office and destiny\nof their bearers; such as Noah, rest; Israel, a prince before God;\nJoshua, Saviour; Sarah, princess; John, in whom there is grace; and,\nafter the divine name of Jesus, \"who saves His people from their\nsins,\"[47] Abraham, and Cephas, or Peter, which two neither\ncommemorate a past event, nor signify a quality or ornament already\npossessed, but are wholly prophetic, inasmuch as they shadow out the\ndignity to which the leaders of the two covenants are divinely\nmarked out by the very imposition of their name.\n\nFor it will perhaps bring out the pre-eminence and superior\nauthority of Peter, if we consider the very close resemblance and\nalmost identity of the dispensation into which God entered with\nAbraham, and that which Christ gave to Peter. But first we must\nobserve how the more remarkable things occurring in the New\nTestament were foretold by types, images, parallelisms, and distinct\nprophecies in the Old. How[48] both our Lord, the Evangelists, and\nthe Apostles, take pains to point out the close agreement between\nthe two covenants; how the ancient ecclesiastical writers do the\nlike in their contests with early heretics, or in recommending the\ntruth of the Christian faith either to Jew or Gentile. They\nconsidered scarcely any proof of the Gospel superior to that which\nmight be drawn by grave and solid inference from the anticipation of\nChristian truths in the old covenant. Now, among such truths, what\nconcerns Peter is surely of signal importance, as it affects the\nwhole judgment on the form of government which our Lord instituted\nfor His Church.\n\nAgain, it may be taken as an axiom that, as a similitude of causes\nis inferred from a similitude of effects, so a resemblance of the\ndivine counsels may be inferred from a resemblance of exterior\nmanifestations. As effects are so many steps by which we rise to the\nknowledge and discernment of causes, so divine manifestations are\ntokens which unfold God's eternal decrees. Thus if the series of\ndealings which constitute God's dispensation to Abraham be very much\nlike that other series in which the Scriptures of the New Testament\nset forth the dispensation given to Peter, we may conclude, first,\nthat the two dispensations may be compared, and, secondly, that from\ntheir resemblance, a resemblance in the divine purpose may be\ndeduced.\n\nFirst,[49] then, \"God at sundry times, and in divers manners,\nspeaking to the Fathers\" of that covenant of grace, into which He\nhad already entered with our first parents, said to Abram, \"Go forth\nout of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's\nhouse, and I will make of thee a great nation.\" But when in the last\ndays He began to fulfil that covenant, and to declare His will by\nHis Son, Jesus said to Simon and Andrew, \"Follow me, and I will make\nyou to become fishers of men,\" and to Simon specially, \"Fear not,\nfor henceforth thou shalt catch men.\"[50]\n\nAbram hearkened to God calling him: \"So Abram went out as the Lord\nhad commanded him;\" and Simon as readily obeyed Christ's vocation:\n\"And immediately leaving their nets they followed Him.\"[51]\n\nGod rewarded Abraham's obedience by the promise of a new name:\n\"Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram, but thou shalt be\ncalled Abraham.\" So Christ honoured Simon, saying, \"Thou art Simon,\nthe son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas.\"[52]\n\nNo sooner had God unfolded the dignity shadowed forth in the\npromised name, and bestowed that dignity on Abraham, than He\nrequired of him a signal instance of faith and love: \"God tempted\nAbraham, and said to him, Take thy son, thine only begotten, whom\nthou lovest, and offer him for a holocaust.\" So Christ required of\nSimon a proof of faith and of superior love before He either\nunfolded the excellence of the promised name, or adorned him with\nthat excellency: \"He saith to them, Whom say ye that I am?\" \"Simon,\nson of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?\"[53]\n\nAnd both were no less ready to show the fortitude of their faith and\nlove than they had been ready to follow the divine calling. For,\n\"Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the sword to sacrifice\nhis son;\" and \"Simon Peter answering, said, Thou art the Christ, the\nSon of the living God;\" and again, \"Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I\nlove Thee.\"[54]\n\nThen, as the bestowal of the new name was the reward of the\nobedience with which each had followed his vocation, so God, moved\nby their remarkable ensuing faith and charity, explained the dignity\ncontained in that name, and bestowed it when so explained. The\nfollowing refers to the explanation; \"By myself have I sworn,\nbecause thou hast done this thing,\" and \"Because flesh and blood\nhath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I\nsay unto thee.\"\n\nBut as to the dignity bestowed, it should be remarked that it is\ndivine, and communicated to each with this resemblance: _First_,\nthat Abraham thereby becomes the source and parent of all the\nfaithful, and Peter their base and foundation; the one, the author\nof a seed which should equal in number the stars of the heaven and\nthe sand of the sea; the other, the Rock of the Church, which should\nembrace all nations, tribes, and languages. God says to Abraham,\n\"And multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and\nas the sand which is on the sea-shore.\" But Christ to Peter, \"and\nupon this rock I will build my Church.\" _Secondly_, the blessing\nthus bestowed from above upon each was not one which should rest in\ntheir single persons, but from them and through them should be\nextended to the universal posterity and society of the faithful; so\nthat all who should believe, to the consummation of time, should\ngain through them blessing, stability, and victory over the assault\nof enemies and the gates of hell. The promise to Abraham is clear:\n\"thy seed shall possess the gate of their enemies, and in thy seed\nshall all the nations of the earth be blessed:\" nor less so to\nPeter, \"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.\"\n\nBut the high excellence of this dignity, embracing, as it does, the\nwhole company of the faithful, was presignified in the very meaning\nof the name imposed. For of Abraham's name we read, \"And thy name\nshall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made thee.\"\nExactly resembling is what is said of Peter's appellation, \"Thou art\nPeter, the Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.\"\n\nNay, we may put in parallel columns the two promises, thus--\n\n    1. Thy name shall be             1. Thou art Peter,\n    Abraham,\n\n    2. For a father of many          2. And upon this rock I\n    nations have I made thee:        will build my Church.\n\nAnd just as in the former, the second clause contains the reason of\nthe first, so in the latter likewise the two clauses cohere, as the\nname and its explanation. Again, the dignity of the one is expressed\nas that of the Father; of the other as that of the Rock. Further,\nthose alone can share the blessing of Abraham, who are born of his\nspirit: and those alone the stability divinely granted to Peter, who\nrefuse by any violence, or at any cost, to be separated from him.\n\nBut Abraham was thus raised to be the friend of God, associated in\nthe divine Fathership, and made the teacher of posterity; and\ntherefore, as being such, God would show him His counsels, that\nthrough him they might descend to his children. \"And the Lord said,\nCan I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? for I know that he\nwill command his children and his household after him to keep the\nway of the Lord.\" In a precisely similar way, when God would call\nthe Gentiles to the light of the Gospel, He shewed it by a special\nrevelation to Peter alone: \"There came upon him an ecstasy of mind;\nand he saw the heaven opened; and this was done thrice.\" And the\nreason of so preferring Peter was God's decree, that through him all\nother Christians, even the Apostles themselves, might be informed,\nand convinced. \"You know that in former days God made choice among\nus that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel\nand believe.\" \"And thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy\nbrethren.\"[55]\n\nFinally, as God pronounces Abraham blest, so Christ pronounces\nPeter; and as He made Abraham the source and fountain-head of\nblessing and strength to all others, so no less did Christ make\nPeter. Of the first we read, \"I will bless thee, and will make thy\nname great, and thou shalt be a blessing;\" of the second, \"Blessed\nart thou, Simon Bar Jonah;--and upon this rock I will build My\nChurch.\"\n\nIn one word, the parallel is as follows between Abraham and Peter.\nBoth receive a remarkable call, and follow it; both are promised and\nreceive a new, and that a prophetical name; of both signal instances\nof faith and love are required; both furnish these, and therefore do\nnot lose the increase of their reward; to Abraham his prophetical\nname is explained, and to Peter likewise; Abraham understands his\ndestination to be the Father of all nations, and Peter that he is\nmade the Rock of the universal Church; Abraham is called blest, and\nso Peter; to Abraham it is revealed that no one, save from him, and\nthrough him, shall share the heavenly blessing; to Peter that all,\nfrom him, and through him, shall gain strength and stability; it is\nonly through Abraham that his posterity can promise itself victory\nover the enemy, and only through being built on Peter, the Rock,\nthat the Church will triumph over the gates of hell; in fine, if\nAbraham, as the teacher of the faithful, is instructed in the divine\ncounsels with singular care, not less is shown to Peter, whom Christ\nhas made the doctor and teacher of all believers.\n\nThe gifts thus bestowed on Abraham and Peter are _peculiar_, for\nthey are read of no one else in the Holy Scriptures; they are not\nonly _gifts_, but a _reward_ for singular merit; and in their own\nnature they cannot be _general_. As by them Abraham is put into a\nrelation of _Fathership_, so that all the faithful become his\nchildren, so Peter being called and made the Rock and _Foundation_\nof the Church, all its members have a dependence on him.\n\nAnd if these gifts are _peculiar_, no less do they convey a singular\n_dignity_ and _pre-eminence_. For it follows that, as S. Paul\nsays,[56] that all the faithful are children of Abraham, being heirs\nnot of his flesh, but of his spirit and faith; so no one is, or can\nbe, a part of the Church's building, who rests not on Peter as the\nfoundation. For the same God who said to Abraham, \"Thy name shall no\nlonger be called Abram, but Abraham shall be thy name,\" said also to\nSimon, \"Thou shalt not be called Simon, but Cephas;\" the same God\nwho said to the former, \"In thee shall all families of the earth be\nblessed,\" said to the latter, \"Upon this Rock I will build my\nChurch.\"\n\nWhat is the source of this pre-eminence in both? To both the same\nobjection may be made, and for both the same defence.\n\nHow should blessing and adoption be propagated from Abraham, as a\nsort of head, into the whole body of the faithful? Because Abraham\nis considered as joined with that mighty Seed his offspring, whence\n_in chief_ and _primarily_ the salvation of all depends; because\nAbraham is made by _participation_ partner of that dignity which\n_naturally_ and _substantially_ belongs to the Seed that was to\nspring from him. God Himself has told us this, and His Apostle S.\nPaul explained it. For as we read that it was said to Abraham, \"In\nthee shall all nations of the earth be blessed,\" so God Himself has\ntold us that _in thee, by thee_, means _in, by thy seed_. Hence S.\nPaul:[57] \"To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He\nsaith not, seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which\nis Christ.\" So that the divine words, \"In thee shall all nations of\nthe earth be blessed,\" give this meaning: \"As thou shalt give flesh\nto my only begotten Son whom I cherish in my bosom, whence He shall\nbe called at once 'the Son of God and the Son of Abraham,'[58] so He\nmakes thee a partner of His dignity and excellence, whence, if not\nthe source and origin, yet thou shalt be a broad stream of blessing\nto be poured out on all nations.\"\n\nNow just in the same manner is Peter the Rock of the Church, and the\ncause next to Christ of that firmness with which the Church shall\nremain impregnable to the end. For therefore is he the Rock and\nFoundation of the Church, because he has been called into a sort of\nunity with Him of whom it is said, \"Behold I lay in Sion a chief\ncorner stone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on it shall not\nbe ashamed:\" and in whom, as Paul explains, \"the whole building\nfitly framed together increaseth unto a holy temple in the\nLord.\"[59] Therefore is he the Church's Rock, because as he, by his\nown confession, declared the Godhead of the Foundation in chief,\n\"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,\" so from Him, who\nis the chief and substantial Foundation, he received the gift of\nbeing made partner in one and the same property: \"And I too say unto\nthee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my\nChurch;\" one with Me by communication of My office and charge, My\ndignity and excellency. Hence the stability of Peter is that of\nChrist, as the splendour of the ray is that of the sun; Peter's\ndignity that of Christ, as the river's abundance is the abundance of\nthe fountain. Those who diminish Peter's dignity may well be charged\nwith violating the majesty of Christ; those who are hostile to\nPeter, and divorced from him, stand in the like opposition to\nChrist.\n\nNow this parallel is an answer[60] to those who object to Peter's\nsupereminence as the Foundation, that this dignity is entirely\ndivine, surpassing by an almost infinite degree the capacity of man.\nFor is not that a divine dignity which consists in the paternity of\nall the faithful? Is not that prerogative beyond man's capacity by\nwhich one becomes the author of a blessing diffused through all\nnations? Yet no one denies that such a dignity and such a\nprerogative were granted to Abraham. In divine endowments,\ntherefore, their _full_ and _natural possession_ must be carefully\ndistinguished from their _limited_ and _analogous participation_.\nThe one, as inherent, cannot fall to the creature's lot; the other,\nas transferable, may be granted as God pleases. For what further\nremoved from man than the Godhead? Yet it is written, \"I have said,\nye are Gods.\"[61]\n\nNot weightier is the other objection, that the office of being the\nFoundation is too important to be entrusted to human care. Was there\nless difficulty in blessing being diffused from one man among all\nnations? Rather we must look on man not as he is by, and of,\nhimself, apart from God, and left to his own weakness, but as\nupborne by divine power, according to the promise, \"Behold, I am\nwith you all days, until the consummation of the world.\" Who can\ndoubt that man, in union with God, may serve for a foundation, and\ndischarge those offices in which the unity of a structure consists?\nIt is confidently and constantly objected, that \"other foundation no\nman can lay beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.\"[62]\nAs if what has been laid by Christ Himself, and consists in the\nvirtue of Christ alone, can be thought other than Christ; or as if\nit were unusual, or unscriptural, for things proper to Christ to be\nparticipated by men. Therefore the chief difficulties against\nPeter's pre-eminence, and character as the Foundation, seem to\nspring from the mind failing to realise the supernatural order\ninstituted by God, and the perpetual presence of Christ watching\nover His Church.\n\nThus it is no derogation to Abraham's being the Father of the\nfaithful, or to the hierarchy of the Church instituted by Christ\nHimself, that our Lord says,[63] \"Call none your father upon earth,\nfor one is your Father who is in heaven;\" inasmuch as Scripture\nabundantly proves that divine gifts are richly conferred upon men.\nWhat more divine than the Holy Spirit? Yet it is written,[64] \"And I\nwill ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that\nHe may abide with you for ever.\" What a higher privilege than filial\nadoption? Yet it is said, [65]\"Ye have received the spirit of filial\nadoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.\" What a greater treasure\nthan co-inheritance with Christ? Yet we read, [66]\"but if children,\nalso heirs: heirs of God, but joint heirs with Christ.\" What higher\nthan the vision of God? Yet S. Paul bears witness, [67]\"We see now\nthrough a glass darkly, but then face to face.\" What more wonderful\nthan the power of remitting sins? Yet this very power is granted to\nthe Apostles, [68]\"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven\nthem.\" What further from human weakness than the power of working\nmiracles? Yet Christ establishes this, [69]\"Amen, amen, I say unto\nyou, he that believeth on Me, the works which I do, shall he do\nalso, and greater works than these shall he do.\" Indeed, the\nparticipation and communion of heavenly gifts have the closest\ncoherence with that supernatural order, which God in creating man\nchose, and to which He called fallen man back through His only\nbegotten Son; with that dispensation of Christ by which He loved the\nApostles as He Himself was loved by the Father, by which He called\nthem, [70]\"not servants, but friends,\" and gave them that glory\nwhich He had Himself received from the Father. And the tone of mind\nwhich denies Peter's prerogative as the Foundation of the Church,\nunder pretence that it is an usurpation of divine power, tends to\ndeny some one or all of the privileges just cited, and, as a fact,\ndoes deny some of them. It is [71]wonderful to see how only common\nand vulgar things are discerned by modern eyes, where the Fathers\nsaw celestial and divine gifts. Those without the Church have fallen\naway as well from the several parts and privileges, from what may be\ncalled the standing order, of the Incarnation, as from its final\npurpose and scope; and it is much if they would not charge with\nblasphemy that glorious saying put forth by the greatest of the\nEastern, as by the greatest of the Western Fathers, \"that God became\nman, in order that man might become God.\"[72]\n\nWas, then, S. Chrysostome wrong when he said that our Lord, in that\npassage of Matthew, showed a power equal to God the Father by the\ngifts which He bestowed on a poor fisherman? \"He who gave to him the\nkeys of the heavens, and made him Lord of such power, and needed not\nprayer for this, for He did not then say, I prayed, but, with\nauthority, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys\nof heaven.\"[73] Was he wrong when he called him \"the chosen of the\nApostles, the mouth-piece of the disciples, the head of the band,\nthe ruler over the brethren?\"[74] Or where he saw these prerogatives\nin the very name of Peter, observing, \"When I say Peter, I mean the\nimpregnable rock, the immovable foundation, the great apostle, the\nfirst of the disciples?\"[75]\n\nTo sum up, then, what has been hitherto said, we have advanced so\nfar as this; first the promise, and then the bestowal of a new name,\nexpressing a singular pre-eminence, and in its _proper_ sense\nbefitting Christ alone, have distinguished Simon from the rest of\nthe apostles. But much more the power signified by that name, and\nexplained by the Lord Himself, carries far higher Peter's privilege,\nand indicates him to be the possessor of authority over the\nApostles. For if Simon is the Rock of the Church, and if the\nproperty of Foundation, on which the structure of the Church rests,\nbelongs to him immediately after Christ, and analogously with\nChrist, there arises this relation between Christ and Simon, that as\nHe is first, and chiefly, and by inherent power, so Simon is\nsecondarily, by participation and analogy, that which underlies,\nholds together, and supports the Apostles and the whole fabric of\nthe Church.\n\nNow such a relation carries with it not merely precedency of honour,\nbut superior authority. The strength of the Apostles lay in their\nunion with Christ, and subordination to Him. The like necessity of\nadhering to Peter is expressed in his new name. Take away that\nsubordination, and you destroy the very image by which the Lord\nchose to express Peter's dignity; and you remove, likewise, Peter's\nparticipation in that property which the Lord communicated to him in\nthe name of the Rock. For if the Apostles needed not to be joined\nwith him, he had no title to be called the Foundation; and if he had\nno coactive power over the Apostles, he did not share the property\nby which Christ is the Rock and Foundation. Thus the name, and the\ndignity expressed by the name, show Peter to have been singly\ninvested by the Lord with both honour and power superior to all the\nApostles.[76]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] John xvii.\n\n[2] Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n[3] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n[4] Matt. v. 14; Psalm xlvii. 2; cxxxi. 13, 14.\n\n[5] 1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\n[6] John x. 11-16.\n\n[7] Eph. v. 32, 30.\n\n[8] Mark iii. 13.\n\n[9] Dan. ix. 26.\n\n[10] 1 John i. 1.\n\n[11] Luke xxii. 26.\n\n[12] Vid. John i. 42; Mark iii. 16; Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 32;\nJohn xxi. 15.\n\n[13] Passaglia, p. 35-7.\n\n[14] John i. 35-42.\n\n[15] S. Chrysostome on the text. S. Cyril on John i. 42.\n\n[16] Isai. xxviii. 16; Ps. cxvii. 22; Dan. ii. 35; Zach. iii. 9;\nEph. ii. 20.\n\n[17] Theodoret on Dan. ii. 34.\n\n[18] Ambrose on Luke, Lib. 6, n. 97.\n\n[19] Serm. iv. 2.\n\n[20] For the name Boanerges, which in one place is given to the two\nsons of Zebedy, is in the first place a joint name; secondly, it is\nnowhere else referred to, and does not take the place of their\nbirth-names; thirdly, it indicates not an official dignity, but an\ninward disposition. We cannot doubt that such a name bestowed on the\ntwo brothers was a mark of great distinction, but, for the above\nreasons, it cannot come into competition with the name of Peter. See\nPassaglia, p. 44, n. 38.\n\n[21] Mark iii. 14; Matt. x. 1; Luke vi. 14.\n\n[22] Cont. Marcion. L. 4, c. 13.\n\n[23] Apoc. xxii. 16; iii. 7.\n\n[24] S. Chris. on Matt. 16, Hom. 54.\n\n[25] S. Leo, Serm. 3 on his anniversary.\n\n[26] Hilary of Poitiers on Matt. xv. n. 6; on Ps. cxxxi. n. 4; on\nthe Trinity, L. 6, n. 20. Gregory Naz. Orat. 26, p. 453. Ambrose in\nhis first hymn, referred to also by Augustine, Retract. lib. 1, c.\n21, and Epiph. in ancor. n. 9.\n\n[27] Tertullian de monogam. c. 8. Origen on Ps. 1, quoted by\nEusebius, Hist. I. 6, c. 25. Cyprian, Ep. 71, and Firmilian, among\nCyprian's letters, 75.\n\n[28] Basil cont. Eunom. lib. 2, n. 4. Zeno. lib. 2, tract. 13, n. 2.\n\n[29] By the same.\n\n[30] Epiphan. haer. 59, n. 7.\n\n[31] August. in Ps. cont. par. Donati. Leo, serm. 98.\n\n[32] Theodoret, ep. 77.\n\n[33] Maximus of Turin, serm. pro natali Petri et Pauli.\n\n[34] Greg. Nazian. in hom. archieratico inserta.\n\n[35] Origen on Exod. hom. 5, n. 4.\n\n[36] Gallican sacramentary, edited by Mabillon, T. I. Mus. Ital. p.\n343. Synod of Ephesus, act. 3.\n\n[37] Peter Chrysologus, serm. 154.\n\n[38] Ambrose on Virginity, c. 16.\n\n[39] Ambrose on Luke, lib. 4, n. 70.\n\n[40] Chrysostome, hom. on debtor of ten thousand talents, Tom. 3, p.\n4.\n\n[41] Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, in Act. 3 of Council of\nEphesus.\n\n[42] Council of Chalcedon, act. 3. in deposing Dioscorus.\n\n[43] For the above references see Passaglia, p. 400.\n\n[44] Vid. Passaglia, p. 54, note 47.\n\n[45] Gen. x. 25; xvii. 19; xxx. 18; xii. 51, 52.\n\n[46] Gen. xxv. 26; xxvii. 36; xxv. 25; xxv. 30; Exod. ii. 10; 1\nMacc. ii. 4; Mark iii. 17.\n\n[47] Isai. vii. 3; Os. i. 4, 6, 9; Gen. v. 29; xxxii. 28; Numb.\nxiii. 17; Gen. xvii. 15; Matt. iii. 1.\n\n[48] Passaglia, p. 51.\n\n[49] Passaglia, p. 52.\n\n[50] Gen. xii. 1; Mark 1. 16, 17; Luke v. 10.\n\n[51] Gen. xii. 4; Mark i. 18.\n\n[52] Gen. xvii. 5; John i. 42.\n\n[53] Gen. xxii. 1; Matt. xvi. 15; John xxi. 15.\n\n[54] Gen. xxii. 10; Matt. xvi. 16; John xxi. 15.\n\n[55] Gen. xviii. 17; Acts x. 10; xv. 7; Luke xxii. 32.\n\n[56] Gal. iii. 7.\n\n[57] Gal. iii. 16.\n\n[58] Matt. i. 1.\n\n[59] Is. xxviii. 16; Eph. ii. 21.\n\n[60] Passaglia, p. 58.\n\n[61] Ps. lxxxii. 6, with John x. 34.\n\n[62] 1 Cor. iii. 11.\n\n[63] Matt. xxiii. 9.\n\n[64] John xiv. 16.\n\n[65] Rom. viii. 15.\n\n[66] Rom. viii. 17.\n\n[67] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.\n\n[68] John xx. 23.\n\n[69] John xiv. 12.\n\n[70] John xv. 9, 15.\n\n[71] Passaglia, p. 442. n. 38.\n\n[72] O tou Theou Logos enenthrhopesen hina hemeis\ntheopoiethomen. St. Athan. de Incarn. Factus est Deus homo, ut homo\nfieret deus. St. Aug. Serm. 13, de Temp.\n\n[73] S. Chrys. Tom. vii. 786. Hom. 82, in Matt.\n\n[74] Tom. viii. 525. Hom. 88, in Joan.\n\n[75] Hom. 3, de Poenitentia. Tom. ii. 300.\n\n[76] Passaglia, p. 48, 9.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nEDUCATION AND FINAL DESIGNATION OF PETER TO BE THE RULER WHO SHOULD\nCONFIRM HIS BRETHREN.\n\n\nHaving promised[1] and bestowed on Simon a new name, prophetic of\nthe peculiar position which he was to occupy in the Church, and\nhaving set forth the meaning contained in that name in terms so\nlarge and magnificent, that, as we have seen, the greatest saints\nand fathers have felt it impossible to exhaust their force, our Lord\nproceeded to _educate_ Peter, so to say, for his especial charge of\nsupreme ruler. He bestowed upon him, in the course of His ministry,\ntokens of preference which agree with the title thus solemnly\nconferred; and He instructed him with all the care which we should\nexpect to be given to one who was to become the chief doctor of\nChristians. Such instruction may be said to consist in two things, a\nmore complete knowledge of the Christian revelation, and a singular\napprehension of its divine proofs.\n\nNow, innumerable as are the particulars in which the Christian\nrevelation consists, they may yet be gathered up mainly into two\npoints, which meet in the Person of our Lord, and are termed by the\nancient fathers who have followed this division, the _Theology_, and\nthe _Economy_. There is the Divine Nature, that \"_form of God_,\"\nwhich our Lord had from the beginning in the bosom of the Father;\nand there is the human nature, that \"_form of a servant_,\" which \"in\nthe economy or dispensation of the fulness of times\" He assumed, in\norder that He might purchase the Church with His blood, and[2]\n\"re-establish all things in heaven and on earth.\" All, therefore,\nin the Christian faith which concerns \"the form of God\" is termed\nthe Theology; all which contemplates \"_the form of a servant_,\" the\nEconomy.\n\nBut the heavenly origin and certain truth of both these parts of\nChristian faith are proved partly by the fulfilment of prophecy, and\npartly by the working of miracles. To both our Lord perpetually\nappealed, and His apostles after Him, and those who have followed\nthem. One, then, who was to be the chief ruler and doctor of\nChristians, needed especial instruction in the Theology, and\nEconomy, especial assurance of the fulfilment of prophecy, and the\nworking of miraculous power. Now Peter was specially selected for\nthis instruction and that assurance.\n\nThe whole teaching of our Lord, indeed, and the innumerable acts of\npower and words of grace with which it was fraught, were calculated\nto convey these to all the Apostles. But while they were witnesses\nin common of that teaching in general, some parts of it were\ndisclosed only to Peter and the two sons of Zebedy. Perhaps there is\nno incident in the Gospel history, which set forth in so lively a\nmanner, and so convincingly proved, the mysteries concerning the\nunion of \"the form of God\" and \"the form of a servant,\" as the\nTransfiguration. The retreat to the \"high mountain apart,\" and in\nthe midst of that solitary prayer, \"the face shining as the sun,\"\nand \"the robes white as light,\" the presence of Moses and Elias,\nconversing with Him on the great sacrifice for sin, \"the bright\ncloud which encompassed them,\" and the voice from out of it,\nproclaiming \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear\nHim;\" so impressed themselves on the great Apostle, that after long\nyears he appealed to them in proof that he and his brethren had not\ntaught \"cunningly devised fables, when they made known the power\nand presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, but had been eyewitnesses of\nHis majesty, when He received from God the Father honour and glory,\nthis voice coming down to Him from the excellent glory, 'This is my\nbeloved Son, in whom I have pleased myself: hear ye Him.' And this\nvoice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with Him in the\nholy mount.\" Among all the Apostle's experience of the three years'\nministry, by the shore and on the waves of the lake of Galilee, in\nthe cornfields, or on the mountain side, in the noon-day heat, or\nmidnight storm, even in the throng which cried 'Hosannah!' and\n'Crucify Him!' this stood out, until \"the laying aside of his\nfleshly tabernacle,\" as \"the Lord had signified to Him.\"[3] For[4]\nwhat indeed was not there? the plurality of persons in the Godhead,\nthe Father and the Son, the true, and not adopted, Sonship of the\nlatter, His divine mission unto men; the new order of things\nresulting from it, and the summing up under one head of all things\nin heaven and in earth; the sealing up and accomplishing of the law\nand the prophets, by the presence of their representatives, Moses\nand Elias, a most wonderful and transporting miracle; and the\ncommand implicitly to obey Him in whom the Father was well pleased.\nThus the Transfiguration may be termed the summing up of the whole\nChristian revelation.\n\nBut now of this we read that \"after six days Jesus taketh unto Him\n_Peter_, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into\na high mountain apart.\" These three alone of the twelve. Yet does He\nnot associate the sons of Zebedy with Peter in this privilege?\nNeedful no doubt it was that so splendid an act should have a\nsuitable number of witnesses, and that as His future glory should\nhave[5] three witnesses from heaven, and as many from earth, so\nthis, its rudimental beginning, should be attested by three as from\nheaven, God the Father, Moses, and Elias, and by three from earth,\nPeter, James, and John. Dear to Him likewise, next to Peter, and\nmost privileged after Peter, were the sons of Zebedy; yet a\ndistinction is seen in the mode in which they are treated even when\njoined together in so great a privilege. For in all the three\naccounts Peter is named first; \"He taketh to Him Peter, and James,\nand John.\" They likewise are called by their birth-name, he by his\nprophetic appellation of the Rock; they are silent, but he speaks;\n\"Peter answering, said;\" nor only speaks, but in the name of all;\n\"It is good _for us_ to be here,\" as if their leader. And, fifthly,\nhe is named specially, they as his companions; \"but Peter, _and they\nthat were with him_, were heavy with sleep.\"[6] Thus even when three\nare associated in a special privilege above the Twelve, Peter is\ndistinguished among the three.\n\nBut if there was one other occasion on which above all \"the form of\nthe servant\" was to be set forth in the most awful, and the most\nendearing light, it was on that evening, \"the hour\" of evil men and\n\"the power of darkness,\" when \"the righteous servant who should\njustify many\" was about to perform the great, central, crowning act\nof His mediation. Then we read that \"He said to His disciples, Sit\nyou here, till I go yonder and pray.\"[7] And then immediately\n\"taking with Him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedy, He began to grow\nsorrowful and to be sad.\" Yet here again, even in the association\nwith the sons of Zebedy, Simon is distinguished, for he is named\nfirst; and by the illustrious name of Peter, the Rock; and as the\nleader of the others, for, says Matthew, Christ after His first\nprayer, \"comes to His disciples, and finds them sleeping, and _says\nto Peter_, What, could _ye_ not watch with me one hour?\" Why the\nchange of number, Peter in the singular, _ye_ in the plural? Why the\nblame of Peter, involving the blame of the rest? Because the members\nare censured in the head.\n\nIn these two signal instances our Lord, while preferring Peter and\nthe two sons of Zebedy to the rest of the Twelve, yet marks a\ngradation likewise between them and Peter. And these two set forth\nthe Theology and Economy, in the most emphatic manner.\n\nAnd as the supreme preceptor must not only be acquainted with the\ntruth which he has to deliver, but with the evidence on which it\nrests, so is Peter specially made a witness of his Lord's \"power and\npresence\" and \"the works which no other man did.\" In that remarkable\nmiracle of raising to life the ruler of the synagogue's daughter we\nread, \"He admitted not any man to follow Him, but Peter and James,\nand John the brother of James;\"[8] where, as before, and always,\nPeter is mentioned first, and by the prophetic name of his Primacy.\n\nFrom[9] all which we gather four points; 1. Several things are\nmentioned in the Gospels which Christ gave to Peter, and not to the\nrest of the Apostles: 2. But nothing which He gave to them together,\nand not to Peter with them. 3. What He seemed to give to them in\ncommon, yet accrue to Peter in a special manner, who appears among\nthe Apostles not as one out of the number, but their destined head,\nby the name, that is, of Peter, so markedly promised, bestowed, and\nwonderfully explained by our Lord, of which, as we have seen, S.\nChrysostome, an eastern Patriarch, as well as a great Saint and\nFather, observed, \"When I say Peter, I mean the impregnable Rock,\nthe immovable foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the\ndisciples.\" 4. Either we are not to take Christ's dealing as the\nstandard of Peter's dignity, and destination, or we must admit that\nhe was preferred to the rest, and made the supreme teacher of the\nfaithful.\n\nS. Matthew records the incidents of the officers asking for the\npayment of the didrachma which all the children of Israel were bound\nto contribute to the temple; and his words show us a fresh instance\nof honour done to Peter, and a fresh note of his superiority. \"When\nthey were come to Capharnaum, they that received the didrachma came\nto Peter and said to him, Doth not your master pay the didrachma?\"[10]\nBut why should they come to _him_, and ask, not if _his_ master, but\n\"your\" master, the master of all the Apostles, paid the census, save\nthat it was apparent, even to strangers, that Peter was the first and\nmost prominent of the company? Why use him rather than any of the\nothers, for the purpose of approaching Christ? \"As Peter seemed to be\nfirst of the disciples,\" says S. Chrysostome, on the text, \"they go to\nhim.\" The context naturally suggests this reason, and the ancient\ncommentators remarked it. But what follows is much more striking.\nPeter answered, Yes, that is, that his master observed all the laws of\nMoses, and this among the number. As he went home he purposed, no\ndoubt, to ask our Lord about this payment, but \"when he was come\ninto the house Jesus prevented him,\" having in His omniscience seen\nand heard all that had passed, and He proceeded to speak words\ninvolving His own high dignity, followed by a singular trial of Peter's\nfaith, and as marked a reward of it when tried. \"What thinkest thou,\nSimon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or\ncustom? of their own children or of strangers? And he said, Of\nstrangers. Jesus said to him, Then the children are free.\" Slight\nwords in seeming, yet declaring in fact that most wonderful truth\nwhich had formed so shortly before Peter's confession, and drawn\ndown upon him the yet unexhausted promise; for they expressed, I am\nas truly the natural Son of that God, the Sovereign of the temple, for\nwhom this tribute is paid, as the children of earthly sovereigns, who\ntake tribute, are their sons by nature. Therefore by right I am free.\n\"But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea and cast in a hook;\nand that fish which shall first come up, take; and when thou hast opened\nits mouth, thou shalt find a stater; take that and give it to them for\nMe and thee.\" Declaring to His favoured disciple afresh that He is\nthe true, and not the adopted, Son of God, answering his thoughts by\nanticipation, and expressing His knowledge of absent things by the\npower of the Son of God, He tries his faith by the promise of a\nfresh miracle, which involved a like exercise of divine power.\nPeter, in proceeding to execute His command, must make that\nconfession afresh by deed, which he had made before by word, and\nwhich his Lord had just repeated with His own mouth. How else could\nhe go to the lake expecting to draw at the first cast a fish in\nwhose mouth he should find a coin containing the exact amount due to\nthe temple for two persons? But what followed? What but a most\nremarkable reward for the faith which he should show? \"Take that and\ngive it to them for Me and thee.\" There are looks, there are tones\nof the voice, which convey to us more than language. So, too, there\nare acts so exceedingly suggestive, that without in any _formal_ way\nproving, they carry with them the force of the strongest proof. And\nso, perhaps, never did our Lord in a more marked manner _associate_\nPeter with Himself than here. It was a singular distinction which\ncould not fail to strike every one who heard it. Thus S. Chrysostome\nexclaims,[11] \"You see the exceeding greatness of the honour;\" and\nhe adds, \"wherefore, too, in reward for his faith He connected him\nwith Himself in the payment of the tribute;\" and he remarks on\nPeter's modesty, \"for Mark, the disciple of Peter, seems not to have\nrecorded this incident, because it pointed out the great honour\nbestowed on him; but he did record his denial, while he was silent\nas to the points which made him conspicuous, his Master perhaps\nbegging him not to say great things about him.\" Indeed, _how_ could\none of the disciples be more signally pointed out than by this\nincident, as \"the faithful and wise steward, whom the Lord would set\nover His household, to give them their portion of food in due time?\"\n\nOther fathers, as well as S. Chrysostome, did not fail to see such a\nmeaning in this passage; but let us take the words of Origen as\npointing out the connection of this incident with the important\nquestion following. His words are: \"It seems to me that (the\ndisciples) considering this a very great honour which had been done\nto Peter by Jesus, in having put him higher than the rest of His\ndisciples, they wished to make sure of what they suspected by asking\nJesus and hearing His answer, whether, as they conceived, He judged\nPeter to be greater than them; and they also hoped to learn the\ncause for which Peter was preferred to the rest of the disciples.\nMatthew, then, wishing to signify this by these words, \"take that\nand give it to them for Me and thee,\" added, \"on that day the\ndisciples came to Jesus, saying, Who, thinkest thou, is the greater\nin the kingdom of heaven?\"[12]\n\nFor, indeed, why should they immediately ask this question? The\npreceding incident furnishes a natural and sufficient cause. The\nApostles, it seems, were urged by the plainness of Christ's words\nand acts to inquire who among them should have the chief authority.\nWho will not agree with S. Chrysostome: \"The Apostles were touched\nwith a human infirmity, which the Evangelist too signifies in the\nwords, 'in that hour,' when He had honoured him (Peter) before them\nall. For though of James and John one of the two was the\nfirst-born,\" (alluding to an opinion that the tax was paid by the\nfirst-born,) \"He did nothing like it for them. Hence, being ashamed,\nthey confessed their excitement of mind, and do not say plainly, Why\nhast thou preferred Peter to us? Is he greater than we are? For this\nthey did not dare; but they ask indefinitely, Who is the greater?\nFor when they saw three preferred to the rest, they felt nothing\nlike this; but when one received so great an honour, they were\npained. Nor were they kindled by this alone, but by putting together\nmany other things. For He had said to him, 'I will give to thee the\nkeys,' and 'Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,' and here 'Give it to\nthem for Me and for thee;' and also they were pricked at seeing his\nconfidence and freedom of speech.\"[13]\n\nThus their question, if it did not express, at least suggested this\nmeaning, \"Speak more plainly and distinctly whether Peter is to be\nthe greater and the chief in the Church, and accordingly among us,\"\nand so they seem to have drawn from our Lord's act a conclusion\nwhich they did not see in the promising or bestowing the prophetic\nname of Peter, nor even in the promises conveyed in explaining that\nname, and were vexed at the preference shown to him.\n\nAnd if [14]any be inclined to conclude from hence that our Lord's\nwords and acts to Peter had not been of any marked significancy,\nthey should be reminded that the very clearest and plainest things\nwere sometimes not understood by the Apostles, before the descent of\nthe Holy Spirit on them. This was specially the case with the things\nwhich they were disinclined to believe. Thus our Lord again and\nagain foretold to them His passion in express terms, but we are\ntold, \"they understood none of these things.\"[15] He foretold, too,\nHis resurrection, yet they did not the least expect it, and they\nbecame at length fully assured of the fact before they remembered\nthe prediction. Strange as these things seem, yet probably\neveryone's private experience will furnish him with similar\ninstances of a veil being cast upon his eyes, which prevented his\ndiscerning the most evident things, towards which there was\ngenerally some secret disinclination.\n\nBut [16]how did our Lord answer their question? Did He remove at\nonce the ground of their jealousy by declaring that in the kingdom\nof heaven no one should have pre-eminence of dignity, but the\ncondition of all be equal? On the contrary, He condemns ambition and\nenjoins humility, but likewise gives such a turn to His discourse as\nto insinuate that there would be one pre-eminent over the\nrest.[17] \"Jesus calling unto Him a little child, set him in the\nmidst of them, and said, Amen I say unto you, unless you be\nconverted and become as little children, you shall not enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven.\" Then He adds, \"whosoever therefore shall\nhumble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the\nkingdom of heaven.\" Thus He did not exclude the pre-eminence of that\n\"greater one,\" about which they asked, but pointed out what his\ncharacter ought to be. But this will be much clearer from a like\nenquiry, and the answer to it, recorded by S. Luke.\n\nFor even at the last supper, our Lord having told them that He\nshould be betrayed, and was going to leave them in the way\ndetermined for Him, there was not only an enquiry among them which\nof them should do that thing, but also, so keenly were their minds\nas yet, before the coming down of the Holy Spirit, alive to the\ndesire of pre-eminence, and so strongly were they persuaded that\nsuch a superior had not been excluded by Christ, but rather marked\nout and ordained, \"there was a strife among them which of them\nshould seem to be greater.\" Now our Lord meets their contention\nthus: \"The [18]kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they\nthat have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so; but\nhe that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and\nhe that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he\nthat sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at\ntable? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth. And you are\nthey who have continued with Me in my temptations; and I dispose to\nyou, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom; that you may eat\nand drink at My table in My kingdom; and may sit upon thrones\njudging the twelve tribes of Israel.\"\n\nNow [19]in this speech of our Lord we may remark four points:--\n\n1. What is omitted, though it would seem most apposite to be said;\n\n2. What is affirmed, if not expressly, yet by plain consequence;\n\n3. What comparison is used in illustration;\n\n4. What meets with censure and rejection.\n\n1. First, then, though the Apostles had twice before contended about\npre-eminence, yet our Lord neither there, nor here, said openly that\nHe would not prefer any one over the rest, nor appoint any one to be\ntheir leader. Yet the importance of the subject, His own wisdom, and\nHis love towards His disciples, as well as His usual mode of acting,\nseemed to demand, that had it been His will for no one of them to be\nset over the rest, He should plainly declare it, and thus extinguish\nall strife. No less a matter was at issue than the harmony of the\nApostles with each other, the peace of the Church, and the success\nof the divine counsel for its government. Moreover, the Gospels\nrepresent Him to us as continually removing doubts, clearing up\nperplexities, and correcting wrong judgments among His disciples.\nLet us recall to remind a very similar occasion, when the mother of\nthe sons of Zebedy with her children came before Him asking \"that\nthese my two sons may sit the one on thy right hand and the other on\nthy left, in thy kingdom.\" He rejected their prayer at once, saying,\n\"To sit on My right or My left hand is not mine to give to you, but\nto them for whom it is prepared by My Father.\"[20] The silence,\ntherefore, of Christ here, under such circumstances, is a proof that\nit was not the divine will that all the Apostles should be in such a\nsense equal that no one of them should hold a superior authority\nover the rest.\n\n2. But eloquent as this silence is, we are not left to trust to it\nalone, for our Lord's words point out, besides, the institution of\none superior. \"The kings of the Gentiles,\" He says, \"lord it over\nthem; and they that have power over them are called benefactors. But\nyou not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as\nthe younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.\" _A\ngreater_ and _a leader_, then, _there was to be_. Our Lord's words\ncontain two parallel propositions repeated. 1. There is among you\none who is the greater, let him, then, be as the younger. 2. There\nis among you one who is the leader, let him be as he that serveth.\nThus our Lord's meaning is most distinct that they should have a\nsuperior.\n\nBut in the very similar passage about the sons of Zebedy, lest any\nshould conclude that no one of the Apostles was to be superior to\nthe rest, He called them to Him and said, \"You know that the princes\nof the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that are the greater\nexercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you, but\nwhosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister;\nand he that will be the first among you shall be your servant. Even\nas the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to\nminister, and to give His life a redemption for many.\" Where He\ntells them His will, not that no one of the Apostles should be\n\"great\" and \"first,\" but what the type and model should be which\nthat \"great\" and \"first\" one should imitate, even the Son of man who\ncame to minister.\n\n3. For to make this quite certain, there, and here too, He directs\nus to a particular comparison, by which He explains and concludes\nHis discourse, \"For who is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he\nthat serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am among you as\nhe that serveth.--And I dispose unto you as My Father disposed unto\nMe, a kingdom.\" Here our Lord sets Himself before His Apostles as\nthe exemplar both of the rule which the superior was to exercise,\nand of the temper and character which he was to shew. As He had been\nspeaking of the kingdoms of the Gentiles, so He now points out to\nthem in contrast the true kingdom which He was disposing unto them.\nThe Church as it had been from the beginning, was to be the model of\nwhat it should be to the end. Now all confess that in that Church\nChrist had held the place of \"the First,\" \"the Great one,\" \"the\nRuler.\" And now He explains that one of His Apostles should occupy\nthat place of His, and occupying it should be of a like temper with\nHimself, who had been the minister and servant of all. And it may be\nremarked that the same word is here applied to him who should _rule_\namong the disciples, which expresses the dignity of Christ Himself\nin the prophecy of Micah, quoted in Matt. ii. 6, \"Out of thee shall\ngo forth[21] _the ruler_, who shall be shepherd over my people\nIsrael.\" For Christ says, \"He that is the greater among you let him\nbe as the younger; and _he that ruleth_ as he that serveth. _For_,\nwho is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he who serveth? But I am\namong you as he that serveth.\" \"I dispose to you a kingdom: as My\nFather disposed to Me:\" let him who follows Me in place, follow Me\nin character.\n\nBut, 4, what does our Lord censure and reject from His Church? It is\nplain that He compares kingdom with kingdom, and the kingdom of\nheaven, which is the Church, with human kingdoms, and, moreover,\nthat the negative quality as to which, in the clause, \"But you not\nso,\" the two are compared, is, _not_ the fact that there is\npre-eminence and rule in both, but a certain _mode_ of exercising\nthem. This is, the pomp and ambition expressed in the words,\n\"lording it,\" \"exercising authority,\" \"are called benificent.\" As\nagain is shewn in the repeated declaration that what had been most\nalien from the spirit of His own ministry, should not appear in the\nministry that He would establish after Him. Now He had shown no pomp\nand pride of dominion, but yet He had shown the dominion itself in\nthe fullest sense, the power of passing laws, enjoining precepts,\ndefining rites, threatening punishments, governing, in fine, His\nChurch, so that He had been pre-eminently \"the Lord.\" Lastly, this\nis shown in the words recorded by S. John, as said shortly after on\nthis same occasion. \"You call Me Master and Lord, and you say well,\nfor so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet,\nyou also ought to wash one another's feet: _for I have given you an\nexample_, that as I have done unto you, so you also may do.\"[22]\n\nNow nothing can show more strongly than this discourse the\npre-eminence and authority which our Lord was going to establish in\none of His Apostles over the rest. For here we have His intention\ndisclosed that in His kingdom, which is the Church's, some one there\nshould be \"the Great,\" \"the First,\" and \"the Ruler,\" who should\ndischarge, in due proportion and analogy, the office which He\nHimself, before He returned to the Father, had held. But before we\nconsider further who this one was, let us look at the subject from a\nsomewhat different point of view.\n\nAnd [23]here we must lay down three points, the _first_ of which is,\nthat our Lord, during His life on earth, had acted in two\ncapacities, the one, as the Author and Founder, the other, as the\nHead and Supreme Ruler of His Church. His functions in the former\ncapacity are too plain to need enlarging upon. He disclosed the\nobjects of our faith: He instituted rites and sacraments: He\nprovided by the establishment of a ministry for the perpetual growth\nand duration of the Church. It was in this sense that He spoke of\nHimself to His apostles, as \"the Master,\" who could share His\nprerogatives with no one: \"But be not you called Rabbi, for one is\nyour Master, and all you are brethren.\"[24] Thus is He, \"the\nTeacher,\" \"the Master,\" throughout the Gospel.\n\nBut He likewise acted as the Head of His Church, with the dignity\nand authority of the chief visible Ruler. He was the living bond of\nHis disciples: the person around whom they grouped: whose presence\nwrought harmony: whose voice terminated contention among them: who\nwas ever at hand to solve emergent difficulties. Thus it is that\nprophecy distinguished Him as \"the Lord,\" \"the King,\" \"the\nShepherd;\" \"on whose shoulders is the government,\" \"who should\n_rule_ His people, Israel.\" And His Church answers to Him in this\ncapacity, as the family, the house, the city, the fold, and the\nkingdom.\n\nThus His relation to the Church was twofold, as Founder, and as\nSupreme Pastor.\n\n_Secondly_, the Church shares her Lord's prerogative of\nunchangeableness, and as He is \"Jesus Christ the same yesterday,\nto-day, and for ever,\" so She, His mystical Body, in her proportion,\nremains like herself from the beginning to the end. The Church and\nChristianity are bound to each other in a mutual relation; the\nChurch is Christianity embodied; Christianity is the Church in\nconception: the consistency and identity which belong to\nChristianity belong likewise to her; neither can change their\nnature, nor put on another form.\n\nBut, _thirdly_, the Church would be unlike herself, if, having been\nfrom her very cradle visibly administered by the rule of One, she\nfell subsequently, either under no rule at all, according to the\ndoctrine of the Independents, or under the rule of the multitude,\naccording to the Calvinists, or under the rule of an aristocracy, as\nEpiscopalians imagine. A change of government superinduces a change\nof that substantial form which constitutes a society. But this holds\nin her case especially, above all other societies, as she came forth\nfrom the creative hand of her Lord, her whole organization instinct\nwith inward life, her government _directly_ instituted by God\nHimself, in which lies her point of distinction from all temporal\npolities.\n\nFor imagine, that upon our Lord's departure, no one had been deputed\nto take the visible headship and rule over the Church. How, without\never fresh revelations, and an abiding miraculous power, could that\ncomplex unity of faith, of worship, and of polity, have been\nmaintained, which the[25] Lord has set forth as the very sign and\ntoken of His Church? A multitude scattered throughout the most\ndistant regions, and naturally differing in race, in habits, in\ntemperament, how could it possibly be joined in one, and remain one,\nwithout a powerful bond of unity? Hence, in the fourth century, S.\nJerome[26] observed, \"The safety of the Church depends on the\ndignity of the supreme Priest, in whom, if all do not recognise a\npeculiar and supereminent power, there will arise as many schisms in\nthe Church as there are priests.\" And the repentant confessors out\nof Novatian's schism, in the middle of the third century, \"We know\nthat Cornelius (the Pope) has been elected Bishop of the most holy\nCatholic Church, by Almighty God, and Christ our Lord.--We are not\nignorant that there is one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we\nconfessed, one Holy Spirit, and that there ought to be one bishop\nin the Catholic Church.\"[27] And these words, both of S. Jerome, and\nof the confessors, if they primarily apply to the diocesan bishop\namong his priests and people, so do they with far greater force\napply to the chief bishop among his brethren in the whole Church.\nNow, as our Lord willed that His Church should do without fresh\nrevelations, and new miracles, such as at first accredited it, and\nthat it should preserve unity; and as, when it was a little flock,\nwhich could be assembled in a single room, it had yet one visible\nRuler, how can we doubt that He willed this form of government to\nremain, and that there should be one perpetually to rule it in His\nname, and preserve it in unity, since it was to become co-extensive\nwith the earth?\n\nAgain, we may ask, was the condition of fold, house, family, city,\nand kingdom, so repeatedly set forth in Holy Scripture, to belong to\nthe Church only while Christ was yet on earth, or to be the visible\nevidence of its truth for ever? Do these terms exhibit a temporary,\nor a perpetual state? Each one of these symbols by itself, and all\ntogether, involve one visible Ruler: therefore, so long as the\nChurch can be called with truth, the one house, the one family, the\none city, the one fold, the one kingdom, so long must it have one\nvisible and supreme Ruler.\n\nBut once grant that such a one there was after our Lord's departure,\nand no one can doubt that one to have been Peter. It is easier to\ndeny the supreme Ruler altogether, than to make him any one but\nPeter. The whole course of the Gospels shows none other marked out\nby so many distinctions. Thus, even those who wish to refuse a real\npower to his Primacy, are compelled by the force of evidence to\nallow him a Primacy of order and honour.\n\nBut nothing did our Lord more pointedly reject than the vain pomp of\ntitles and honours. In nothing is His own example more marked than\nin that He exercised real power and supreme authority without pomp\nor show. Nothing did He enjoin more emphatically on the disciple who\nshould be the \"Great one,\" and \"the Ruler,\" among his brethren, than\nthat he must follow his Master in being the servant of all. A\nPrimacy, then, consisting in titles and mere precedency, is of all\nthings most opposed to the spirit and the precepts of our Lord. And\nso the Primacy which He designated must be one of real power and\npre-eminent authority.\n\nAnd this brings us back to the passage of S. Luke which we were\nconsidering, where four things prove that Christ had such a headship\nin view. First, the occasion, for the Apostles were contending for a\nplace of real authority. The sons of Zebedy expressed it by sitting\non His right hand and on His left, that is, holding the second and\nthe third place of dignity in the kingdom.\n\nSecondly, the double comparison which our Lord used, the one\nnegative, the other affirmative: in the former, contrasting the\nChurch's ruler with the kings of the Gentiles, He excluded pomp and\nsplendour, lordship and ambition; in the latter, referring him to\nHis own example, who had the most real and true power and\nsuperiority, He taught him to unite these with a meekness and an\nattention to the wants of his brethren, of which His own life had\nbeen the model.\n\nThirdly, the words \"the First,\" \"the Greater,\" and \"the Ruler,\"\nindicate the pre-eminence of the future head, for as they appear in\nthe context, and according to their Scriptural force, they indicate\nnot a vain and honorary, but a real authority, one of them being\neven the very title given to our Lord.\n\nAnd, fourthly, this is proved by the object in view, which is,\nmaintaining the identity of the Church, and the form which it had\nfrom the beginning, and preserving its manifold unity. As to its\nidentity, and original form, it is needless to observe that Christ\nexercised in it not an honorary but a real supremacy, so that under\nHim its government was really in the hands of one, the Ruler. As to\nthe preservation of its unity--and especially a unity so\ncomplex--the very analogy of human society will sufficiently teach\nus that it is impossible to be preserved without a strong central\nauthority. Contentions can neither be checked as they arise, nor\nterminated when they come to a head, without the interference of a\npower to which all yield obedience. And the living example of those\nreligious societies which have not this power is an argument whose\nforce none can resist. Where Peter is not, there is neither unity of\nfaith, nor of charity, nor of external regimen.\n\nNo sooner [28]then had our Lord in this manner pointed out that\nthere should be one hereafter to take His place on earth and to be\nthe Ruler of his brethren, expressing at the same time the toilsome\nnature of the trust, and the duty of exercising it with the spirit\nwhich He, the great model, had shown, than turning His discourse\nfrom the Apostles, whom hitherto He had addressed in common, to\nPeter singly, He proceeded to designate Peter as that one, to assure\nhim of a singular privilege, and to enforce upon him a proportionate\nduty.\n\nAnd first a break in the hitherto continuous discourse is ushered in\nby the words, \"And the Lord said,\" and what follows is fixed to\nPeter specially, by the reiteration of his name, \"Simon, Simon,\nbehold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as\nwheat:\" to have _you_, that is not Peter alone, but all the\nApostles, the same you, whom in the preceding verses He had so often\nrepeated, \"you not so,\" \"but I am in the midst of you,\" \"but you are\nthey that have continued with Me,\" \"and I dispose to you a kingdom,\"\n\"that you may eat and drink with Me;\" and what follows? What was the\nresource provided by the Lord against this attack of the great enemy\non all His fold? \"But I have prayed for _thee_, that _thy_ faith\nfail not: and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren.\" Not\n\"I have prayed for _you_,\" where all were assaulted, \"that _your_\nfaith fail not,\" but I have prayed for _thee_, Peter, that _thy_\nfaith fail not! Nothing can be more emphatic than this change of\nnumber, when our Lord throughout all His previous discourse had used\nthe plural, and now continuing the plural to designate the persons\nattacked, uses the singular to specify the person for whom He has\nprayed, and to whom He assures a singular privilege, the fruit of\nthat prayer. Nothing could more strongly prove that this address was\nspecial to Peter.\n\nNor less evident is the singular dignity of what is here promised to\nhim. First of all, it is the fruit of the prayer of Christ. Of what\nimportance must that be which was solicited by our Lord of His\nFather, and at a moment when the redemption of the world was being\naccomplished, and when His passion may be said to have begun? Of\nwhat importance that which was to be the defence of not Peter only,\nbut all the disciples, against the most formidable assault of the\ngreat enemy, who had[29] demanded them as it were to deliver them\nover to punishment? And this was \"that thy faith fail not.\" How is\nit possible to draw any other conclusion here than what S. Leo in\nthe fifth century expressed so clearly before all the bishops of\nItaly? \"The danger from the temptation of fear was common to all the\nApostles, and all equally needed the help of the divine protection,\nsince the devil desired to dismay all, to crush all; and yet a\nspecial care of Peter is undertaken by our Lord, and He prays\npeculiarly for the faith of Peter, as if the state of the rest would\nbe more sure, if the mind of their chief were not conquered. In\nPeter, therefore, the fortitude of all is protected, and the help of\ndivine grace is so ordered, that the firmness which through Christ\nis given to Peter, through Peter is conferred on the Apostles.\"[30]\nAnd if such is the importance of the help secured, no less is the\ncharge following: \"And thou, being once converted, confirm thy\nbrethren.\" To confirm others, is to be put in an office of dignity\nand authority over them. And his brethren were those whom our Lord\ntill now had been addressing in common with him; to whom He had just\ndisclosed \"a Greater\" and \"a Ruler\" \"among\" them; that is, the\nApostles themselves. Among these, then, when our Lord's visible\npresence was withdrawn, Peter was to be the principle of stability,\nbinding and moulding them into one building. For one cannot fail to\nsee how this great promise and prophecy answer to those in Matthew.\nThere our Lord, as Architect, promised to lay Peter as the\nfoundation of the Church, against which the gates of hell should not\nprevail: here, being about to leave the world, when His own work was\nfinished, to ascend unto His Father, and to assume His great power\nand reign, He makes Peter as it were the Architect to carry on the\nwork which was to be completed by _His_ grace and authority, but by\nhuman co-operation. So exact is the resemblance that we may put the\ntwo promises in parallel columns to illustrate each other:\n\n    Thou art Peter, and upon           But I have prayed for\n    this Rock I will build My          thee that thy faith fail not;\n    Church; and the gates of hell      and thou, being once converted,\n    shall not prevail against it.      confirm thy brethren.\n\nBut light is thrown on the greatness of this pre-eminence thus\nbestowed on Peter of confirming his brethren, if we consider that\nthe term is applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as\nbestowing by inherent power what is here granted by participation.\nOf the Father it is said, \"To Him that is able to _establish_ you\naccording to my Gospel--the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be\nhonour and glory.\" And again, \"Now He that _confirmeth us_ with you\nin Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God;\" and again, \"The God\nof all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory in Christ\nJesus, after you have suffered a little, will Himself perfect you,\n_confirm_, establish you.\"[31] Of Christ likewise: \"As therefore you\nhave received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in Him, rooted and\nbuilt up in Him, and _confirmed_ in the faith.\" And \"waiting for the\nmanifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who also will _confirm_ you\nunto the end without crime.\" And again: \"Now our Lord Jesus Christ\nHimself exhort your hearts, and _confirm_ you in every good word and\nwork.\"[32] And the Holy Spirit is continually mentioned as the\nauthor of this gift, when, for instance, to Him is ascribed \"the\nteaching all truth,\" \"the leading into all truth,\" \"the bringing to\nmind\" all things which Christ had said. And S. Paul prays \"that He\nwould grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be\n_strengthened_ by His Spirit with might unto the inward man.\"[33]\n\nWhat, therefore, is proper to the most Holy Trinity, and given in\nthe highest sense by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it was\nthe will of Christ should be shared by Peter, according as man is\ncapable of it. That is, it was His pleasure that the same man, whom\nHe had intimately associated with Himself by communicating to him\nHis prerogative to be the Rock, should be closely joined with the\nBlessed Trinity by participating in that privilege, whereby,\ntogether with the Father and the Holy Spirit, He is the confirmation\nand stability of the faithful. But if any rule there can be whereby\nto measure pre-eminence and dignity, it is surely that which is\nderived from participation of divine properties and offices. And the\ncloser that by these Peter is shown to have approached to God, the\nhigher his exaltation above the rest of his brethren, who, as it has\nbeen observed, are the Apostles. To them he is the Rock, and them he\nis to confirm. Thus Theophylact, in the eleventh century, commenting\non this text, says: \"The plain meaning of this is, that, since I\nhold thee as the ruler of My disciples, after thou shalt have wept\nover thy denial and repented, confirm the rest. For this belongs to\nthee as being after Me the rock and support\" (literally,\nconfirmation) \"of the Church. Now one may see that this is said not\nonly of the apostles, that they are confirmed by Peter, but also\nconcerning all the faithful until the consummation of the world.\"\n\nBut looking more closely into the nature of this dignity, since\nChrist, by the bestowal of heavenly gifts, caused Peter to be\nconspicuous through the firmness of his own faith, and through the\ncharge of confirming the faith of his brethren, we can call it by no\nfitter name than a Primacy of faith. For it has these two\nqualities: it cannot fail itself; and it confirms others. And for\nthe authority which it carries, such a Primacy of faith cannot even\nbe imagined without at the same time imagining the office by which\nPeter was bound to watch over the firmness and integrity of the\ncommon faith. In this office two things are involved; first, the\nright to, and therefore the possession of, all things necessary for\nits fulfilment; and secondly, the duty by which all were bound to\nagree in the profession of one faith with Peter. So that Peter's\ndignity, rightly termed the Primacy of faith, mainly consists in the\nsupreme right of demanding from all an agreement in faith with him.\n\nIt[34] remains to explain the proper force of the word _confirm_.\nNow this is a term of architecture, and as such is joined with other\nterms relating to that art, as by S. Peter, \"the God of all\ngrace--Himself fit you together\" (as living spiritual stones,)\n\"confirm, strengthen, ground you.\"[35] It means, to make anything\nfit so firmly that it cannot be shaken. Thus in Holy Writ it\nfrequently bears metaphorically a moral signification, such as\nencouraging, supporting, as we say, confirming the resolution, as in\nthe passage just quoted; and again, \"Be watchful, and _confirm_ the\nthings that remain, which are ready to die.\"[36] Now it cannot be\ndoubted that the phrase \"confirm thy brethren,\" carries a moral\nsense very like that in which the word _confirm_, when applied to\nthe spiritual building of the Church, is used of God and of\nChrist,[37] from whom the Church has both its being and its\nperseverance to the end, and again of the Apostles, who strengthen\nthe flock entrusted to them by the imparting spiritual gifts, as S.\nPaul says, \"I long to see you that I may impart unto you some\nspiritual grace to strengthen you;\"[38] or, again, of Bishops, who,\nas sent by the Apostles, and charged by the Holy Spirit with the\ngovernment of the Church, are bid to be watchful, and see that those\nwho stand do not fall, and those who are in danger do not\nperish.[39] Accordingly, when it is said to Peter, \"And thou in thy\nturn one day confirm thy brethren,\" _the charge and office are laid\nupon him, as an architect divinely chosen, of holding together,\nstrengthening, and keeping in their place, the several parts of the\necclesiastical structure_.\n\nBut what are these _parts_ to be confirmed, and what is the _nature_\nof the confirmation?\n\nAs to the first question there can be no controversy, it being\ndetermined by the words, \"confirm _thy brethren_:\" and it is plain\nfrom what is said above, that, by brethren, are meant the Apostles.\nHe had, therefore, the Apostles committed to his charge\n_immediately_: but likewise, the rest of all the faithful,\n_mediately_. When a person has been named by Christ to confirm the\nApostles expressly, the nature of the case does not allow that the\nwhole congregation of believers be not in their persons committed to\nhim. The care of the flock is manifestly involved in the care of the\nshepherds: and no one in his senses can doubt that the man who is\ncharged to support the pillars, is charged to keep in their place\nthe inferior stones.\n\nAnd as to the _nature_ of the confirmation, it is for protection\nagainst the fraud of the great enemy. And the danger lay in losing\nthe faith. Peter, then, is charged to confirm, in such sense that\nneither the pillars of the Church, nor its inferior parts, may, by\nthe loss of faith, be moved from their place, and so severed from\nthe Church's structure. No charge can be higher than such an office\nof confirmation; nor for any thing need we to be more thankful to\nour Saviour; but, particularly, nothing can more distinctly shew the\ndivinely-appointed relation between Peter on the one hand, and on\nthe other, the rest of the Apostles, and the whole company of the\nfaithful; nothing define more clearly the special authority of\nPeter; that is, to protect and strengthen the unity of the faith,\nand to possess all powers needed for such protection.\n\nThis charge was given after that by the prayer of Christ the\nprivilege had been gained for Peter's faith, _that it should never\nfail_. Hence, that faith is become, in virtue of such prayer, the\ninfallible standard of evangelical truth: as S. Cyprian expressed it\nof old, \"that faith of the Romans, which perfidy _cannot_\napproach.\"[40] It follows that all the faithful owe to it obedience.\nAnd Peter's authority rests on a double title, _external_ of\nmission, _internal_ of spiritual gift: the former contained in the\nwords of Christ the legislator, \"And thou,[41] in thy turn, one day\nconfirm thy brethren:\" the latter, in the words of Christ, the\nbestower of all gifts, \"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith\nfail not.\"\n\nMore than a thousand years ago two Easterns seem to have expressed\nall this, one the Bishop Stephen, suppliantly approaching Pope\nMartin I., in the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649, and speaking of \"the\nblessed Peter, in a manner special and peculiar to himself, having\nabove all a firm and immutable faith in our Lord God, to consider\nwith compassion, and confirm his spiritual partners and brethren\nwhen tossed by doubt: inasmuch as he has received power and\nsacerdotal authority, according to the dispensation, over all, from\nthe very God for our sakes incarnate.\"[42] And Theodore, Abbot of\nthe Studium, at Constantinople, addressing Pope Paschal I., A.D.\n817, in the midst of persecution from the state, as if he were Peter\nhimself: \"Hear, O Apostolic Head, O shepherd of the sheep of Christ,\nset over them by God, O door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, O rock\nof the faith, upon which the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art\nthou, who adornest and governest the See of Peter. To thee, said\nChrist our God, 'and thou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy\nbrethren.' Behold the time, behold the place, help us, thou who art\nordained by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand as far as may be:\npower thou hast from God, because thou art the chief of all.\"[43]\n\nNow let us[44] view in its connexion the whole scope of our Lord's\ndiscourse. We shall see how naturally the contest of the Apostles\narose out of what He had told them, and how well the former and the\nlatter part of His answer harmonize together, and terminate that\ncontest. We learn from S. John's record of this divine conversation,\nthat our Lord besought His Father, saying: \"While I was with them in\nthe world, I kept them in Thy name--but now I come to Thee:\" that\nis, so long as I was with them visibly in the world, (for invisibly\nI will always be with them, and nurture them with the spiritual\ninflux of the Vine,) I kept them united in Thy name: \"but now I come\nto Thee,\" I leave the world, I relinquish the office of visible\nhead. It remains, that by the appointment of another visible head,\nThou shouldst entrust him with My office, provide for the\nconspicuous unity of all, and preserve them joined to each other and\nto Us. So S. Luke tells us, that no sooner had our Lord declared to\nthe Apostles, \"the Son of man indeed goeth according to that which\nis determined,\" than they began to have a strife among them, \"which\nof them should seem to be the greater.\" For they had heard that\nChrist would withdraw His visible presence, and they had heard Him\nalso earnestly entreating of the Father to provide for their visible\nunity. Accordingly, the time seemed at hand when another was to take\nthis office of visible head; hence their questioning, who should be\nthe greater among them. Now our Lord does not reprove this inference\nof theirs, but He does reprove the temper in which they were\ncoveting pre-eminence. For, engaged as they were in this strife, He\nwarned them that the person who should be \"the Greater and the\nRuler\" among them, must follow in the discharge of his office the\nrule and the standard which _He_ had set up in His own conduct, and\nnot that which the kings of the Gentiles follow. Thus, setting these\nin sharp contrast, He proceeds. \"The kings, indeed, of the nations,\nlord it over their subjects, and love high titles, and to be called\nbenefactors: but I, though Lord and Master amongst you, have dealt\notherwise, as you know. For I have exercised, not a lordship, but a\nservitude: I have not sat at table, but waited: I have not cared for\ntitles, but called you friends and brethren. Let this example then\nbe before you all, but specially before him who is to be the greater\nand the ruler among you. For I appoint unto you, and dispose of you,\nas My Father hath disposed of Me; of Me He hath disposed that\nthrough humiliation, emptying of Myself, ignominy, and manifold\ntemptations, I should gain the kingdom, reach the joys of heaven,\nand obtain all power in heaven and on earth. So likewise dispose I\nof you, that, through humility, sufferings, reproaches, hunger,\nthirst, and all manner of temptations, you may reach whither I have\ncome, being worthy, after your hunger and your thirst, to eat and\ndrink at My table in My kingdom; after being despised and\ndishonoured, to sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\nNow, hitherto you have trodden with Me this royal way full of\nsorrows, and have continued with Me in My temptations. But little\nwill it profit to begin, if you persevere not to the end. None shall\nbe crowned, save he who has contended lawfully; none be saved, but\nhe who perseveres to the end. Will you remain with Me still in your\ntemptations to come, and when I am no longer present with you visibly,\nto protect and exhort, will you preserve your steadfastness? Simon,\nSimon, behold! I see Satan exerting all his force to overcome your\npurpose, and to destroy the fidelity which you have hitherto shewn Me.\nI see the danger to your faith and your salvation approaching. But I,\nwho, when visibly present with you, left nothing undone to guard,\nprotect, and strengthen you visibly, so, too, when separated from\nyour bodily sight, will yet not leave you without a visible support.\nWherefore, Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thou fail not, and\nthou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy brethren. Remember that thou\nhast to discharge that part visibly towards thy brethren, which I,\nwhile yet mortal, and visible, discharged: remember, that I\ntherefore had special care of thee, because it was My will, that\nthou, confirmed by My prayers, shouldst confirm thy brethren, My\ndisciples, and My friends.\"[45]\n\nNow from[46] what has been said, it appears that Peter in Holy\nScripture is set forth as the source and principle of ecclesiastical\nunity under a double but cognate image, as Foundation, and as\nConfirmer. Of the former we will here say nothing further, but a few\nconsequences of the latter it is desirable here to group together.\nI. The unity, then, which consists in the profession of one and the\nsame faith, is conspicuous among those[47] modes of unity by which\nChrist has willed that His Church should be distinguished. Now,\nfirst, S. Paul declares that the whole ministerial hierarchy, from\nthe Apostolate downwards, was instituted by our Lord, for the sake\nof obtaining and preserving this unity. \"He gave some Apostles, and\nsome Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some pastors\nand doctors, for the perfecting\" (literally, the fitting in\ntogether, the same word which S. Peter had used in his prayer, ch.\nv. 10,) \"of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the\nedifying of the body of Christ; until we all meet into the unity of\nfaith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,\nunto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ.\"[48] To this\nliving hierarchy he expressly attributes preservation from doctrinal\nerror, proceeding thus: \"That henceforth we be no more children\ntossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by\nthe wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in\nwait to deceive.\" And, secondly, this hierarchy itself was knitted\nand gathered up into a monarchy, and its whole force and solidity\nmade to depend on association with Peter, to whom _alone_ was said,\n\"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not;\" to whom alone\nwas enjoined, \"And thou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy brethren.\"\n\nII. Accordingly the pre-eminence of Peter is well expressed by the\nwords,[49] \"Primacy of faith,\" \"chiefship of faith,\" \"chiefship in\nthe episcopate of faith,\" meaning thereby a peculiar authority to\nprescribe the faith, and determine its profession, and so protect\nits unity and purity. This is conveyed in the words of Christ,\nconfirm thy brethren. Thus[50] S. Bernard addressed Innocent II.,\n\"All emergent dangers and scandals in the kingdom of God, specially\nthose which concern the faith, are to be referred to your\nApostolate. For I conceive that we should look especially for\nreparation of the faith to the spot where faith _cannot_[51] fail.\nThat indeed is the prerogative of this see. For to whom else was it\nonce said, 'I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not?'\nTherefore what follows is required of Peter's successor: 'And thou\nin thy turn one day confirm thy brethren.' And this is now\nnecessary. It is time for you, most loving father, to recognise your\nchiefship, to approve your zeal, and so make your ministry honoured.\nIn that you clearly fulfil the part of Peter, whose seat you occupy,\nif by your admonition you confirm hearts fluctuating in faith, if by\nyour authority you crush those who corrupt it.\"\n\nIII. All who have received the ministry of the word, and the charge\nof defending the faith and preserving unity, and are \"ambassadors in\nChrist's name,\" have a claim to be listened to, but he above all who\nholds the chiefship of faith, and who received the charge, \"Confirm\nthy brethren.\" He therefore must be the supreme standard of faith,\nwhich is just what S. Peter Chrysologus, in the fifth century, wrote\nto Eutyches: \"We exhort you in all things, honourable brother, to\npay obedience to what is written by the most blessed Pope of the\nRoman city; for S. Peter, who both lives and rules in his own see,\ngrants to those who ask for it the truth of faith.\"[52]\n\nIV. And in this prerogative of Peter, to be heard above all others,\nwe find the meaning of certain ancient expressions. Thus\n[53]Prudentius calls him, \"the first disciple of God;\" [54]S.\nAugustine, \"the figure of the Church;\" [55]S. Chrysostome, \"the\nmouthpiece of the disciples, and teacher of the world;\" [56]S.\nEphrem Syrus, \"the candle, the tongue of the disciples, and the\nvoice of preachers;\" [57]S. Cyril of Jerusalem, \"the prince of the\nApostles, and the highest preacher of the truth.\" In these and such\nlike continually recurring expressions we recognise his chiefship in\nthe episcopate of faith, his being the standard of faith, and his\nrepresenting the Catholic faith, as the branches are gathered up in\nthe root, and the streamlets in the fountain.\n\nV. Our [58]Lord has most solemnly declared, and S. Paul repeated,\nthat no one shall be saved without maintaining the true and\nuncorrupt faith. Of this Peter's faith is the standard and exemplar.\nAccordingly by the law of Christ unity with the faith of Peter is\nnecessary to salvation. This law our Lord set forth in the words,\n\"Confirm thy brethren.\" And to this the Fathers in their expressions\nabove quoted allude.\n\nVI. The true faith and the true Church are so indivisibly united,\nthat they cannot even be conceived apart from each other, faith\nbeing to the Church as light to the sun. But the true faith neither\nis, nor can be, other than that which Peter, \"the first disciple of\nGod,\" \"the teacher of the world,\" \"the mouthpiece of the disciples,\"\nand \"the confirmer of his brethren,\" holds and proposes to others.\nNo communion, therefore, called after Christ, which yet differs from\nthat faith, can claim either the name or dignity of the true Church.\n\nVII. If any knowledge have a special value, it is surely that by\nwhich we have a safe and ready test of the true faith and the true\nChurch. It is of the utmost necessity to know and embrace both, and\nthe means of reaching them are proportionably valuable. Now that\ntest abides in Peter, by keeping which before us we can neither miss\nthe true faith nor the true Church. For no other true faith can\nthere be than that which he delivers, who received the charge of\nconfirming his brethren, nor other true Church than what Christ\nbuilt, and is building still. Hence the expression of S.\nAmbrose,[59] \"where Peter is, there is the Church;\" and of\nStephen[60] of Larissa, to Pope Boniface II. (A.D. 530.) \"that all\nthe churches of the world rest in the confession of Peter.\"\n\nVIII. With all these agrees that famous and most early testimony of\nS. Cyprian,[61] that men \"fall away from the Church into heresy and\nschism so long as there is no regard _to the source of truth, no\nlooking to the head_, nor keeping to the doctrine of our heavenly\nMaster. If any one consider and weigh this, he will not need length\nof comment or argument. It is easy to offer proofs to a faithful\nmind, because in that case the truth may be quickly stated.\" And\nthen he quotes our Lord's words to Peter, Matt. xvi. 16, and John\nxxi. 17, adding, \"upon him being one He builds His Church.\"\nTherefore that Church can neither be torn from the one on whom she\nis built, nor profess any other faith, save what that one, who is\nPeter, proposes.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Passaglia, p. 68.\n\n[2] Eph. i. 10.\n\n[3] 2 Pet. i. 14.\n\n[4] Passaglia, p. 69.\n\n[5] 1 John v. 6, 7.\n\n[6] Luke ix. 32.\n\n[7] Matt. xxviii. 36.\n\n[8] Mark v. 35.\n\n[9] Passaglia, p. 72.\n\n[10] Matt. xvii. 23.\n\n[11] On Matt. Hom. 58, n. 2.\n\n[12] Origen on the text, in Matt. Tom. xiii. 14.\n\n[13] S. Chrysostome on the text, Hom. 58, Tom. 7, p. 587.\n\n[14] Passaglia, p. 77, note 38.\n\n[15] Luke xviii. 34.\n\n[16] Passaglia, p. 78.\n\n[17] Matt. xviii. 2.\n\n[18] Luke xxii. 25.\n\n[19] Passaglia, p. 77.\n\n[20] Matt, xx. 20.\n\n[21] Hegoumenos.\n\n[22] John xiii. 13.\n\n[23] Passaglia, p. 82.\n\n[24] Matt. xxiii. 8.\n\n[25] John chps. x., xiii., xvii.\n\n[26] Dialog. cont. Lucif. n. 9.\n\n[27] St. Cyprian, Ep. 46.\n\n[28] Passaglia, p. 89.\n\n[29] Exetesato. The word in classic Greek has this force.\n\n[30] Serm. 4, c. 3.\n\n[31] Rom. xvi. 25; 2 Cor. i. 21; 1 Pet v. 10.\n\n[32] Col. ii. 6; 1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. ii. 16.\n\n[33] John xvi. 13; xiv. 16, 26; Eph. iii. 16.\n\n[34] Passaglia, p. 563.\n\n[35] 1 Pet. v. 10.\n\n[36] Apoc. iii. 2.\n\n[37] Rom. xvi. 25; 1 Thess. iii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 17; 1 Pet. v. 10.\n\n[38] Rom. i. 11.\n\n[39] Apoc. iii. 2.\n\n[40] S. Cyprian, Ep. 55.\n\n[41] As far as the _words_ by themselves go, it is the opinion of\nthe best commentators that they may be equally well rendered, \"And\nthou, when thou art converted,\" or, \"And thou, in thy turn, one\nday,\" &c. But as it is impossible to bring a discussion turning on a\nHebrew idiom conveyed in a Greek word before the English reader, we\nmust here restrict ourselves to the proof arising from the _sense_\nand _context_. And here one thing alone, among several which may be\nurged, is sufficient to prove that the sense preferred in the text,\n\"And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren,\" is the true\none. For the other rendering supposes that the time of Peter's\nconversion would also be the time of his confirming his brethren;\nwhereas this was far otherwise. He was converted by our Lord looking\non him that same night shortly after his denial, and \"immediately\nwent out and wept bitterly.\" But he did not succeed to the charge of\nconfirming his brethren till after our Lord's ascension. It must be\nadded that the collocation of the original words kai su pote\nepistrepsas sterixon is such as absolutely to require that the\njoint action indicated by them should belong to the same time, and\nthat an _indefinite_ time expressed by pote. Now this would\nbe false according to the rendering, \"And thou, when thou art\nconverted, confirm thy brethren,\" for the conversion was immediate\nand definite, the confirmation distant and indefinite; whereas it\nexactly agrees with the rendering, \"And thou in thy turn one day\nconfirm thy brethren.\"\n\nThose who wish to see the whole controversy admirably drawn out may\nfind it in Passaglia, b. 2, ch. 13.\n\n[42] Mansi. Concilia, x. 894.\n\n[43] Baronius, Annal. A.D., 817, xxi.\n\n[44] Passaglia, p. 545.\n\n[45] Passaglia, p. 547.\n\n[46] Passaglia, p. 571.\n\n[47] For which see hereafter, ch. 7.\n\n[48] Eph. iv. 11.\n\n[49] Petrus uti audivit, vos autem quid me dicitis? _Statim loci non\nimmemor sui, primatum egit_; primatum confessionis utique, non\nhonoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis. Ambros. de Incarn. c. 4, n.\n32, Tom. 2, p. 710.\n\n[50] Ep. 190, vol. 1, p. 649.\n\n[51] Observe the exact identity with S. Cyprian's expression nine\nhundred years earlier, quoted p. 55.\n\n[52] Twenty-fifth letter among those of St. Leo.\n\n[53] Con. Symmachum, Lib. 2, v. 1.\n\n[54] Sermon 76.\n\n[55] Hom. 88, on John.\n\n[56] Encom. in Petrum et coeteros Apostolos.\n\n[57] Cat. xi. n. 3. ho protosthates ton Apostholon kai tes\nekkleshias koryphaios kheryx.\n\n[58] Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 18; Rom. iii. 3, &c.\n\n[59] Ambros. in Ps. 1. n. 30.\n\n[60] Mansi, Tom. viii. 746.\n\n[61] De unitate Ecclesiae, 3.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE INVESTITURE OF PETER.\n\n\nOur Lord has hitherto, while on earth,[1] ruled as its visible head\nthat body of disciples which He had chosen out of the world, and\nwhich His Father had given Him. And this body He for the first time\ncalled the Church in that famous prophecy[2] wherein He named the\nperson, who, by virtue of an intimate association with Himself, the\nRock, should be its foundation, and the duration of which until the\nconsummation of the world, He pronounced at the same time, in spite\nof all the rage of \"spiritual wickedness in high places\" against it,\nbecause it should be founded upon the rock which He should lay.\n\nSecondly, He had, at that period of His ministry when He thought it\nmeet, the second year, selected out of the rest of His disciples,\nafter ascending into a mountain and continuing the night long in\nprayer, twelve whom He named Apostles--as before and above all sent\nby Him--for \"He called whom He would Himself, and they came to Him,\"\nto whom \"He gave authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out,\nand to heal every disease and every weakness,\" whom He chose also\n\"to be with Him,\" His personal attendants, \"and to send them to\npreach;\" to whom, moreover, He subsequently made a promise that\nwhatever they should bind on earth, should be bound in heaven, and\nwhatever they should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven.[3]\n\nThirdly, as at a certain time in His ministry, that is the second\nyear, He had selected twelve to be nearer His person than the rest\nof His disciples, so at a yet later time, the third year of His\nministry, He had set apart one out of the twelve, to whom from the\nvery first, and before either he, or any one, had been called to be\nan Apostle, or even, as it would seem, a disciple, He had given a\nprophetic name; whom by word and deed, in correspondence with that\nname, He designated to be the future Rock of His Church, to be the\nBearer of the keys, which opened or shut the entrance to His\nmystical Holy City, to be endued with power _singly_ to bind and to\nloose; and whom at last, on the very eve of His being taken away\nfrom His disciples, He pointed out as the future \"First one,\"\n\"Greater one,\" or \"Ruler,\" among them, having, as such, had given to\nhim a _special_ and _singular_ charge, after the departure of the\nHead, to \"confirm his brethren.\"\n\nIt is manifest that this was all which, before His offering Himself\nup for the sin of the world, and the withdrawal of His visible\npresence thereupon ensuing, He could do for the government of His\nChurch. For as long as He was there, the Son of Man among men, seen,\nfelt, touched, and handled, the sacred voice in their ears, and the\ndivine eyes gazing bodily upon them, He was not only the fountain of\nall headship and rule, but He exercised in His own person the\nhighest functions of that headship and visible rule. He daily\nencouraged, warned, corrected, taught, united them; in short, to use\nHis own words, \"while He was with them, He kept them in His Father's\nname.\"[4]\n\nBut now another time, and other dangers were approaching. The sword\nwas drawn which should \"strike the shepherd,\" there was a fear that\n\"the sheep would be scattered,\" not only for a moment, but for ever.\nTo meet this the care of the divine guardian was necessary in a\nfurther disposition of those powers which He received at His\nresurrection from the dead. For henceforth His visits, as of a risen\nKing, were to be few and sudden, when He pleased, and at times they\nexpected not, \"for forty days appearing to them and speaking of the\nkingdom of God,\" and as soon as His final injunctions had been thus\nroyally given, \"the heavens were to receive Him till the time of the\nrestoration of all things.\" The Apostles could no longer \"be with\nHim,\" as before, nor He \"keep them,\" as in the days of His flesh.\n\nHow, then, does He complete the ministerial hierarchy which sprung\nfrom His own divine Person on earth, and which is to rule His Church\nand represent that Person from His first to His second coming?\n\nNow, first, we must remark, that while great care is taken to make\nknown to all the Apostles the resurrection of the Lord, yet a\nspecial solicitude is shown with regard to that one who was to be\n\"the Ruler.\" Thus the angels, announcing the fact to the holy women\nat the sepulchre, \"He is risen, He is not here, behold the place\nwhere they laid Him,\" add, \"but go, tell His disciples _and Peter_,\nthat He goeth before you into Galilee.\"[5] The expression indicates\nhis superior place, as when Peter, himself delivered from prison,\nrecounted to the disciples at the house of Mark his escape, and\nadded, \"Tell these things to James and to the brethren,\" where no\none fails to see the pre-eminence given to James, by such a mention\nof him, that apostle being the Bishop of Jerusalem, and so put over\nthe brethren, and, with himself, one of those who \"seemed to be\npillars.\" Again, to Peter our Lord appeared first among the\nApostles. S. Paul exhibiting a sort of sum of Christian doctrine, as\nhe says \"the Gospel which I preached unto you,\" begins, \"I\ndelivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how\nthat Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that\nHe was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to\nthe Scriptures; and that He was seen by Cephas, and after that by\nthe eleven.\" By him alone, first, then by them in conjunction with\nhim. And further, St. Paul's words seem to express a sort of\ndescending ratio, \"Then was He seen by more than five hundred\nbrethren at once, of whom many remain until this present, and some\nare fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the\nApostles. And last of all He was seen also by me, as by one born out\nof due time. For I am the least of the Apostles.\"[6] And while they\nwere yet in doubt, and for joy could not receive the marvellous\ntidings, when brought by the women, as soon as our Lord appeared to\nPeter, their hesitation was removed, and the two disciples returning\nfrom Emmaus--themselves full of His wonderful conversation with\nthem--\"found the eleven gathered together and those that were with\nthem, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon,\"\nas the Church in her exultation repeats, where philologists tell us\nthat the Greek _and_ bears what is often the Hebrew meaning, and\nsignifies \"for,\" as if no doubt could remain any longer of their\nhappiness, when Peter had become a witness of it.\n\nThese are indications of superiority, slight perhaps in themselves,\nif they stood alone, but not slight as bearing tacit witness to a\nfact otherwise resting on its own explicit evidence. If one of the\nApostles was destined to be the head of the rest, this is what we\nshould have expected to happen to that one, and this did happen to\nPeter, who is elsewhere made the head of the Apostles.\n\nBut now we come to those most important injunctions which our Lord\ngave to His Apostles after His resurrection, concerning the\ngovernment of His Church. And here it becomes necessary to mark with\nthe utmost accuracy what He said and what He gave to all the\nApostles in common, and what to Peter in particular.\n\nFirst of all, then, we may remark our Lord's care to redeem the\npromises which He had made to the Twelve, and to convey to them\ntheir legislative, judicial, and executive powers. These are\nmentioned by each of the four Evangelists, in somewhat different\nterms, but alike involving the distinctive apostolic powers of\nimmediate institution by Christ, and universal mission; as Apostles\nthey are _sent_, and they are sent _by Christ_. The form recorded in\nS. Matthew is, \"All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.\nGo ye, therefore, and make disciples all nations, baptizing them in\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\nteaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;\nand behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the\nworld.\"\n\nThe form of S. Mark is, \"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the\ngospel to every creature.\"\n\nS. Luke refers specially in two passages to the descent of the Holy\nGhost, as being Himself as well the Divine \"Gift,\" and the immediate\nworker of all graces in man, as the principle of the ecclesiastical\nhierarchy. \"And I send the promise of My Father upon you, but stay\nyou in the city till you be endued with power from on high.\" And\nagain, \"Eating together with them, He commanded them that they\nshould not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of\nthe Father, which you have heard,\" saith He, \"by My mouth; for John,\nindeed, baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy\nGhost not many days hence.\" \"You shall receive the power of the Holy\nGhost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in\nJerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost\npart of the earth.\"\n\nThe form recorded by S. John is, \"As the Father hath sent Me, I also\nsend you. When He had said this, He breathed on them; and He said to\nthem, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they\nare forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are\nretained.\"[7]\n\nNow, it may be remarked that these passages of the several\nevangelists are _identical_ in their force; that is, they each\nconvey all those powers which constitute the Apostolate. These are\nreceived by all the Apostles in common, and together; and in the\njoint possession of them consists that _equality_ which is often\nattributed by the ancient writers to the Apostles, as notably by S.\nCyprian, \"He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, 'as\nthe Father sent Me, I also send you.'\" And again, \"Certainly the\nother Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal\nfellowship, both of honour and power.\"[8]\n\nAnd these Apostolic powers, legislative, judicial, and executive,\nare afterwards referred to as exercised; as in Acts ch. xv., where\nthe first council passes decrees which bind the Church, nay, which\ngo forth in the joint name of the Holy Ghost, and the rulers of the\nChurch, \"It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;\"--which\nare delivered by S. Paul to the cities to be kept: Acts xvi. 4--as\nin Acts xx. 28, where bishops are charged to rule the Church, each\nover his flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed him--as in 1 Cor.\nv. 1-5, where S. Paul, \"in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,\"\nexcommunicates--as in 2 Cor. x. 6, where he sets forth his\napostolic power--as in the Epistles to Titus and Timothy, where he\nsets them in authority, enjoins them to ordain priests in every\ncity, and commands them to \"reprove,\" or \"rebuke.\"\n\nAnd all these powers S. Peter, of course, as one of the Twelve, had\nreceived in common with the rest. The limit to them would seem to\nlie in their being shared in common by twelve; as, for instance,\nuniversal mission dwelling in such a body must practically be\ndetermined and limited somehow to the different members of that\nbody, or one would interfere with the other. But there is nothing in\nthese powers which answers to the images of \"the rock,\" on which the\nChurch is built, the single \"bearer of the keys,\" and \"confirmer\" of\nhis brethren, which Christ had appropriated to one Apostle.\n\nIn like manner, then, as our Lord fulfilled His promises to the\nTwelve, so did He those to S. Peter, and we find written the\ncommittal of an authority to him exactly answering to these images;\nan authority, which expresses the full legislative, judicial and\nexecutive power of the head, which can be executed by one alone at a\ntime, and is of its own nature supreme, and responsible to none save\nGod. It remained for our Lord to find an image setting forth all\nthis as decisively as that of the Rock, the Bearer of the keys, and\nthe Confirmer of his brethren.\n\nOnce, as He passed along the shores of the lake of Galilee, He had\nseen two fishermen casting their net into the sea, and had \"said to\nthem, Come after Me, and I will make you fishers of men, and\nimmediately leaving their nets, they followed Him.\" Once again, too,\nHe had gone into the ship of that same fisherman, and sitting,\ntaught the multitudes out of it. And then He bade that fisherman,\n\"who had laboured all the night and taken nothing, to launch out\ninto the deep,\" and in faith, \"let down his nets for a draught,\"\nwhereupon \"he enclosed so great a multitude of fishes that the net\nbrake.\"[9] And, again, in after times, when the fisherman had become\nan Apostle, that same ship waited on His convenience, and carried\nHim across the lake. It was there He was asleep when the storm\nraged, and His disciples in little faith awoke Him, saying, \"Master,\nsave us, we perish,\" not yet knowing that the ship which carried the\nLord might be tost, but could not sink.[10] From it they beheld Him\nwalking on the sea, in the fourth watch of the night, when Peter, in\nhis fervour, desired to join Him, and going to meet his Lord on the\nwaves, his faith failed him, and he began to sink, till the Almighty\nhand supported him, and drew him with it to the ship, which\n\"presently was at the land to which they were going.\"[11] And now,\nPeter, and Thomas, and Nathaniel, and the sons of Zebedy, and two\nothers, were once more on that same ship and sea, but no longer with\nHim who had commanded the winds, and walked on the waves. Once more,\ntoo, they[12] toiled all the night, but \"caught nothing:\" when, lo,\nin the morning light, Jesus stood on the shore, but yet unknown to\nthem, and bade them cast the net on the right side of the ship, \"and\nnow they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.\" Thus\nHe revealed Himself to them, and invited them to eat with Him of the\nfishes which they had caught. \"Then Simon Peter went up, and drew\nthe net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And\nalthough there were so many, the net was not broken:\" for, indeed,\nthat draught of great fishes, gathered by Peter at Christ's command,\nbetokened God's elect, whom the Church is to gather out of the sea\nof this world, who cannot break from the net, which net, therefore,\nPeter drew to land, even the everlasting shore whereon Christ\nwelcomes His own. And after that marvellous banquet of the disciples\nwith their Lord, betokening the never ending marriage feast, wherein\n\"the roasted fish is Christ in His passion,\"[13] our Lord proceeds\nto crown all that series of distinctions, wherewith, since imposing\nthe prophetic name, He had marked out Simon, the son of Jonas, to be\nthe Leader of His disciples; and thus He fulfils by the side of the\nlake of Galilee what He foreshadowed when He first looked upon\nPeter, what He promised in the quarters of Cesarea Philippi, and\nwhat He repeated on the eve of His passion.\n\nIt was His will to appoint one to take His place on earth. Now He\nhad assumed to Himself specially a particular title, under which of\nold time His prophets had foretold His advent among men, and which\nabove all others expressed His tender love for fallen man. It had\nbeen said of Him, \"I will set up one shepherd over them, and He\nshall feed them, even my servant David: He shall feed them, and He\nshall be their shepherd.\" And again: \"Say to the cities of Judah,\nbehold your God.--He shall feed His flock like a shepherd: He shall\ngather together the lambs with His arm, and shall take them up in\nHis bosom, and He Himself shall carry them that are with young.\"\nAnd, once more, in the very prophecy by which the chief priests and\nscribes declared to Herod that He must be born at Bethlehem, \"For\nfrom thee shall go forth the ruler, who shall feed (or shepherd) My\npeople Israel.\" Appropriating these predictions to Himself, the Lord\nhad said: \"I am the good shepherd.[14] The good shepherd giveth His\nlife for His sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this\nfold; them also I must bring; and there shall be one fold and one\nshepherd.\" And now it was His pleasure to give this particular\ntitle, so specially His own, to Peter, and to Peter alone, and to\nPeter in most marked contrast even with the best beloved of His\nother disciples, and to Peter, thrice repeating the charge, and\nvarying the expression of it so as to include the term in its utmost\nforce. \"When, therefore, they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter,\nSimon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith to Him,\nYea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him, Feed My\nlambs. He saith to him again, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He\nsaith to Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to\nhim, Feed My lambs. He saith to him the third time, Simon, son of\nJohn, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He had said to him\nthe third time, lovest thou Me? And he said to Him, Lord, Thou\nknowest all things: Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to him,\nFeed My sheep.\"\n\nOur Lord had before addressed the seven disciples present in common,\n\"Children, have you any meat?\" \"Cast the net, and you shall find.\"\n\"Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.\" \"Come and\ndine.\" But now, turning to one in particular, He singles him out in\nthe most special manner, by his name, by asking of him a love\ngreater than that of any others towards Himself, by conferring on\nhim a charge, which, as we shall see, from its extension excludes\nits being held in joint possession by any other, and by a prophecy\nconcerning the manner of his death, which is wholly particular to\nPeter. If it is possible by any words to convey a power and a charge\nto a particular person, and to exclude the rest of the company from\nthat special power and charge, it is done here.\n\nBut, secondly, it is a charge of a very high and distinguishing\nnature indeed, for our Lord before conferring it demands of Peter,\nas a condition, greater love towards His own person than that felt\nfor Him by any of the Twelve--even by the sons of Zebedy, whom from\ntheir zeal He surnamed Boanerges, sons of thunder--even by the\ndisciple whom He loved, and who lay on His breast at the last\nsupper. What must that charge be, the preliminary condition for\nwhich is a greater love for Jesus than that of the beloved disciple?\nWhat shall be a fitting sequel to \"Simon, son of John, lovest thou\nme _more_ than these?\" What, again, the importance of that office,\nin bestowing which our Lord thrice repeats the condition, and thrice\ninculcates the charge? The words of God are not spoken at random,\nnor His repetitions without effect. What, again, are the _subjects_\nof the charge? They are \"My lambs,\" and \"My sheep,\" that is, the\nfold itself of the Great Shepherd. As He said, \"If I wash thee not,\nthou shalt have no part with Me,\" so those who are not either His\nlambs or His sheep, form no part of His fold. Others, too, in Holy\nWrit, are addressed as shepherds, but with a limitation, as, \"Take\nheed to the whole flock _wherein_ the Holy Ghost hath placed you\nbishops,\" or \"feed the flock of God _which is among you_.\" And, more\nlargely far it was said, \"Go ye, therefore, and make disciples all\nnations;\" and \"Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to\nevery creature.\"[15] But they to whom this was said were yet\nthemselves sheep of the Great Shepherd, and in committing the world\nto them, He did not commit _them_ to each other. Whereas here, they\ntoo, as His sheep, are committed to one, even Peter; and very\nexpressly, in the persons of James and John, and the rest present,\n\"lovest thou Me more than these?\" A particular flock is never\ntermed absolutely and simply \"the flock,\" or \"the flock of God,\" but\n\"the flock _which is among you_,\" \"_in which the Holy Ghost hath\nmade you bishops_.\" And, again, the Apostles are sent in common to\nthe whole world, to preach to all nations, and to form one flock;\nbut they are twelve, and \"power given to several carries its\nrestriction in its division, whilst power given to one alone and\nover all, and without exception, carries with it plenitude, and, not\nhaving to be divided with any other, it has no bounds save those\nwhich its terms convey.\"[16] What are the terms here? \"Feed,\" and\n\"be shepherd over\" or \"rule\" \"My lambs and My sheep.\" The terms have\nno limit, save that of salvation itself. Such, then, are the\n_persons_ indicated as subjects of this charge. But what is the\nnature of the charge? Two different words of unequal extent and\nforce in the original, but both rendered \"feed\" in the translation,\nconvey this. One means \"to give food\" simply, the other, of far\nhigher and nobler reach, embraces every act of care and providence\nin the government of others, under an image the farthest removed\nfrom the spirit of pride and ambition. Such is even its heathen\nmeaning, and the first of poets termed Agamemnon by this word,\n\"Shepherd of the people.\" By this word, S. Paul, and S. Peter[17]\nhimself, express the power of the bishop over his own flock. And so\nour Lord, here instituting the Bishop of Bishops, the one Shepherd\nof the one fold, gives to Peter over all his flock, the very word\ngiven to _Him_ in the famous prophecy, \"Thou, Bethlehem, the land of\nJuda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee\nshall come forth the captain that shall _rule_ My people Israel:\"\nthe very word, which used of Himself in Psalm ii. to express all His\npower and dominion, in His revelation to S. John, is spoken of His\nown triumphant career, as the Word of God going forth to battle, \"He\nshall _rule_ them with a rod of iron;\" and, again, in the same book\nis applied by Himself to set forth the honour which He will give \"to\nhim that shall overcome and keep My works unto the end.\"[18] Thus,\njust as in the _persons_ pointed out, the _subject_ of this charge\nis _universal_, so in the _terms_ by which it is expressed, the\n_nature_ of the power is _supreme_. What the bishop is to his own\nflock, Peter is made to \"the flock of God:\" and this at once, in the\nmost simple, as well as in the most absolute and emphatic manner, by\ninstitution from the chief Shepherd Himself, at the close of His\nministry, and by associating Peter singly with Himself in His most\ndistinctive title. If the fold of Christ is equivalent to \"the\nChurch of Christ,\" and \"the kingdom of heaven,\" so to feed and to\nrule the lambs and the sheep of that fold is equivalent to being\n\"the Rock\" of that Church, and \"the Bearer of the keys,\" as well as\n_the First, the Greater one, and the Ruler_ in that kingdom of\nheaven.\n\nAgain, looking at the circumstances under which this charge is\nreceived by Peter, it either conveys that special and singular\nhonour and power which we have here set forth, or _none at all_. For\nPeter had _already_ received the full Apostolic authority: he had\nheard together with the rest of the Apostles those words of power,\n\"As My Father sent Me, I also send you,\" and the charge following,\nto bind and to loose. It could not therefore be this power which was\ngiven him, for he had it already. All which James and John, the sons\nof thunder, ever had given them, he also had before these words were\nuttered. Besides a power which was to be shared by James and John,\nand the rest of the Apostles, could not be given in terms which\ndistinguished him from them, \"lovest thou Me _more than these_?\" It\ncould not be the mere forgiveness of his denial, for not only did\nthe Apostolate, since conferred, carry that, but when our Lord\nappeared to him first of all the Apostles after His resurrection, it\nwas a token of such forgiveness. There remained nothing else to give\nhim, but presidency over the Apostles themselves, the reward of\nsuperior love, as was prophesied and promised to him in reward for\nsuperior faith. For these two oracles of our Lord exactly correspond\nto each other as promise and performance. Their conditions and their\nterms shed a reciprocal light on each other. In the one there is the\ngreat confession, \"Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;\"\nin the other as singular a declaration, \"Lovest thou Me more than\nthese? Yea, Lord.\" In the one there follows the reward, \"And I say\nto thee, that thou art Peter,\" &c.: and in the other a like reward,\n\"Feed My lambs, be shepherd over My sheep.\" The one is future, \"I\nwill build, I will give, thou shalt bind, thou shall loose:\" the\nother present, \"Feed and be shepherd.\" What concerns \"the Church and\nthe kingdom of heaven\" in the one, concerns \"the fold\" in the other.\nAnd the promise and performance are singularly restricted to\nPeter--\"I say unto thee, Thou art Peter\"--\"Simon, son of John,\nlovest thou Me more than these?\"\n\nAs then Peter received the promise of the supreme episcopate _before\nall_ and _by himself_, under the terms that he should be the Rock,\nby being built on which the Church should never fall, that he should\nbe the Bearer of the keys in the kingdom of heaven, and that\n_singly_ he should bind and loose in heaven and in earth; so _after_\nhis own Apostolate, and that of the rest had been completed, _by\nhimself_, and as the crown of the divine work, he received the\nfulfilment of that supreme episcopate, under the terms, \"Feed My\nlambs, be shepherd over My sheep.\" And as a part out of that\nmagnificent promise made to him _singly_, was afterwards taken and\nmade to the Apostles _jointly_ with him, for so \"it was the design\nof Jesus Christ to put first in one alone what afterwards He meant\nto put in several; but the sequel does not reverse the beginning,\nnor the first lose his place. That first word, 'Whatsoever thou\nshalt bind,' said to one alone, has already ranged under his power\neach one of those to whom shall be said, 'Whatsoever ye shall\nremit;' for the promises of Jesus Christ, as well as His gifts, are\nwithout repentance; and what is once given indefinitely and\nuniversally is irrevocable:\"[19] so when Peter and the rest already\npossessed the whole Apostolate, the commission to go and preach to\nthe whole world, and to make disciples of all nations, a power was\nadded to Peter to make up what was promised to him originally; the\nApostles themselves, with the whole fold, were put under his charge;\nhe represented the person of the Great Shepherd: and the divine work\nwas complete.\n\nThus the powers of the Apostolate and the Primacy are not\nantagonistic, but fit into, and harmonise with each other. In the\ncollege of the Twelve, as before inaugurated, and sent forth into\nthe whole world, something had been wanting, save that, \"by the\nappointment of a head, the occasion of schism was taken away:\"[20]\nand Satan would have shaken the whole fabric, but that there was one\ndivinely set to \"confirm the brethren.\" He who \"kept them\" once,\nwhen \"with them,\" by His personal presence, now kept them for\nevermore by the word of His power, issued on the shore of the lake\nof Galilee, but resounding through every age, clear and decisive,\namid the fall of empires, and the change of races, and heard by all\nHis flock to the utmost of the isles of the sea, till the day of the\nSon of Man comes,--\"Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than\nthese? Feed My lambs: Feed My sheep.\"\n\nAnd that the universal and supreme authority over the Church of\nChrist, was in these words committed to Peter by the Lord, is the\nbelief of antiquity. Thus, S. Ambrose, in the west: \"It is not\ndoubtful that Peter believed, and believed because he loved, and\nloved because he believed. Whence, too, he is grieved at being asked\na third time, Lovest thou Me? For we ask those of whom we doubt. But\nthe Lord does not doubt, but asks not to learn, but to teach him\nwhom, on the point of ascending into heaven, He was leaving, _as it\nwere, the successor and representative of His love_.[21] It is\nbecause he alone out of all makes a profession, that _he is\npreferred to all_. Lastly, for the third time, the Lord asks him, no\nlonger, _hast_ thou _a regard_ (diligis me) for Me, but _lovest_\n(amas) thou Me: and now he is ordered to feed, not the lambs, as at\nfirst, who need a milk diet, nor the little sheep, as secondly, but\nthe more perfect sheep, _in order that he who was the more perfect\nmight have the government_.\"[22] In the East, S. Chrysostome, \"Why,\nthen, passing by the rest, does He converse with him on these\nthings? _He was the chosen of the Apostles, and the mouthpiece of\nthe disciples, and the head of the band._ Therefore, also Paul once\nwent up to see him rather than the rest. It was, besides, to shew\nhim, that for the future he must be bold, as his denial was done\naway with, that _He puts into his hands the presidency over the\nbrethren._ And He does not mention the denial, nor reproach him with\nwhat had past; but He says, if thou lovest Me, _rule the brethren_,\nand show now that warm affection which on all occasions thou didst\nexhibit, and in which thou didst exult, and the life which thou\ndidst offer to lay down for Me, now spend for My sheep.\" Again,\n\"thrice He asks the question, and thrice lays on him the same\ncommand, showing at how high a price He sets _the charge of His own\nsheep_.\" Again, \"he was put in charge with the direction of his\nbrethren.\" \"He made him great promises _and put the world into his\nhands_.\" Thus John and James, and the rest of the Apostles were\ncommitted to Peter, but never Peter to them: and he adds, \"But if\nany one asks, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? I\nwould reply that He elected Peter _not to be the teacher of this\nthrone, but of the whole world_.\" And in another place, \"Why did He\nshed His blood to purchase those sheep _which He committed to Peter\nand his successors_? With reason then said Christ, 'who is the\nfaithful and prudent servant whom his Lord hath set over His own[23]\nhouse?'\" Theophylact repeated, seven hundred years later, the\nperpetual tradition of the East. \"He puts into Peter's hands the\nheadship over the sheep of the whole world, and to no other but to\nhim gives He this; first, because he was distinguished above all,\nand the mouth-piece of the whole band; and secondly, showing to him\nthat he must be confident, as his denial was put out of account.\"\nAnd if S. Leo, a Pope, declares that \"though there be among the\npeople of God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter rules all\nby immediate commission, whom Christ also rules by Sovereign\npower,\"[24] the great Eastern, Saint Basil, assigned an adequate\nreason for this near a century before, when he viewed all pastoral\nauthority in the Church as included in this grant to Peter,\ndeclaring that the spiritual \"ruler is none else but one who\nrepresents the person of the Saviour, and offers up to God the\nsalvation of those who obey him, and this we learn from Christ\nHimself _in that He appointed Peter to be the shepherd of His Church\nafter_[25] _Himself_.\"\n\nBut especially must we quote S. Cyprian, because to that equality of\nthe Apostles as such, before referred to by us, by considering which\nwithout regard to the proportion of faith some have been led astray,\nhe adds the full recognition of the Primacy, and urges its extreme\nimportance. Thus quoting the promise and the fulfilment, \"Thou art\nPeter, &c.\" and \"Feed My sheep,\" he goes on, \"Upon him being one He\nbuilds His Church; and _though_ He gives to all the Apostles an\nequal power, and says, \"As the Father sent Me, I also send you,\n&c.,\" yet in order to manifest unity He has, by His own authority,\nso placed the source of the same unity as to begin from one.\nCertainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with\nan equal fellowship both of honour and power, but a commencement is\nmade from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one.\"[26]\nThat is, the Apostles were equal as to the powers bestowed in John\nxx. 23-5, but as to those given in Matt. xvi. 18-19, Luke xxii.\n31-3, and John xxi. 15-18, \"the Church was built upon Peter alone,\"\nand he was made the source and ever-living spring of ecclesiastical\nunity.\n\nYet clearly as our Lord in this charge associates Peter with\nHimself, puts him over his brethren, the other Apostles, and fulfils\nto him all that He ever promised, as to making him \"the first,\" \"the\ngreater one\" and \"the ruler or leader,\" by that one title of \"the\nShepherd,\" in which is summed up all authority over His Church, and\nthe very purpose of His own divine mission, \"to seek and to save\nthat which was lost,\" still a touch of tenderness is added by the\nMaster's hand, which brings out all this more forcibly, and must\nhave told personally on Peter's feelings and those of his\nfellow-disciples, as the highest and most solemn consecration to his\nsingular office. For when the Lord spoke that parable, \"I am the\ngood shepherd,\" He added, as the token of the character, \"the good\nshepherd giveth His life for His sheep.\" And so now, appointing\nPeter to take His place over the flock, He adds to him this token\nalso: \"Amen, amen, I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst\ngird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst, but when thou shalt\nbe old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird\nthee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.\" \"When thou wast\nyounger, thou didst gird thyself,\" alluding, perhaps, to that\nimpulse of affection with which, just before, as soon as Peter heard\nfrom John that it was the Lord standing on the shore, \"he girt his\ncoat about him and cast himself into the sea,\" for his love waited\nnot for the slowness of the boat. Thus He taught Peter that the\nchiefship to which He was appointing him, that \"care of all the\nChurches,\" as it required a different spirit to fulfil it from that\nwhich prevailed among \"the kings of the nations,\" so it led to a\ndifferent end, the last crowning act of a lifelong self-sacrifice,\nwhich began by being the servant of all, ran through a thousand acts\nof humiliation and anxiety, and was to be completed in the martyrdom\nof crucifixion. And so in his death, as well as in his charge of\nvisible head of the Church, he was to be made like his Lord, and\nafter the manner of the Good Shepherd, whom he succeeded, should lay\ndown his life for his sheep. For \"this He said signifying by what\ndeath he should glorify God. And when He had said this, He saith to\nhim, Follow Me.\" With far deeper meaning now than when those words\nof power were first uttered to him beside that lake. Then it was,\n\"Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.\" Now it is, \"Follow\nMe, and I will associate thee with My life and with My death, with\nMy charge and with its reward. This shall be the proof of thy\ngreater love, to be obedient even to death, and that the death of\nthe cross.\" Such was the anointing which the first Primate of the\nChurch received to the triple crown. \"Follow thou Me.\" Like his\ndivine Master, he was during the whole of his ministry to have the\ncross set before his eyes, and laid upon his heart, as the certain\nend of his course. And thus Peter \"received power and sacerdotal\nauthority over all, from the very God for our sakes incarnate:\"[27]\nthus he followed in the steps of the Good Shepherd, as he succeeded\nto His office. And, therefore, having accomplished his mission and\ntriumphed on the Roman hill, from Rome he speaks through the undying\nline of his spiritual heirs, and feeds the flock of Christ.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Passaglia, p. 93.\n\n[2] Matt. xvi. 16.\n\n[3] Matt. x. 1; Mark iii. 13-15; Luke vi. 12-13; Matt. xviii, 18.\n\n[4] John xvii. 12.\n\n[5] Mark xvi. 6.\n\n[6] 1 Cor. xv. 1-9.\n\n[7] Matt. xxviii. 18; Mark xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4-8;\nJohn. xx. 21.\n\n[8] De unitate ecclesiae, 3.\n\n[9] Mark i. 16; Luke v. 3.\n\n[10] Mark iv. 38; Luke viii. 24.\n\n[11] John vi. 21.\n\n[12] John xxi. 1-14.\n\n[13] St. Augustine's 122nd discourse on St. John, who has thus set\nforth this chapter: \"Piscis assus Christus est passus.\"\n\n[14] Ezech. xxiv. 33; Isai. xl. 9-11; Mich. v. 2; Matt. ii. 6; John\nx. 11, 14, 16.\n\n[15] Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 10; Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15.\n\n[16] Bossuet, sermon on unity.\n\n[17] Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 10; Ps. ii. 9; Apoc. xix. 15; ii. 27.\n\n[18] Poimahinein used in the text of John, and in all\nthese.\n\n[19] Bossuet, sermon on unity.\n\n[20] St. Jerome.\n\n[21] Amoris sui veluti vicarium.\n\n[22] In Lucam, Lib. 10, n. 175.\n\n[23] St. Chrys. in Joan. Hom. 88, p. 525-7; and De Sacerdot. Lib. 2,\nTom. 1. p. 372.\n\n[24] St. Leo. Serm. 4.\n\n[25] St. Basil, Constit. Monas. xxii. Tom. 2, p. 573.\n\n[26] St. Cyprian, de unit. 3.\n\n[27] Stephen of Dora, in the Lateran Synod, A.D., 649. Mansi, x.\n893.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE CORRESPONDENCE AND EQUIVALENCE OF THE GREAT TEXTS CONCERNING\nPETER.\n\n\nBefore we compare together more exactly what was said to the\nApostles in common, and what to Peter in particular, it is desirable\nto consider briefly two other points, which will complete the\nevidence furnished by the Gospels.\n\n1. If, then, the[1] question to be decided by documents is, whether\nseveral persons are to be accounted equal in rank, honour, and\nauthority, or whether one of them is superior to the rest, it will\nbe an unexceptionable rule to observe whether they are spoken of in\nthe same manner. For words are signs of ideas, and set forth as in a\nmirror the mind's conceptions. A similarity of language, therefore,\nwill indicate a similarity of rank; a distinction of language,\nespecially if it be repeated and constant, will show a like\ndistinction of rank. Let us apply this rule to the mode in which the\nEvangelists speak of Peter and of the other Apostles.\n\nNow to express one of rank and his attendants, the Evangelists often\nuse the phrase, a person _and those with him_. Thus, Luke vi. 4,\n\"David and _those that were with him_;\" and Matt. xii. 3 with Mark\nii. 25, \"Have ye not read what David did, when himself was a\nhungered and _those that were with him_?\" Of our Lord and the\nApostles it is said, Mark iii. 11, \"And He made twelve, _that they\nshould be with Him_:\" and xvi. 10, \"She went and told _them that\nhad been with Him_.\" And Acts iv. 13, the chief priests \"knew them,\"\nPeter and John, \"that _they had been with Jesus_.\" And Matthew xxvi.\n69, Peter is reproached, \"Thou also _wast with Jesus_.\" Now just so\nthe Evangelists speak of Peter. Our Lord having on one occasion left\nthe Apostles for solitary prayer, S. Mark writes, i. 36, \"And Simon\n_and they that were with him_ followed after Him.\" Again, the woman\nwith the issue of blood having touched the Lord, when He asked, 'Who\nis it that touched Me?' S. Luke says, viii. 45, \"all denying, Peter\n_and they that were with him_ said,\" &c. And on the occasion of the\nTransfiguration, \"Peter and _they that were with him_,\" being James\nand John. Just as after the resurrection Luke writes, Acts ii. 14,\n\"Peter standing up with the eleven;\" verse 37, \"They said to Peter\nand to the rest of the Apostles;\" v. 29, \"Peter and the Apostles\nanswering said.\" And the angels to the holy women, Mark xvi. 7, \"Go\ntell His disciples and Peter.\"\n\nIt is then to be remarked that Peter is the _only_ Apostle who is\nput in this relation to the rest. _Never_ is it said \"James,\" or\n\"John and the rest of the Apostles,\" or, \"and those with him.\" Peter\nis named, and the rest are added in a mass, and this happens in his\ncase continually, never in the case of any other Apostle.\n\nNo adequate cause can be alleged for this but the Primacy and\nsuperior rank of Peter, which was ever in the mind of the\nEvangelists, and is sometimes indicated by the prophetic name; for\nas often as Simon is called Peter, he is marked as the foundation of\nthe Church, according to the Lord's prophecy. And long before\ncontentions about the prerogatives of Peter arose, the ancient\nFathers attributed it to his Primacy, that he was thus named\nexpressly and first, the others in a mass, or in the second place.\n\nAccording, then, to the rule above-mentioned, Peter, by the mode in\nwhich the Evangelists speak of him, is distinguished from the other\nApostles, and his position with regard to the rest is described in\nthe very same phrase which is used to express the superiority of\nDavid over his men, and even of our Lord over the Twelve. And for\nthis there seems no adequate cause, but that special association of\nPeter with Himself indicated in the name, and the promises\naccompanying it in Matt. xvi.\n\n2. Again, four[2] catalogues of the Apostles exist,[3] and in each\nof these Peter is placed first. And in the three which occur in the\nGospels, (that of Luke in the Acts being a more brief repetition of\nhis former one,) the prophetic name Peter is indicated as the reason\nfor his being thus placed first. So Mark. \"And to Simon He gave the\nname Peter. And James the son of Zebedy, and John the brother of\nJames; and He named them Boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder:\"\nfor which reason, that the Lord had given them a name, though it was\nheld in common, and not, like that of Peter, expressive of official\nrank, but personal qualities, Mark seems to set these two before\nAndrew, whom both in Matthew and in Luke they follow. Again, Luke\nsays, \"He chose twelve of them, whom also He named Apostles, Simon\nwhom He surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother,\" &c. \"_The first_ of\nall, and the chief of them, he that was illiterate and uneducated,\"\nsays S. Chrysostome;[4] and Origen long before him, observing that\nPeter was always named first in the number of the twelve, asks, What\nshould be thought the cause of this order? He replies, it was\nconstantly observed because Peter was \"more honoured than the\nrest,\" thus intimating that he no less excelled the rest on account\nof the gifts which he had received from heaven, than \"Judas through\nhis wretched disposition was truly the last of all, and worthy to be\nput at the end.\"[5] But much more marked is Matthew in signifying\nthe superior dignity of Peter, not only naming him at the head in\nhis catalogue, but calling him simply and absolutely \"the first.\"\n\"And the names of the twelve Apostles are these, The first, Simon,\nwho is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James,\" &c. Now that\n_second_ and _third_ do not follow, shows that \"first\" is not a\nnumeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus in heathen\nauthors this word \"first\" by itself indicates the most excellent in\nits kind: thus in the Septuagint occur, \"first friend of the king,\"\n\"first of the singers,\" \"the first priest,\"[6] i.e. the chief\npriest. So our Lord, \"whichever among you will be first;\" \"Bring\nforth the first robe;\" and S. Paul, \"sinners, of whom I am\nfirst,\"[7] i.e. chief. Thus \"the first of the island,\" Acts, xxviii.\n7, means the chief magistrate; and \"first\" generally in Latin\nphraseology, the superior, or prince.\n\nSuch, then, is the rank which Matthew gives to Peter, when he\nwrites, \"the first, Simon, who is called Peter.\"\n\nIt should also be remarked that, whenever the Evangelists have\noccasion to mention _some_ of the Apostles, Peter being one, he is\never put first. Thus Matt., \"He taketh unto Him Peter, and James,\nand John his brother;\" and Mark, \"He admitted not any man to follow\nHim, but Peter, and James, and John, the brother of James:\" and\n\"Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew asked Him apart:\" and \"He\ntaketh Peter, and James, and John with Him:\" and Luke, \"He suffered\nnot any man to go in with him, but Peter, and James, and John, and\nthe father and mother of the maiden:\" and \"He sent Peter and John:\"\nand John, \"There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is\ncalled Didymus, and Nathaniel, who was of Cana in Galilee, and the\ntwo sons of Zebedy, and two others of His disciples.\"[8] This rule\nwould seem to be invariable, though James and John are not always\nmentioned next after him.\n\nAn attempt has been made to evade the force of these testimonies, by\ngiving as a reason for Peter being always thus named first, that he\nwas the most aged of all the Apostles, and the first called. Even\nwere it so, such reasons would seem most inadequate, but\nunfortunately they are neither of them facts. For as to age,\nantiquity bears witness that Andrew was Peter's elder brother. And\nas to their calling, S. Augustine has observed, \"In what order all\nthe twelve Apostles were called, does not appear in the narrations\nof the Evangelists, since not only not the order of the calling, but\nnot even the calling itself of all is mentioned, but only of Philip,\nand Peter, and Andrew, and of the sons of Zebedy, and of Matthew,\nthe publican, termed also Levi. But Peter was both the first and the\nonly one who separately received a name from Him.\"[9] As it may be\nconjectured from the Gospels that Christ said to Philip first of\nall, \"Follow Me,\" Joh. i. 44, he has the best right to be considered\nthe first called.\n\nNow the two classes of facts just mentioned, as to the mode in which\nthe Evangelists speak of Peter in combination with the other\nApostles, prove directly and plainly his _Primacy_, while they do\nnot _directly_ prove, save Matthew's title of _First_, nor are they\nhere quoted to prove, the _nature_ of that Primacy, which rests, as\nwe have seen, on other and more decisive texts.\n\nAt length, then, we have before us the whole evidence of the\nGospels, and having considered it piece by piece, may now take a\ngeneral view. It is time to gather up the several parts of this\nevidence, and, claiming for each its due force, to present the sum\nof all before the mind. For distinct and decisive as certain texts\nappear, and are, even by themselves, yet when they are seen to fit\ninto a whole system, and perfectly to harmonise together, they have\nmuch greater power to convince the mind, which really seeks for\ntruth. But moral evidences generally, and especially that which\nresults from a study of the Holy Scripture, is not intended to move\na mind in a lower condition than this; a mind, that is, which loves\nsomething else better than the truth.\n\nThus, out of the body of His disciples, we see our Lord choosing\nTwelve, and again, out of those Twelve, distinguishing One by the\nmost singular favours. This distinction even begins _before_ the\nselection of the Twelve, and has its root in the very commencement\nof our Lord's ministry: for, as we have seen, it was when Andrew\nfirst led his brother Simon before Christ, that He \"looked upon\nhim,\" and promised him the prophetic name which revealed his\nPrimacy, and his perpetual relation to the Church of God. The name\nthus promised is in due time bestowed, and solemnly recorded by the\nthree Evangelists, at the appointment of the Apostles, as the reason\nwhy he is invariably set at their head; Matthew, still more\ndistinctly expressing in it his primacy, \"_the first_, Simon, who is\ncalled Peter.\" And their whole mode of mentioning him, and\nexhibiting his relation to the other apostles, shews that this\nPrimacy was, when they wrote, ever in their minds. It comes out in\nthe most incidental way, as when Mark writes, \"Simon, and they that\nwere with him, followed after\" Christ; or Luke, \"Peter, and they\nthat were with him, said;\" as naturally as they write, \"David, and\nthose that were with him:\" or of our Lord Himself, and the Apostles,\n\"those that had been with Him.\"[10] Again this preference of Peter\nis shewn by our Lord, both at the Transfiguration and the Agony:\nwhere, even when the two next favoured of the Apostles are\nassociated with Him as witnesses, yet there is evidence of Peter's\nsuperiority in the mode with which the Evangelists mention him.\nGreat as the dignity was of the two sons of thunder, they are yet\nranged under Peter by Luke, with that same phrase which we have just\nbeen considering. \"Peter, and they that were with him were heavy\nwith sleep.\" And our Lord, at the agony, says to Peter, \"could not\n_you_,\" that is, all the three, \"watch with Me one hour?\"[11] Again,\nhow incidentally, yet markedly, does Matthew shew that this\nsuperiority of Peter over others was apparent even to strangers,\nwhen he writes, that the officers who collected the tribute for the\ntemple, came to _him_, and said, \"does not _your_ master\" (the\nmaster of all the Apostles,) \"pay the didrachma?\"[12] Much more\nsignificant is the incident immediately following, when our Lord\norders him to go to the sea, to cast a hook, and to bring up a fish,\nwhich shall have a stater in his mouth, adding, \"take that, and give\nit to them for Me, and for thee:\" a token of preference so strong,\nand of association so singular, that it set the Apostles on the\nimmediate enquiry, who should be the greater among them: the answer\nto which we will revert to presently.\n\nAnd this designation of Peter to his high and singular office\nbecomes even more striking, if we contrast what our Lord did and\nsaid to him with what He did and said to another Apostle, who _in\nanother way_ is even in some respects preferred to Peter himself.\nFor \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" who lay on His breast at\nsupper, to whom was committed at the most sorrowful of all moments\nthe domestic care of the Virgin Mother, has in the affection of our\nLord his own unapproachable sphere. But as Peter does not come into\ncompetition with him here, so neither in another view he with Peter.\nHis distinction is private, and in the nature of personal affection:\nPeter's is public, and in the nature of Church government. To one is\ncommitted the Mother of the Lord, the living symbol of the Church,\nthe most blessed of all creatures, and that, when her full dignity\nand blessedness stood at length revealed in the full Godhead of her\nSon, yet whose throne was intercessory, apart from rule on earth: to\nthe other is committed the Church herself, her championship in the\ntime of conflict, the rudder of the vessel on the lake, till with\nChrist it should reach the shore. Each of these, so eminent and\nunapproachable in his way, has that way apart; and when Peter, on\nreceiving his final commission, turned about and saw his best-loved\nfriend following, and ventured to ask, \"Lord, and what shall this\nman do?\" our Lord replied with something like a reproof, \"what is\nthat to thee? Follow thou Me.\" These distinct preferences of the two\nApostles were indicated by Tertullian, when he wrote, \"Was anything\nconcealed from Peter, who was named the rock on which the Church\nshould be built, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and\nthe power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth? Was anything,\ntoo, concealed from John, the most beloved of the Lord, who lay\nupon His breast, to whom alone the Lord foresignified the traitor\nJudas, whom He committed in His own place as Son to Mary?\"[13]\n\nBut to return. Our Lord, after encompassing Peter during His whole\nministry with such tokens of preference, and a preference specially\nbelonging to his office, and designating it, appears to him first of\nall the Apostles after His resurrection. And yet all the proofs\nwhich we have been here summing up of Peter's pre-eminence, are but\ncollateral and subordinate: though by themselves ten-fold more than\nany other can claim, yet Peter's authority does not rest _mainly_ on\nthem. And this likewise is true of another class of facts concerning\nPeter, which yet carries with it much force, and when once remarked,\nnever leaves the thoughtful mind. It is his great predominance in\nthe sacred history over the rest of the Twelve. A single incident or\nexpression distinguishing him, is perhaps all that falls to the lot\nof another Apostle, as when \"Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us\nthe Father and it sufficeth us;\" and the Lord replies, \"Have I been\nso long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip?\" Or\nas Thomas, at a moment of danger, \"said to his fellow disciples, Let\nus also go that we may die with Him.\"[14] But Peter's name is\nwrought into the whole tissue of the Gospel history; he is\nperpetually approaching the Lord with questions: \"Lord, how oft\nshall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven\ntimes?\" The rest suffer the Lord in silence to wash their feet, but\nPeter is overcome at the sight. \"Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? Thou\nshalt never wash my feet;\" \"Lord, not my feet only, but also my\nhands and my head.\"[15] Thus in the whole New Testament, John, who\nis yet mentioned oftener than the rest, occurs only thirty-eight\ntimes; but in the Gospels alone, omitting the Acts and the Epistles,\nPeter is mentioned twenty-three times by Matthew, eighteen by Mark,\ntwenty by Luke, and thirty by John.[16] More especially it is the\ncustom of the Evangelists, when they record anything which touches\nall the Apostles, almost invariably to exhibit Peter as singly\nspeaking for all, and representing all. Thus when Christ asked them\nall equally, \"But whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter answered and\nsaid.\" He told them all equally \"That a rich man shall hardly enter\ninto the kingdom of heaven,\"[17] whereupon \"Peter answering said to\nHim, Behold, we have left all things, and followed Thee: what\ntherefore shall we have?\" And when \"Jesus said to the twelve, Will\nyou also go away?\"[18] at once we hear, \"Simon Peter answered and\nsaid, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal\nlife.\" And a very remarkable occasion occurs where our Lord had been\ntelling to His disciples the parable of the watchful servant, upon\nwhich Peter said to Him, \"Lord, dost Thou speak this parable to us,\nor likewise to all?\"[19] And the reply seems by anticipation to\nexpress the very office which Peter was to hold. \"Who, then, is the\nfaithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family, to\ngive them their measure of wheat in due season?\" Now it looks not\nlike an equal, but a superior, to anticipate the rest, to represent\nthem, to speak and act for them. S. Chrysostome drew the conclusion\nlong ago. \"What then says Peter, the mouth-piece of the Apostles?\nEverywhere impetuous as he is, the leader of the band of the\nApostles, when a question is asked of all, he replies.\"[20] No\nother cause can be assigned for the care of the Evangelists in\nsetting before us so continually his words and acts, in bringing him\nout, as the second object, after Christ. But though his future place\nin the Church is a reason for this, and this again, a token of that\nsingular pre-eminence, its decisive proof rests on declarations from\nour Lord's own mouth, expressly circumscribed to him, of singular\nlucidity, and of force which nothing can evade; declarations which\nset forth, under different but coincident images, a power supreme\nand without equal, and of its own nature belonging to but one at a\ntime. The proofs which we have hitherto mentioned take away all\nabruptness from these declarations, and show that they embody a\ngreat design which runs all through the Gospel; but the office\nitself rests upon these, and by these is most clearly and absolutely\ndefined.\n\nThus, when our Lord, in answer to a great confession of His Apostle,\n\"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,\" replies, \"and I\ntoo, say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build\nMy Church:\" every one must feel how it adds to the cogency of the\nreply, that the name, which He is explaining, was not the person's\nnatural name, but first promised, and then given, by that same Lord,\nwho now attaches other promises and prophecies to it. This fact\nserves, among others, to fix the whole which follows to Peter\nindividually, and to introduce what follows, as part of a design,\nwhich before had been intimated: for what follows no more belongs to\nthe other Apostles, than the name, Peter, belongs to them: and a\nname, on the other hand, so promised, and so given, naturally looks,\nas it were, to such a result. To say solemnly of a man, when first\nseen, \"Thou art called Simon, but thou shall be called The Rock,\"\nand to make nothing of him when so called, would be, if ascribed to\nany one, a dull and pointless thing; but what shall we say, when the\nspeaker is God? It is a new thing for God the Word to speak with\nlittle meaning, or to speak, and not to do: and so now He does what\nHe had long designed. And what is it that He does? He sets up a\ngovernor who is never to be put down. He inaugurates a Church\nagainst which Hell shall rage, but in vain: He establishes a\ngovernment at which the nations shall rage, the kings of the earth\nset themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, for ever, but\nto their own confusion. He does what He alone could do, and so the\nanswer is worthy of the confession, \"Thou art the Christ, the Son of\nthe living God.\"\n\n\"Blessed [21]art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, for flesh and blood hath not\nrevealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven. _And I, too,\nsay unto thee_, in return for what thou hast said to Me, and to\nshew, like My Father, My good will towards thee, and what I say, as\nthe Almighty Word of the Father, by My power I fulfil, _that thou\nart Peter_, the Rock, and so partaker with Me of that honour whereby\nI am the chief Rock and Foundation; _and upon this Rock_, which I\nhave called thee, _I will build My Church_, which, therefore, with\nMe for its architect, shall rest on thee, to thee adhere, and from\nthee derive its conspicuous unity: _and the gates of hell_, even all\nthe powers of the enemy, _shall not prevail against it_, nor take\nthat, which, by My Godhead, is established upon thee, but rather\nyield to it the victory. _And to thee_, whom, as Supreme Architect,\nI have marked out for the Rock and Foundation of My Church, as King\nand Lord _I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven_, and the\nsupreme authority over My Church, and will make thee sharer with Me\nin that dignity, by which I hold the keys of heaven and of earth,\n_and whatsoever_, in virtue of that authority and as associated in\nMy dignity, _thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven_,\nand there shall be no matter relating to My Church, and the kingdom\nof heaven, but shall be subject to thy legislative and judicial\npower, which shall reach the heaven itself: for it is a power at\nonce human, and divine; human, as entrusted to a man, and\nadministered by a man; divine, as a participation of that right by\nwhich I am, in heaven and on earth, Supreme Lawgiver and Judge; _and\nwhatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven_.\"\n\nThus it is that the most famous Fathers and Bishops, the most\ndistinguished Councils, the most various nations, have understood\nour Lord's words, and this is their meaning, according to the fixed\nlaws of grammar, of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of logic, as well\nas by the testimony of history, and in accordance with the\nprinciples of theology. Let us mention certain consequences which\nfollow from them.\n\nThese words[22] of Christ are, in the most marked manner, addressed\nto Peter _only_ among the Apostles, and are, therefore, with their\nmeaning, _peculiar_ to him. And they designate pre-eminence in the\ngovernment of the Church. They have, therefore, the two qualities\nwhich render them a suitable testimony to establish his Primacy\namong the Apostles.\n\nNow, if persons differ in rank and pre-eminence, they must be\nconsidered not equals, but absolutely unequal. And such pre-eminence\nPeter had, deriving from Christ, the Founder, a superior rank in the\nChurch's ministry. Therefore, the college of the Apostles must be\ntermed absolutely unequal, and all the Apostles, compared with\nPeter, absolutely unequal.\n\nBut as inequality may be manifold, as of age, calling, honour,\norder, jurisdiction and power, its nature and its degree must be\nsought in that property which belongs to one over the rest. So that\nwe must determine, by the authority of the Scriptures, from those\ngifts which were promised to Peter alone, the nature and the degree\nof that inequality which subsisted between him and the other\nApostles.\n\nThe gifts promised to Peter alone, are contained in these words of\nChrist, recorded by Matthew: and therefore, from their nature and\ninherent qualities, we must judge of the sort, and the extent of\ninequality, put by Christ between Peter and the rest.\n\nThese are summed up in the four following: I. That Peter is the\nrock, on which the Church was to be built by Christ, the Chief\nArchitect. II. That the impregnable strength which the Church was to\nhave against the gates of hell, depended on its union with Peter, as\nthe divinely laid foundation. III. That by Christ, the King of\nkings, and Lord of lords, Peter is marked out as next to Him, and\nafter Him, the Bearer of the keys in the Church's heavenly kingdom:\nIV. And that, accordingly, universal power of binding and loosing is\npromised to him, leaving him responsible to Christ alone, the\nsupreme Lawgiver and Judge. Therefore the nature of the prerogatives\nexpressed in these four terms must be our standard both of the\ncharacter and degree of inequality between the Apostles and Peter,\nand of the power of the Primacy promised to Peter.\n\nBut these terms mark authority, and plainly express jurisdiction\nand power; the inequality, therefore, is one relating to\njurisdiction and power; and Peter's pre-eminence likewise such.\n\nThat these terms, which contain Peter's prerogatives really do\nexpress jurisdiction and authority, may be thus very briefly shown.\nThe first, \"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My\nChurch,\" is drawn from architecture, exhibiting between Peter and\nthe Church, which includes also the Apostles, the relation which\nexists between the foundation and the superstructure. This is one of\ndependence, by which accordingly the Apostles must maintain an\nindivisible union with Peter. Which relation of dependence, again,\ncannot be understood without the notion of superior jurisdiction in\nPeter, for these are correlative. The second term corroborates this;\nfor it is a plain duty, and undoubted moral obligation, to be united\nto him, if severed from whom, the words of Christ do not entitle you\nto expect stability or victory over the gates of hell. Now, \"the\ngates of hell shall not prevail against it,\" most plainly express\nthat perseverance and victory are promised to no one by Christ, who\ndoes not remain joined with Peter. So much for the _duty_ which\nbinds all Christians, and the Apostles among them, to avoid\nseparation from Peter as their destruction. But such duty involves\nthe faculty and authority on Peter's part of enjoining on all\nwithout exception the maintenance of unity, and of keeping from the\nwhole body the sin of schism, which, again, expresses his superior\njurisdiction. Yet plainer and more striking is the _third_; for in\nthe words, \"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven,\" it is foretold that Peter, in regard to the kingdom of\nheaven, and therefore to all Christians, whether teachers or taught,\nsubjects or prelates, shall discharge the office of the bearer of\nthe keys; with which jurisdiction and authority are indivisibly\nunited. But in the _fourth_, there is no matter relating to the\nheavenly kingdom, which is not subjected by this promise to Peter's\nauthority. \"Whatsoever thou shalt bind,\" \"whatsoever thou shalt\nloose;\" but this is in its own kind without limit, a full\nlegislative and judicial power. Thus these four terms exactly agree\nwith each other, and express, severally and collectively,\nprerogatives by which Peter is admitted to a singular and close\nassociation with Christ; and therefore is pre-eminent among the\nApostles by his Primacy, and his superior authority over the whole\nChurch.\n\nThey also show, with no less clearness, that Christ in bestowing\nthese prerogatives and primacy on Peter, designed to produce the\nvisible unity of His kingdom and Church; and this in two ways, the\nfirst _typically prefiguring_ the Church's own unity in Peter, the\nsingle Foundation, Bearer of the keys, and supreme Legislator and\nJudge; the second _efficiently_, as by a principle and cause,\n_forming_, _holding together_, and _protecting_, visible unity in\nthat same Peter, as he discharged these functions. For just as the\nbuilding is based on the foundation, and by virtue of it all the\nparts are held together, so a kingdom's unity and harmonious\nadministration are first _moulded out_, and then _preserved_, in the\nunity of its supreme authority.\n\nAnd this Primacy may be regarded from three different points of\nview; as it _is in itself_, and as it regards its _efficient_ and\nits _final_ cause. As to the first, it consists in superior\njurisdiction and authority; as to the second, it springs from Christ\nHimself, who said to Peter alone, \"And I too say unto thee,\" &c.; as\nto the third, it _prefigures_, _forms_, and _protects_ the Church's\nvisible unity.\n\nBut to prefigure, to form, and to protect the Church's unity being\ndistinct functions, care must be taken not to confuse them, the\nformer concerning the Primacy as a type, the two latter as the\norigin and efficient cause; and also not to concede the former while\nthe latter are denied, which latter make up the Primacy as\njurisdictional, and the instrument effecting unity. Now Peter is\nboth the type of unity, its origin, and its efficient cause.\n\nA long line[23] of fathers, from the most ancient downwards, regards\nPeter as at once the type, and the origin, and efficient cause of\nunity; setting it forth as a prerogative of his headship that no\none, whether Apostle, or Prophet, or Evangelist, or Doctor, or\nTeacher, might separate from him without the crime of schism. In\nthis consists his Primacy, and in this the famous phrase of S.\nCyprian finds its solution, that \"the Episcopate is one, of which a\npart is held by each without division of the whole.\"\n\nAnd, what is like to the preceding, they hold that Peter is the\n_continuous_ source of all power in the Church, and that while its\nplenitude dwells in his person, a portion of it is derived to the\nvarious prelates under him. No one has set this forth more fully\nthan S. Leo, in the middle of the fifth century, as where he says,\nthat \"if Christ willed that other rulers should enjoy aught together\nwith him, (that is, Peter,) yet never did He give, _save through\nhim_, what He denied not to others.\"[24]\n\nThere is no one of these consequences but seems to result from the\nwords of our Lord here solemnly addressed to Peter.\n\nBut, recurring to our general view, we find our Lord three\nseveral[25] times appealed to by the Apostles to declare who should\nbe the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and while on neither of\nthese occasions does He declare to them that there should be no\n\"greater one\" among them, though such a declaration would have\nterminated their rivalry, on the last and most urgent, at the very\neve of His departure from them, He sets forth in vivid words what\nought to be the character and deportment of the one so to be placed\nover them; and then turning His conversation from them in a body to\nPeter in particular, He charges him, at a future time, when He shall\nobtain for him the gift of a faith that could not fail, to \"confirm\nhis brethren.\" Having before dwelt on the full meaning of these\nwords, we need only remark how marvellously they coincide in force\nwith the prophecy which we have just been considering, while they\ndiffer from it in expression. They convey as absolutely a supreme\nauthority as the former; and an authority independent of others, and\nexclusive of participation; and one which is given for the\nmaintenance of the faith, and of visible unity in that faith. Nor\ncan we imagine a more fitting termination to the whole of our Lord's\ndealing with His disciples before His passion, than that, when about\nto be taken from them, He should designate, in words so full of\naffection and provident care, one who was presently to take His own\nplace among them. \"Simon, Simon, I have prayed for thee, that thy\nfaith fail not, and thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren.\"\n\nBut if our Lord's preference of Peter, as to rank and dignity in the\nChurch, was during his lifetime consistent and uniform; if,\nmoreover, He made to him, twice, promises so large as to include and\ngo far beyond all that He said to the Apostles in common; and if He\ntook out, as it were, of what He had first promised to Peter a\nportion which He afterwards promised as their common inheritance to\nthe rest; His dealing with Peter and the Apostles after His\nresurrection is the exact counterpart to this. The fulfilment is\nequivalent to the promise. In the fourfold prophecy to Peter, in\nMatt. xvi. the last member is, \"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on\nearth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt\nloose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.\" That this is a\ngrant of full legislative and judicial power, given to one, we have\nseen. Now on a later occasion it is repeated to the twelve together,\nMatt. xviii. 18. _But the other three members of the prophecy made\nto Peter are never repeated to the twelve_. In the fulfilment the\nsame distinction takes place. To the twelve in common our Lord\ncommunicates the power contained in the fourth member of His\noriginal promise, saying, John xx. 21, \"As the Father hath sent Me,\nI also send you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye shall\nforgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins ye shall retain,\nthey are retained:\" to which the other forms contained in Matt.\nxxviii. 18, Mark xvi. 15, Luke xxiv. 49, Acts i. 4, 8, of preaching\nthe Gospel to every creature, of waiting for the power of the Holy\nGhost wherewith they should be endued, of teaching men to observe\nall things which He had commanded, are equivalent, though less\ndefinite. _But nowhere are the powers contained in the first three\nmembers of the prophecy to Peter communicated to the twelve_. As the\npromises were made to Peter alone originally, so to Peter alone are\nthey, as we shall see, fulfilled. Indeed, it could not be otherwise,\nfor the promises to be the rock of the Church, by coherence with\nwhich the Church should be impregnable, and the bearer of the keys,\nare in their own nature confined to one, and exclusive of\nparticipants, and once made by the very Truth Himself to one man,\nthey ranged under his power all his brethren: \"For the promises of\nJesus Christ, as well as His gifts, are without repentance; and what\nis once given indefinitely and universally is irrevocable.\"[26]\nBesides that, another indisputable principle must be taken into\naccount, viz., \"that power given to several carries its restriction\nin its division:\" just as if a king before his death bequeaths the\nwhole administration of his sovereignty to a board of twelve\ncouncillors, though the sum of authority so conveyed be sovereign,\nyet the share of each individual in the college will be restricted\nby the equal right of his colleagues. Whereas \"power given to one\nalone, and over all, and without exception, carries with it\nplenitude, and, not having to be divided with any other, it has no\nbounds save those which its terms convey.\" Such was the power\noriginally promised to Peter; and such, no less, that which was\nultimately conveyed. He stands apart and alone no less in the\nfulfilment than in the promise. And under another image, but one\nequally expressive with the first, the Lord conveys an authority as\nabsolute and as exclusive. The \"bounds which its terms convey\" are\nthe whole fold of Christ: \"the sheep\" no less than \"the lambs:\" \"to\ngovern\" no less than \"to feed.\"[27] As the great Architect of the\nheavenly city said to Peter, \"Thou art the Rock;\" as \"the King of\nkings,\" who \"hath the key of David,\" and \"on whose shoulder is the\ngovernment,\" said to Peter, \"To thee will I give the keys of the\nkingdom of heaven;\" as He \"who upholdeth all things by the word of\nHis power,\" and \"in whom all things consist,\" said to Peter,\n\"Confirm thy brethren:\" so to the same Peter, the same \"Great\nShepherd of the sheep,\" said, \"Feed My lambs, be shepherd over My\nsheep,\" thus committing to him the chief Apostles themselves who\nheard this charge, and causing there to be for ever \"one fold and\none shepherd,\" on earth as in heaven.\n\nIt remains briefly to consider these three palmary texts in their\nreciprocal relations to each other, by which the fullest light is\nthrown upon the scriptural prerogatives of S. Peter.\n\n1. First, then, all these texts are in the most marked manner\ncircumscribed to Peter _alone_. In all he is addressed by name; in\nall he is distinguished by other circumstances from his brethren at\nthe time present with him; in all a special condition is attached\nbelonging to him; in the first, superior faith--in the second,\nfaith, which, by a particular gift, the fruit of Christ's own\nprayer, should never fail--in the third, superior love. So that,\nwithout an utter disregard of the meaning of words, and the force of\nthe context, and every law of grammar and philology, no one of these\ntexts can be extended from its application to Peter alone, and made\ncommon to the other Apostles.\n\n2. Secondly, the note of _priority in time_ is secured to Peter by\nthe first text, to which the other two correspond. Even if the\npromise in Matt. xviii. 18, made to all the Apostles, were of equal\nlatitude with that previously made to Peter, which it is so very far\nfrom being that it contains one point only out of four, yet, the\nfact that they had been already ranged by the former under him, and\nthat he had been promised _singly_ what they afterwards were\npromised _in common_, would make a vast difference between them;\nindeed, the difference of the Primacy. But, as it is, the very\nfirst mention of the Church is connected with a promise made to\nPeter of the highest authority in that Church, and a perpetual\nrelationship, entering into its inmost constitution, between it and\nhis person. Before the Church is formed, it is foretold that Peter\nshall rule her: before she is set up against the gates of hell,\nthat, by virtue of her coherence with Him, she should prevail over\nthem. And the germ of her Episcopate, on which she is to grow, is\nsown in His person; just as, in the last act of our Lord, that\nEpiscopate is delivered over to Him, universal and complete.\n\n3. Thirdly, those three texts are exactly _equivalent_ to each\nother: they each involve and express the other. They could not have\nbeen said of different persons without contradiction and confusion.\nHe who has one of them must have the rest. There is variation of\nimage, but identity of meaning. Thus, the relation between Peter and\nthe Church is in the first, that of Foundation and Superstructure;\nof the heaven-built city, and of him who holds its keys: in the\nsecond, it is that of the Architect, who, by skill and authority,\nwon for him, and given to him, by the Supreme Builder, the Word and\nWisdom of God, maintains every living stone of the structure in its\ndue place: in the third it is that of the supreme and universal\nPastor and his whole flock. In all of these there is the habit of\ndependence between the superior and that over which he is set: in\nall the need of close coherence with him. Observe in particular the\nidentity of the second and third. The special office of the Shepherd\nof[28] souls is to lead his flock into suitable pastures, that is,\nduly to instruct them in the Divine Word and Will: the pastoral\noffice is identical with that of teaching: \"He gave some Apostles,\nsome Prophets, some Evangelists, some pastors and teachers,\" the\nformer are distinguished, the last united together: where the\nApostle observes, that the whole ministry, from the highest to the\nlowest, is organised \"to edify the body of Christ into the unity of\nfaith,\" and to preserve men from being \"carried about by every wind\nof doctrine.\" But if this was the design of Christ as to the whole\nministry, and as to each individual teacher, most of all was it in\ninstituting one supreme and universal Pastor: in him most of all\nwould be seen the perfect _fitting in together_[29] of each\nindividual member: he was set up especially for the compacting of\neach spiritual joint, the harmony and cohesion of the whole. Here,\nthen, the office of the universal Pastor or Teacher is precisely\nequivalent to him, who, by another image confirms, strengthens,\nconsolidates his brethren. Thus, in the second text Christ foretold\nthe third. But the more we contemplate all the three in their mutual\nrelations, the more a certain thought suggests itself to the mind.\nThere is a special doctrine concerning the most Holy Trinity, the\nmost distinctive of that great mystery, which expresses the\nreciprocal indwelling of the Three Persons. Now something analogous\nmay be said of the way in which these three texts impermeate and\ninclude each other, of their exact equivalence, and distinct, but\ninseparable force: of whom one is said, of the same must all.\n\n4. Fourthly, they all indicate a _sovereign_ authority,\n_independent_ itself, but on which all others depend; symbolising\npower from above, but claiming obedience from below; immutable in\nitself, but by which all the rest are made proof against change; for\nit is not to the sheep that the shepherd is responsible, but to\ntheir owner. It has been said throughout that the one special mark\nof Peter's distinction was a peculiar association with Christ. It is\nnot therefore by any infringement of equal rights that this\nauthority is set up, but as the representative, the vicegerent, of\nHim in whom all power dwells: who bore this authority in His own\nbody, and who committed to another what was first His own, both by\ncreation and by purchase--\"Feed _My_ sheep.\" In all these texts the\nimmediate transference of authority from the Person of the God-man\nis most striking; in Peter He inaugurates His great theandric\ndispensation, and forms the Body which He was to leave on earth.\nThus these texts most clearly express that important doctrine of\nantiquity, the keystone of the Church's liberty from the world,\nwhich is the reason why the world so hates it, \"The first See is\njudged by no man.\" So entirely have political ideas and jealousies\ninfected our mode of judging of spiritual things--to such a degree\nis our peculiar civil liberty made the standard of Church\ngovernment--that it is necessary to insist again and again on what\nto Christians ought to be a first principle, viz., that \"all power\nand jurisdiction in the Church, like the Church herself, ought to\nrest not upon natural and human authority, but on the divine\nauthority of Christ. This is the reason why we may pronounce no\notherwise concerning such jurisdiction, than we know has been handed\ndown from Christ, its proper author and founder. Now it is certain\nthat at the same moment at which Christ instituted the community\ncalled the Church, such a power was introduced, and entrusted as\nwell to Peter singly as the head, as to the Apostles under him. Nay,\nthat power was fixed and constituted, and its ministers and bishops\nmarked out, _before_ the Church, that is, the whole body and\ncommonwealth, had grown into coherence. And so ecclesiastical\njurisdiction did not first dwell in the community itself, and was\nthen translated by a sort of popular suffrage and consent to its\nmagistrates; but from the very first origin Peter was destined to be\nsingle chief of the future body, and next to him the other\nApostles.\"[30]\n\n5. Fifthly, it must be observed that there is a _definiteness_ about\nthese texts which belongs in a far less degree to those forms in\nwhich the co-ordinate and co-equal authority of the Apostles, as\nsuch, is expressed. This last is left to be harmonised and brought\ninto operation by the superior power of the chief. They are indeed\nsent into all the world, they are immediately instituted by our\nLord, they have the promise that His power shall be with them, and\nthat their sentence shall stand good in heaven and on earth; but\nthis promise, which is the most distinct made to them, has been\nalready gathered up into the hands of one, and in its practical\nissue is limited by the necessity of cooperating with that one; that\nis, the authority of Peter includes and embraces theirs, but theirs\nis ranged under his. Theirs is modified not only by being shared,\nbut by having his set over them. Now observe how distinct and clear,\nhow definite in their meaning, while universal in their range, are\nthe things said of him alone; 1. That he should be the rock on which\nChrist would build His Church; 2. That permanence and victory should\nbelong to that Church for ever through Him: 3. That he should bear\nthe keys in the kingdom of heaven: 4. That whatever _singly_ he\nshould bind and loose, should be bound and loosed in heaven as well\nas on earth: 5. That he should confirm his brethren, the Apostles\nthemselves being the very first so called: 6. That he should be the\nShepherd of the fold. What can constitute inequality between two\nparties, if such a series of promises given to one, and not to the\nother, does not?\n\n6. Sixthly, these promises cannot be contemplated without seeing\nthat the ordinary and regular government of the Church springs from\nthe person whom they designate, and in whom they are concentrated.\nTo take the last, all spiritual care is summed up in the word\nPastorship, the office of priest, bishop, metropolitan, patriarch,\nand pope, rising in degree, and extending in range, but in its\nnature the same. On the contrary Apostles, (with this one exception,\nin virtue of the Primacy,) Prophets, and Evangelists, are\nextraordinary officers, attending the opening of the dispensation,\nbut afterwards dropping off. But the Church, as it was to endure for\never, and the orderly arrangement of the divine ministry, were\nsummed up in the Primacy, and flowed forth from it as the full\nreceptacle of the virtue of God the Word Incarnate. And so it is the\nhead of the ministerial body. All which is set forth as in a picture\nto the mind, in that scene upon the shore of the lake of Galilee,\nwhen the Lord said to Peter, \"Feed My sheep.\"\n\n7. And, again, Peter was thus made the beginning and principle of\nspiritual power, as it left the Person of God the Word, not for\nonce, but for ever. Long as the structure should endure, its\nprinciple of cohesion must bind it. As the law of gravitation binds\nall worlds together in the natural kingdom, and is a _continuous_\nsource of strength and harmony, so should be in the spiritual\nkingdom that force which the same Wisdom of God established; it goes\non with power undiminished; it is the full fountain-head from which\nall streams emanate; it is the highest image of God's power as the\ncentre and source of all things. This idea is dwelt upon by S.\nCyprian and S. Augustine, as well as by Pope S. Innocent,[31] the\ncontemporary of the latter, and was afresh expressed in a synodical\nletter of the three provinces of Africa to Pope Theodore, in A.D.\n646, \"No one can doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great\nunfailing fountain, pouring forth waters for all Christians, whence\nrich streams proceed, bountifully irrigating the whole Christian\nworld.\"[32]\n\n8. And, lastly, in these great promises Peter is specially set forth\nas the type and the efficient cause of visible unity in the Church.\nSuch was the very purpose of Christ, that His disciples might be\none, as He and the Father are one. For this end, in the words of S.\nAugustine, \"He entrusted His sheep to Peter, as to another self, He\nwilled to make him one with Himself;\" and in the words of S. Leo,\n\"He assumed him into the participation of His indivisible\nunity.\"[33] But this is seen no less plainly in the words of Christ,\nthan in the Fathers; for He made _one_ Rock, _one_ Bearer of the\nkeys, _one_ Confirmer of the brethren, and _one_ Shepherd. The union\nof millions of naturally conflicting wills in the profession and\nbelief of one doctrine is almost the very highest work of divine\npower; and as grace, that is, the Holy Spirit diffused in the heart,\nis the inward efficient of this, so the outward, both symbol and\ninstrument, is the Primacy, that \"other self\" which the Lord left in\nthe world. And as the Church of God through every succeeding age\ngrows and expands, the need of this power becomes greater and not\nless, and reverence to that \"single chair in which unity was to be\nobserved by all,\"[34] a more imperative virtue, or rather an\never-deepening instinct, of the Christian mind.\n\nBut antiquity itself drew no other conclusions from the\nconcentration of these great privileges in the person of Peter. We\nhave but to go back to a time before the present nationalities of\nEurope, those jealous foes of Peter's authority, had come into\nexistence, and we find the chief men of France, and Spain, and\nItaly, interpreting the above texts as we have done. Take one whose\ntestimony from the circumstances of his life ought to be above\nsuspicion. John Cassian was by birth a Scythian, was educated in a\nmonastery at Bethlehem, travelled through Egypt, and made himself\nacquainted with its most distinguished religious men, went to\nConstantinople, and was ordained deacon by S. Chrysostome, and\nafterwards at Rome priest by Pope Innocent I. On the capture of Rome\nby Alaric, he settled at Marseilles, about the year 410, and there\nfounded two monasteries. In his work on the Incarnation he says,[35]\n\"Let us ask him, who is supreme, both as disciple among disciples,\nand as teacher among teachers, who, steering the course of the Roman\nChurch, held the supremacy as well of the faith as of the\npriesthood. Tell us, therefore, tell us, we pray, O Peter, Prince of\nthe Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought to believe. For just it\nis that thou, who wast taught of the Lord, shouldst teach us, and\nopen to us the door whose key thou hast received. Shut out all who\nundermine the heavenly house, and turn away those who attempt to\nmake an entry through treacherous caverns and illicit approaches;\nbecause it is certain that no one shall be able to enter the door of\nthe kingdom, save he to whom the key placed by thee in the Church\nshall open it. Tell us, therefore, how we ought to believe that\nJesus is the Christ, and to confess our common Lord.\" Again,\nfourteen hundred years ago, Maximus, Bishop of Turin in that day,\nconfessed by his words, what his successor of the present day bears\nwitness to by his sufferings: for he writes of Peter, \"As[36] the\nGood Shepherd he received the defence of the flock, so that he, who\nbefore had been weak in his own case, might become the confirmation\nto all: and he who had been shaken by the temptation of the question\nasked him, might be a foundation to the rest by the stability of his\nfaith. In fine, for the firmness of his devotion he is called the\nRock of the Churches, as the Lord says, 'Thou art Peter, and upon\nthis Rock I will build My Church.' For he is called the Rock,\nbecause he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among\nthe nations, _and, because, as an immoveable stone, he holds\ntogether the framework and the mass of the whole Christian\nstructure_. Peter, therefore, for his devotion is called the Rock,\nand the Lord is named the Rock by His inherent power, as the Apostle\nsays, 'and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and\nthe rock was Christ.' _Rightly does he merit to share the name, who,\nlikewise, merits to share the work._\" Again, far and wide has the\nlying story been spread by false-hearted men, who above all things,\nhate the spiritual kingdom which God has set up in the world, that\nPeter's power has been the growth of gradual encroachment on the\nsecular authority. Now, long before Pelayo renewed the Spanish\nmonarchy in the mountains of the Asturias, and while Augustine, sent\nby Pope Gregory, was laying the foundation of the English Church, S.\nIsidore, Bishop of Seville, from 598 to 636, the very highest of the\nancient Spanish doctors, wrote thus explicitly to his colleague at\nToledo:[37] \"But as to the question of the equality of the Apostles,\nPeter is pre-eminent over the rest, who merited to hear from the\nLord, 'Thou shalt be called Cephas--Thou art Peter, and upon this\nrock I will build My Church.' And not from any one else, but from\nthe very Son of God and the Virgin, he was the first to receive the\nhonour of the pontificate in the Church of Christ, to whom also,\nafter the resurrection of the Son of God, was said by the same,\n'Feed My lambs,' noting by the name of lambs the prelates of the\nchurches. And although the dignity of this power is derived to all\nCatholic bishops, yet in a more special manner it remains for ever\nin the Roman bishop, who is by a certain singular privilege set as\nthe head over the other limbs. Whoso, therefore, renders not\nreverently to him due obedience, involves himself, as being severed\nfrom the head, in the schism of the Acephali.\"\n\nIt would be easy to multiply such authorities of a period prior to\nthe formation of all the existing European states. It was the will\nof God, providing for His Church, that before the old Roman society\nwas utterly upheaved from its foundations by the deluge of the\nNorthern tribes, reverence for S. Peter's throne should be fixed as\nan immovable rock, on which a new Christian civilization might be\nfounded. Thus Pope Gregory II., writing to the Emperor Leo the\nIsaurian, about the year 717, only sums up the force and effect of\nall preceding tradition, when he says: \"The whole West turns its\neyes upon us, and, unworthy though we be, puts complete trust in us,\nand in that blessed Peter, whose image you threaten to overturn, but\nwhom all the kingdoms of the West count for a God upon earth.\"[38]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Passaglia, p. 106.\n\n[2] Passaglia, p. 109.\n\n[3] Matt. x. 2-5; Mark iii. 16-19; Luke vi. 14-17; Acts i. 13.\n\n[4] St. Chrysostome on Matt. Hom. 32.\n\n[5] Origen on John, Tom. 32, n. 5, T. 4, p. 413.\n\n[6] 1 Paral. xxvii. 33; Neh. xii. 45; 2 Paral. xxvi. 20.\n\n[7] Matt. xx. 27; Luke xv. 22; 1 Tim. i. 15.\n\n[8] Matt. xvii. 1; Mark v. 37; xiii. 3; xiv. 33; Luke viii. 51;\nxxii. 8; John xxi. 2.\n\n[9] De Consensu. Evang. Lib. 2, c. xvii. n. 39.\n\n[10] Mark i. 36; Luke viii. 45; Matt. xii. 3; Mark ii. 25; xvi. 10.\n\n[11] Luke ix. 32; Matt. xxvi. 40.\n\n[12] Matt. xvii. 24.\n\n[13] De Praesc. c. 22.\n\n[14] John xiv. 8; xi. 16.\n\n[15] Matt. xviii. 21; John xiii. 6.\n\n[16] Passaglia, p. 134.\n\n[17] Matt. xix. 23.\n\n[18] John vi. 67.\n\n[19] Luke xii. 41.\n\n[20] In Matt. Hom. 54.\n\n[21] Passaglia, p. 510.\n\n[22] Passaglia, p. 518.\n\n[23] These testimonies have been set forth at length in another\nwork, \"The See of St. Peter, the Rock of the Church,\" &c. Pp.\n97-118.\n\n[24] Serm. 4.\n\n[25] Matt. xviii. 1; xx. 20; Luke xxii. 24.\n\n[26] Bossuet, Sermon on unity.\n\n[27] Poimahinein, gubernare, to govern, the particular word\nwhich our Lord employs to convey His powers to Peter, is also the\nparticular word which gives such offence to temporal governments,\nwhen acted on by Peter: bhoskein, pascere, to feed, they\nfind more endurable, and probably they would all be content, from\nthe heathen Roman emperors to the present day, to allow _the Church_\nto _feed_, so long as _they_ are allowed to _govern_ the faithful.\nThe objection on the part of the Church is, that our Lord gave\n_both_ to Peter.\n\n[28] Passaglia, p. 591.\n\n[29] Ho katartismos ton hagion. Eph. iv. 12.\n\n[30] Petavius, de Ecc. Hier. Lib. 3, c. 14.\n\n[31] St. Cyprian de unitate, c. 3. St. Aug. to Pope Innocent, Ep.\n177, n. 19. Pope Innocent to the Councils of Carthage and Numidia.\n\n[32] Mansi x. 919.\n\n[33] St. Aug. Serm. 46. St. Leo, Epistle 10.\n\n[34] St. Optatus, cont. Parm. Lib. 2, c. 6.\n\n[35] Lib. 3, c. 12.\n\n[36] De Petro Apostolo, Hom. 4.\n\n[37] Ad Eugenium Toletanum.\n\n[38] Mausi, Concil. T. xii. 972.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nS. PETER'S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE ACTS.\n\n\nThe [1]purpose of S. Luke in writing the Acts seems to have been to\nset before us the labours and sufferings of the Apostles in planting\nand propagating the Church. But he has divided the book very\ndistinctly into two portions; the latter, from the thirteenth\nchapter to the end, with one short exception, is wholly occupied\nwith the labours of S. Paul, \"the vessel of election,\" in spreading\nthe faith among the Gentiles, and so contains the particular history\nof that Apostle, and the churches founded by him. The former, from\nthe beginning to the end of the twelfth chapter, embraces the\nhistory of the Apostles in common, and of the whole Church, as it\nrose at Jerusalem, and was spread first in Judea, then in Samaria,\nand finally extended to the Gentiles. The former history, then, is\nuniversal; the latter, particular.\n\nMoreover, to use the words of [2]S. Chrysostome, \"we may here see\nthe promises which Christ made in the Gospels carried into\nexecution, and the bright light of truth shining in the very\nactions, and a great change in the disciples, arising from the\nSpirit that had entered into them.--You will see here Apostles\nspeeding on the wing over land and sea, and men once timid and\nunskilled suddenly changed into despisers of wealth, and conquerors\nof glory and all other passions; you will see them united in the\nutmost harmony, without jealousy, which once they had, without\ncontention for the higher place.\"\n\nWe may say, then, in a word, that the Gospels are a history of the\nHead, and the Acts of the mystical Body. Hence both issue forth from\none and the same fountain and source. The history of the Head begins\nwith the descent of the Holy Ghost, whereby Christ was conceived,\nand [3]\"the race of God and of man became one. For just as the union\nof man with woman joins two families, so upon Christ assuming flesh,\nby that flesh the whole Church became of kin with Christ, Paul\nbecame Christ's kinsman, and Peter, each one of the faithful, all\nwe, every holy person. Therefore, says Paul, [4]'being the offspring\nof God,' and again, 'we are the body of Christ and members in\nparticular,' that is, through the flesh, which He has assumed, we\nare His kinsmen.\" Now the history of the Body, proceeding from the\nsame fountain-head, sets before us the Holy Spirit, who, by\ndescending first on the teachers, and afterwards on the disciples,\nexalts and advances all, and by imparting Himself, imparts \"the\nproportional deification of man,\" that is, \"the utmost possible\nassimilation and union with God.\"[5] For \"the Spirit works in us by\nHis proper power, truly sanctifying, and uniting us to Himself into\none frame, and making us partakers of the divine nature:\"[6]\n\"becoming as it were a quality of the Godhead in us, and dwelling in\nthe saints, and abiding for ever.\"\n\nNow it is [7]manifest that if the first twelve chapters of the Acts\ncontain the history of the Church from its beginning, and what the\nApostles did for its first formation, its growth, and its form of\ngovernment, all this has the closest connection with the question as\nto Peter's prerogatives. For the historical accounts in the Acts,\nwhich exhibit the _execution_ of Christ's promises and intentions,\nnaturally tend to set in the fullest light, and to reveal\ndistinctly, whatever as to the administration of the Church may be\nless clearly _foretold_ in the Gospels. For in itself the\n_execution_ is declaratory of the _enactment_, and supplies a safe\nrule for understanding and determining the words of institution.\nNow, if we apply this rule to the present question, it will be\napparent that those expressions of the Gospel, which we assigned to\nthe divine institution of the Primacy, cannot be otherwise received\nwithout making the _execution_ in the Acts at variance with what the\nGospels record.\n\nFor, take it as a still doubtful hypothesis whether there exist\nevangelical testimonies of Peter's _institution_ to be head and\nchief of the Apostles. What needs it to turn this hypothesis into\ncertainty? What should we expect of Peter, if he really had received\nfrom Christ the charge of leading the other Apostles? What but that\nhe should never follow, but always be at the head; should close\ndissensions, weigh and terminate controversies, punish emergent\noffences, maintain the general discipline, give the support of his\ncounsel and authority in need, and leave undone none of those\nfunctions which accompany the office of head and supreme ruler?\nHence it is plain that there are two ways, the one absolute, the\nother hypothetical, by which a decisive judgment may be drawn from\nthe history of the Acts, as to whether Peter's Primacy was\ninstituted in the Gospels. Critics and philosophers are perpetually\nusing both these tests. Thus, the former, \"if a certain work--say\nthe epistles of the martyr Ignatius--be genuine, it ought to contain\ncertain characteristics. But it does contain these, and so is\ngenuine.\" Or absolutely, \"a certain work, the Epistles of Ignatius,\ncontains all which we should expect in a genuine work, therefore it\nis genuine.\" The latter infer, \"If bodies be moved by the law of\ngravitation, they would pass through a certain space under such and\nsuch a condition. But this they do, and accordingly are moved by\ngravitation.\" Or absolutely, \"Bodies left to themselves pass through\nspace under such conditions as they would follow, if impelled by\ngravitation. Accordingly they are so impelled.\" Now in the parallel\ncase, \"If Christ in the Gospels pre-ordained a form of Church\ngovernment, which gathered up the supreme power and visible headship\ninto Peter's hands, the _exercise_ of such _institution_ ought to be\nfound in the Acts. But it is so found. Therefore,\" &c.--or again,\n\"No one would expect certain acts from Peter, unless he were the\nhead of all the Apostles; and all would fairly expect those acts of\nPeter, if they recognised him as so set over all by Christ. Now in\nthe general history of the Apostles we find such acts recorded of\nPeter, and that not partially, here and there, but in a complete\nseries. Accordingly the history of the rising Church, exhibited in\nthe first part of the Acts, demands Peter's Primacy for its\nexplanation; and if we deny that Primacy, and take in another sense\nthe words recording its institution in the Gospel, the history\nbecomes unintelligible.\"\n\nNow this reasoning is conclusive in either way, provided only that\nwhat we have asserted be really found in the Acts. The proof of this\nmay be either general, or piecemeal and particular. We will take\nboth in order, beginning with the former.\n\n1. First, [8]then, we must repeat, as concerns that whole portion of\nthe Acts containing the history of the universal Church, and all\nthe Apostles, viz. the first twelve chapters, a remark before made\nas to the Gospels, which is, that Peter simply is more often\nmentioned than all the rest put together. For Peter's name occurs\nmore than fifty times, the others very seldom, and those who are\nfound the oftenest, John and James, are recorded, the former seven\nor eight, the latter three or four times. Yet this is a history of\nthem all: Luke is recording the common exertions of all the Apostles\nin building up the Church. This is the very distinction between the\nformer and the latter portion of his book, which is confined to the\nlabours of S. Paul, leaving aside the rest of the Church. What then\nis the reason that Peter, in a general history, is so often brought\nforward, and the rest, either singly or in conjunction, so seldom?\nBecause after our Lord's glorious ascension Peter stood to the\neleven in an analogous position to that held by our Lord, so long as\nHe was visible, towards the whole college: because Peter was become\nthe head, and the rest, as members, were ranged under him.\n\n2. Such subordination on their part, such pre-eminence on his,[9]\nLuke shows yet more clearly, whenever he groups Peter with the rest,\nby assigning to him the leading place. It frequently happens to him\nto speak of Peter and the rest together, but on no one occasion does\nhe give Peter any but the first place, and the leading part. Just as\nthe evangelists do with regard to Christ, and the Apostles and\ndisciples, so Luke prefers Peter to the rest, to mark a difference\nbetween the rank and office of Peter, and that of the others.\n\n3. Luke seems to confirm his readers in such a conclusion by the\nform which he follows of mentioning Peter _directly_, and the rest\n_obliquely_ or _in a mass_. These are instances: \"In those days\nPeter, _rising up in the midst of the brethren_, said\"--\"Peter,\n_standing up with the eleven_, lifted up his voice\"--\"They said _to\nPeter and to the rest of the Apostles_\"--\"Peter _with John_\nfastening his eyes upon him said, Look upon us.\"--\"Peter _and the\nApostles_ answering, said.\"[10] Now what form of writing could Luke\nchoose to refute an opinion about the _universal_ equality of the\nApostles? Or to show Peter as set over the rest, and to satisfy in\nthis even the most unreasonable? Either the form which he did choose\nis calculated to do this, or none such can be found.\n\n4. Add to this that Peter is represented as speaking and answering,\nwhen the occasion would suggest that all the Apostles, equally,\nshould disclose their mind. The reproaches of the unbelieving Jews\naffected not Peter singly, but all alike; but he alone stands forth,\nhe alone lifts up his voice, and in a long speech brings them to\nsound reflection. The multitude, struck with compunction, asked not\nPeter only, but the rest likewise, \"What shall we do, men and\nbrethren?\" Yet it is forthwith added, \"But _Peter_ said to them.\"\nUpon the miracle by which one who had been lame from his mother's\nwomb was healed, \"all the people ran together to them,\" both Peter\nand John, but Peter alone speaks, and takes on himself the defence\nof the common cause: \"Peter seeing, made answer to the people.\"[11]\nFresh instances may be found in chs. iv. 6-7, and v. 2-3. The result\nof the whole is that Peter is continually \"the mouth-piece of the\nApostles,\"[12] always takes the lead, and gives his own mind, as\nconveying that of the rest.\n\nOn what ground does he do this? Was it from natural fervour of\ndisposition? But it was the same after he was filled with the Holy\nSpirit as before. Was it the result of superior age, or first\ncalling? but the facts refute this. What other cause can be\nsuggested save that Primacy which the Gospels record, and the Acts\nconfirm?\n\n5. To this we must likewise refer it that Luke, while he amply\ndescribes actions which belong to Peter, rather hints at than\nnarrates what concerns the other Apostles. Thus he leaves it to be\nunderstood that the others spoke, while he gives Peter's discourses\nentire, and seems to have chosen them as the principal material of\nhis history. He simply suggests that miracles were wrought by the\nrest, but records particularly what Peter did for the establishment\nof the faith. He relates but very little of those who became\nChristians by the exertion of others, but notes at large the\nabundant fruit of Peter's teaching. Take an ancient author's summary\nof the Acts, \"this whole volume is about the ascension of Christ\nafter the resurrection, and about the descent of the Holy Spirit on\nthe holy Apostles, and how and where the disciples announced\nChrist's religion, and all the wondrous deeds which they did by\nprayer and faith in Him, and about Paul's divine calling from\nheaven, his apostleship, and fruitful preaching, and in a word about\nthose many great dangers which the Apostles underwent for\nChrist:\"[13] follow, out of this, all which concerns the universal\nChurch in the first twelve chapters, and Peter will be found not\nonly the principal, but well nigh the only, figure in the\nforeground.\n\n6. Hence as the Gospels may be called the history of Christ, so this\nfirst part of the Acts may be called the history of Peter; for as\nChrist occupies each page of the Gospels, so Peter here. Nothing can\nbe more emphatic or more just than S. Chrysostome's words: \"Behold\nhim making his rounds on every side, and the first to be found; when\nan Apostle was to be chosen, he was the first; when the Jews were to\nbe told that they were not drunken; when the lame man was to be\nhealed; when the multitude was to be addressed, he is before the\nrest; when they had to do with the rulers, it is he; when with\nAnanias, when healings took place from the shadow, still it is he.\nWhere there was danger, it is he, and where there was dispensation;\nbut when all is tranquil, they act in common. He sought not the\ngreater honour. But again, when miracles are to be worked, he comes\nforth before the rest.\"[14] What can prove Peter's pre-eminence if\nthis does not? But his words on another occasion deserve mention.\nAlluding to the title \"Acts of the Apostles,\" which seems to promise\ntheir common history, he observes, \"Yet if you search accurately,\nthe first part of the book exhibits Peter's miracles and teaching,\nbut little on the part of the other Apostles; and after this the\nwhole account is spent on Paul.\" But he adds, \"How are they the acts\nof all the Apostles? Because, according to Paul, when one member is\nglorified, all the members are glorified with it, the historian did\nnot entitle them, the Acts of Peter and of Paul, but the Acts of the\nApostles; the promise of the writer includes them all.\"[15] Now\nevery one must feel the very high distinction given to Paul in the\nlatter part of the book, when the historian turns away from the\ngeneral history of the Church to record his particular labours, in\nwhich, no doubt, the object was to show the progress of the Church\namong the Gentiles; but with regard to the part which is common to\nthe whole Church, another thought is suggested. The history of what\nPeter taught and did, to build up and extend the Church, is\nconsidered the common history of the Apostles, and so inscribed as\ntheir Acts. But can this be called an _accurate_ expression, unless\nPeter had been the head of the Apostles? It is very plain that the\nacts of a head are imputed to the whole body; to a college of\nbrethren, what its chief executes; to a city or kingdom, the deeds\nof its prince. But it is not plain how this can be, if the actor be\none of a number, and do not exceed his brethren in honour or\ndignity. Therefore the Acts of Peter could be called, generally, the\nActs of the Apostles, only because they were considered the Acts of\ntheir head.\n\nNow let us pass from the general view to that in detail.\n\nI. After [16]the Lord's ascension a most important point immediately\narose, whether, that is, the number of the Twelve was to be filled\nup by the election of a new Apostle to take the place of Judas. The\nwill of Christ on this matter was to be learnt; a witness was to be\nchosen who should participate in the mission of Christ Himself,\naccording to the words, \"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send\nyou,\" and carry the light of the Gospel to the ends of the world;\nand one was to be elected to the dignity of the Apostolate, the\nhighest rank in the Church. It was, therefore, so important a\nmatter, that no one could undertake it save he who had received the\nvicarious headship of our Lord Himself. Now the history in the Acts\ntells us that Peter alone spoke on the subject of substituting a\nfresh Apostle for Judas; Peter alone proved from Scripture the\nnecessity of the election, defined the conditions of eligibility,\nand appointed the mode of election, and presided over and directed\nthe whole transaction.\n\nFor Luke begins thus: \"In those days,\" the interval between the\nAscension and Pentecost, \"Peter rising up in the midst of the\nbrethren, said.\" Here the important prerogative _of initiation_ is\nshown to belong to Peter, and by the phrase, \"in the midst of the\nbrethren,\" or \"disciples,\"--which is often used of Christ in respect\nof the Apostles--his pre-eminence over the disciples is shown.\n\"Brethren, it behoved that the Scripture should be fulfilled which\nthe Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David, concerning Judas,\nwho was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus, who was numbered\nwith us, and had obtained part of this ministry,\" that is, of the\nApostolate. Then having mentioned the miserable end of the traitor,\nhe applies to him the prophecy: \"For it is written in the Book of\nPsalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be none\nto dwell therein:' and, adding another prophecy from another Psalm,\n'his bishopric let another take.'\"[17] Whence he concludes,\n\"Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that\nthe Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the\nbaptism of John, until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one\nof these _must_ be made a witness with us of His resurrection.\" In\nthese words Peter plainly points out the _necessity_ of the matter\nin question, confirms it by the Holy Scriptures, speaking in the\ncharacter of their highest interpreter, and as the appointed teacher\nof all; and, while proposing it to their deliberation, yet requires\ntheir consent; for the phrase, \"wherefore, one _must_,\" means, \"I am\nnot proposing what may be done or left undone, but declaring and\nprescribing what is to be done.\" So he determines the conditions of\neligibility, and the form of election. Whereupon his hearers--\"the\nnumber of persons together about an hundred and twenty\"--instantly\nagree unanimously to Peter's proposition, follow its conditions, and\ncomplete the election.\n\nNo one can reflect on the above without concluding, that if Peter\npresided over the rest by the authority of a divinely chosen\nheadship, no course could be more becoming, both for Peter and for\nthe disciples, than this; and if, on the contrary, Peter was only\none out of many, not having yet even received the Pentecostal gifts\nof the Holy Spirit, and had been entrusted by Christ with no\npre-eminent office in the ministry, nothing could be more unfitting\nfor both. We have therefore to infer that Peter \"stood in the midst\nof the disciples,\" as a superior among inferiors, not as an equal\namong equals, and conceived that the charge of supplying an Apostle,\nand filling up the Apostolic college, belonged in chief to himself,\nbecause he and they alike were conscious, that he was the steward\nset in chief over the Lord's family.\n\nBut, clear as this is on the face of the narration itself, fresh\nlight is shed on it by the fact that S. Chrysostome observed and\nrecorded this very conclusion. For why did Peter alone arise? Why\nwas he the first and the only one to speak? \"Both[18] as fervent,\nand _as one entrusted by Christ with the flock_, and _as the first\nof the choir_, he ever first begins to speak.\" Why does he allege\nprophecy? First, that he might not seem with human counsel \"to\nattempt a great matter, and one fitted for Christ:\" next to imitate\nhis Master, \"he always reasons from the Scriptures.\" \"Why did he not\nsingly ask of Christ to give him some one in the place of Judas?\"\nBecause \"Peter had now improved,\" and overcome his natural\ndisposition. But \"_might not Peter by himself have elected?_\nCertainly: but he does not so, that he may not seem partial.\" \"Why\ndoes he communicate this to them,\" the whole number of the\nnames? \"That the matter may not be contested, nor they fall into\nstrife: for\" (he alludes to the contention of the Apostles for the\nprimacy,) \"if this had happened to themselves, much more would it to\nthe others,\" that is, the candidates to succeed Judas. Then he\npoints out to our admiration \"Peter doing this with common consent,\nnothing[19] with authority, nothing with lordship,\" where we must\nnote that the _abuse_ of a power is only to be feared from one who\nreally has that power. For again he says, \"he first acts with[20]\nauthority in the matter, _as having himself all put into his hands_,\nfor to him Christ said, 'And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy\nbrethren.'\"\n\nThe college of the Apostles completed, it followed that the head, if\nsuch there were, would on every occasion of danger, be the first to\nprotect it, and to defend its reputation. Now there ensues the\nmiracle of the Holy Spirit's descent, and the gift of tongues,\nwhereupon Luke describes the various opinions of the astonished\nmultitude, some of whom \"mocking,[21] said, These men are full of\nnew wine.\" That is, they blasphemed the working of the Spirit, and\nby the most monstrous calumny were destroying the good name of the\nApostles. Whereupon, \"Peter, standing up with the Eleven, lifted up\nhis voice and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell\nin Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my\nwords. For these are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the\nthird hour of the day: but this is that which was spoken of by the\nprophet Joel.\" Now here, both the _form of the words_, and the\n_matter_, establish Peter's primacy. For the phrase, \"Peter standing\nup with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them,\"\nportrays Peter as the leader of the band, the master of the family.\nSo S. Chrysostome,[22] \"What means _with the Eleven_? They uttered a\ncommon voice, and he was the mouthpiece of all. And the Eleven stand\nbeside him, bearing witness to his words.\" And as to the _matter_,\nPeter alone fulfils the part of teacher, by interpreting scripture,\nand declaring the agreement of both covenants: Peter alone maintains\nthe common cause: Peter alone, representing all, addresses the\nmultitude in the name of all. \"Observe, too, the harmony of the\nApostles: they give up to him the office of speaking:\"[23] that is,\nthey yielded to him who was the Head, and who, as he says, showed\nhere \"the courage,\" as before \"the providential care\" of the Head.\n\nAfter refuting the calumny, Peter goes on in a noble discourse to\nexplain prophecies, and then coming to the dispensation of Jesus,\ngives the strongest proofs of His resurrection and exaltation to the\nright hand of the Father, and finally sums up with great force and\nauthority. \"Therefore, let all the house of Israel know most\ncertainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ this same Jesus\nwhom you have crucified.\"\n\nNow, what[24] is here to our purpose? It is this, that Luke seems\nonly to dwell on what concerns Peter: that Peter, first of all, and\nin the name of all, performs the office of a witness, laid both on\nhimself and the rest, (\"ye shall be witnesses to Me;\" \"and you shall\ngive witness,\")[25] saying, \"this Jesus hath God raised up, of which\nwe all are witnesses:\" that first of all, he publicly and solemnly\ndischarges the duty of instruction with authority: that, first of\nall, he fulfils the charge set by Christ on all the Apostles, \"make\ndisciples--teach:\" that, first of all, he promulgates the necessity\nof believing in Jesus as the divinely appointed Lord and Christ. Now\nthese are things which, so far from allowing an equality between\nPeter and the rest of the Apostles, point out in him a headship over\nthem.\n\nThereupon, the hearers, struck with compunction for having\ncrucified, not merely a just man, but the Anointed of the Lord,\n\"said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles\"--here again he alone is\nsingly named--but of all alike they asked, \"Men and brethren, what\nshall we do?\" Whereupon, S. Chrysostome[26] notes, \"here again,\nwhere all are asked, he alone replies.\" For, as Luke goes on, \"Peter\nsaid to them:\" As the leader, he performs what belongs to all: he\nalone sets forth the law of Christ. \"Do penance, and be baptized\nevery one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of\nsins:\" he alone encourages them with the promised gifts of the Holy\nSpirit, \"and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost:\" he alone\ncontinues at length the instruction of the hearers, \"and with very\nmany other words did he testify and exhort them:\" he alone declares\nthe fruit of Christian profession, \"save yourselves from this\nperverse generation,\" and he alone it is, of whose ministry Luke\nadds, \"They, therefore, that gladly received his word were baptized,\nand there were added, in that day, about three thousand souls.\"\n\nAnd here we see how fitting it was that Peter, whom Christ had set\nas the foundation and rock of the Church, should labour with all his\nmight, as the chief architect after Him, to build up the structure.\nBut what, in the meantime, of the other Apostles? Were not they also\narchitects? Yes, but _with_ Peter, and _under_ Peter, whom\naccordingly, they attend and support. The subsequent additions to\nthe Church's structure, and the course consistently pursued by\nPeter, will bring this out yet more clearly. For, of fresh\naccretions, Luke writes, \"Many of them who had heard the word,\nbelieved, and the number of the men was made five thousand.\"[27]\nNow, whose word was this? Still the word of Peter, who speaks for\nthe third[28] and fourth time, as he had for the first and second.\n\nFor, as to the third[29] occasion, Luke, after mentioning Peter and\nJohn together, introduces Peter alone as urging the children of\nAbraham to embrace the faith of Christ, and persuading them that\nJesus is the Prophet, promised by God through Moses in Deuteronomy.\nAnd as to the fourth,[30] he writes, \"Then Peter, filled with the\nHoly Ghost, said to them--\" But was he alone present? not so, for\nthe council \"setting them,\" not him, but John as well as Peter, \"in\nthe midst, they asked,\" on which Chrysostome[31] observes, \"See how\nJohn is on every occasion silent, while Peter defends him likewise.\"\nThat is, John was silent, as knowing that the lead belonged to\nPeter, and Peter spoke, because the Head defends not himself only,\nbut the members committed to him.\n\nNow, reviewing these first four chapters of the Acts, let us ask\nthese questions. Had Peter held the authority of head among the\nApostles, what would he have done? He would have filled up the\nApostolic college, carefully watched over it, protected its several\nmembers. But this is just what he did. Again, had Christ made him\nthe supreme teacher and doctor, what would he have done? He would\nhave disclosed, first to the Apostles themselves, and to the\ndisciples, and then to the multitude, who were to be converted, the\nsecrets of the divine will laid up in the Scriptures; he would have\nshown the agreement between the dispensation of Christ, and the\noracles of the Old Testament, and so have proved that Jesus was the\nMessiah. But this he repeatedly did. Once more, had Christ made him\nthe chief among the builders of the Church, what would have been his\noffice? He would have been the very first to set his hand to the\nwork, and to construct the building with living stones; he would\nhave held the other workmen under his control, so that the edifice\nmight rise worthy of Christ, and exactly answering to His promises.\nBut does not the history give precisely this picture of him, and\ndoes not the Church which Peter raised answer exactly to the\narchetype prescribed by the Lord? \"All they that believed were\ntogether, and had all things common:\" \"the multitude of believers\nhad but one heart and one soul:\" what is this but the counterpart of\nthat divine prayer, \"that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art\nin Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the\nworld may believe that Thou hast sent[32] Me.\"\n\nII. To take another point. The office of[33] authoritative teaching\nis in the New Testament closely connected with the power of working\nmiracles, so that Christ not only said of Himself, \"If I had not\ncome and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have\nno excuse for their sin:\" but likewise added, \"If I had not done\namong them the works that no other man hath done, they would not\nhave sin: but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My\nFather:\"[34] to shew that, while faith depended on preaching, and\nauthoritative instruction, these also needed the power of _works_ to\nconciliate conviction. In accordance with which, when He first sent\nout His Twelve to preach, He not only charged them what to say, \"the\nkingdom of heaven is at hand,\"[35] but added the fullest miraculous\npower, \"heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out\ndevils.\" And when more solemnly sending them, not to one people, but\nto all nations, \"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel\nto every creature,\" He adds their warrant, \"these signs shall follow\nthem that believe. In My name they shall cast out devils, they shall\nspeak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents:\" and the\nEvangelist subjoins, \"They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord\nworking withal, and confirming the word with signs that\nfollowed.\"[36]\n\nRemembering, then, this very close connexion between the authority\nof Apostolic teaching and the power of working miracles, we may fix\na criterion for recognising the exercise of the supreme office in\nteaching. Suppose any one of the Apostles to have been invested at\nthe commencement of the Church with this office, how may he be\nascertained? If any one is found invariably the first to announce\nthe word of truth, and likewise to confirm it with miracles, you may\nsuppose him to be that one. Suppose, again, that Luke intended to\nrepresent one of the Apostles as the supreme teacher. How may it be\nsafely inferred? If, in the course of his narration, he continually\nexhibits one as eminent above all the rest in preaching the Gospel\nand guaranteeing it by signs. These are not tests arbitrarily\nchosen, but naturally suggested. And both exactly fit to Peter, and\nto Peter alone. For he, in this history of the universal Church, is\nthe first, nay, well nigh the only one, both to preach and to\nsupport his preaching by miracles. And Luke takes pains to relate no\nless his miracles than his discourses, and scarcely describes with\nany detail either the one or the other, of any but Peter.\n\nNay, his mode of writing suggests a parallel between himself and S.\nJohn in his Gospel, as if it were no less Luke's intention to show\nPeter invested with the supreme office, than John's to set forth\nChrist as the head and teacher of the Apostolic college; and no less\nLuke's purpose to accredit the Church by Peter's miracles, than[37]\nJohn's by the miracles of Christ to establish faith in Him as the\ntrue Son of God. For the circumstances of each narration point to\nthis similarity of design. As S. John subordinates the group of\nApostles entirely to the figure of Christ, so Luke, very slightly\nsketching the rest, is profuse in detail of what concerns Peter, and\nmarks him as set over all. As John in recording the miracles of\nChrist dwells on the points which prove His divine mission and\norigin from the Father, so Luke directs his narration to exhibit the\nbeginning, the growth, and the authority of the Church, as due to\nPeter's miracles. We will mark two further resemblances. _First_,\nthe miracles which Luke records of Peter seem cast in the same type\nas those of Christ. Compare the first one with that told by John,\nch. v.\n\n     John v. 5-9. \"There was a certain man there that had been eight\n     and thirty years under his infirmity. Him when Jesus had seen\n     lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, He saith to\n     him, Wilt thou be made whole? The infirm man answered Him, Sir,\n     I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the\n     pond. For whilst I am coming another goeth down before me.\n     Jesus said to him, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk. And\n     immediately the man was made whole, and he took up his bed and\n     walked.\"\n\n     Acts iii. 2-8. \"And a certain man, who was lame from his\n     mother's womb, was carried, whom they laid every day at the\n     gate of the temple, which is called Beautiful. He, when he had\n     seen Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked to\n     receive an alms. But Peter, with John, fastening his eyes upon\n     him, said, Look upon us. But he looked earnestly upon them,\n     hoping that he should receive something of them. But Peter\n     said, Silver and gold I have none, but what I have, I give\n     thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk.\n     And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and\n     forthwith his feet and soles received strength, and he, leaping\n     up, stood, and walked.\"\n\n\nHow often had the hand of the Lord--as here that of Peter--healed\nthe sick, given the blind sight, cured the leper, and raised the\ndead! But if Peter's miracle in healing Oeneas of the palsy\ncarries[38] one back immediately to the poor man let down through\nthe roof before our Lord, there is a yet more exact identity between\nthe great miracle of Christ raising Jairus' daughter, and Peter\nraising Dorcas. In the one case, the Lord \"having put them all out,\ntaketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were\nwith Him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying, and taking the\ndamsel by the hand, He said to her, Talitha cumi, which is, Damsel,\narise, and immediately the damsel rose up and walked.\" In the other\ncase, Peter came into the upper chamber, \"and all the widows stood\nabout him weeping--and they being all put forth, Peter, kneeling\ndown, prayed, and turning to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. And\nshe opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up,[39] and giving\nher his hand he lifted her up.\" But how perfect the resemblance of\nthe following.\n\n     Luke iv. 40. \"And when the sun was down, all they that had any\n     sick with divers diseases brought them to Him. But He, laying\n     His hands on every one of them, healed them. And devils went\n     out from many.\"\n\n     Acts v. 15. \"Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the\n     streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter\n     came, his shadow, at the least, might overshadow any of them,\n     and they might be delivered from their infirmities. And there\n     came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the\n     neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons, and such as were\n     troubled with unclean spirits, who were all healed.\"\n\nThe _second_ point of resemblance is, that the multitude regarded\nPeter among the Apostles as before they had regarded Christ: for,\nputting the rest of the Apostles in the second place, they flocked\nto him, and besought his aid. So that Luke, briefly saying of them,\nthat \"by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders\nwrought among the people,\"[40] goes on to Peter, and of him relates\nthe unheard-of wonders just described, assigning to the miracles\nwrought by him, \"that the multitude of men and women who believed in\nthe Lord was more increased.\" It is just as when \"there came to\nJesus great multitudes, having with them the dumb, the blind, the\nlame, the maimed, and many others; and they cast them down at His\nfeet, and He healed them.\"[41] And the fuller the resemblance these\nincidents shew between Peter and Christ, the more evident their\nproof that Peter's ministry must be considered a continuation of\nthat which Christ begun.\n\nIII. We proceed[42] to the order predetermined by our Lord in the\npropagation of His Church.\n\nOf Himself He had said, though the Redeemer of all, that He was not\nsent, that is, as an Apostle, actually to preach, \"save to the lost\nsheep of the house of Israel:\" and on first sending His Apostles, He\ngave them this commission, \"Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles,\nand into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go ye rather\nto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\" But when about to ascend\nto the Father, He tells them, \"You shall receive the power of the\nHoly Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in\nJerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost\npart of the earth:\"[43] that is, that they should set up His kingdom\nthrough all the world, proceeding by gradual steps, from Jerusalem\nto Judea, thence to Samaria, and at length \"to every creature\" in\nthe whole world.\n\nNow the history of the Acts shows the exact accomplishment of this\norder, and it likewise shows that Simon Peter was the one elected\nchief instrument for carrying out these successive propagations of\nthe Church. What we have said already shows this as to the mother\nChurch of Jerusalem, and, before proceeding to the Gentile Churches,\nwe will trace the same instrumentality as used to bring the\nSamaritans into the universal kingdom.\n\nThe persecution ensuing on the proto-martyr Stephen's death caused,\nby our Lord's providence, the dissemination of many believers\nthrough Judea and Samaria, while the Apostles alone remained at\nJerusalem. Amongst those who thus \"went about preaching the word of\nGod,\" Philip the deacon came to Samaria, and many of the people,\nhearing his words and seeing his miracles, were converted and\nbaptized. But the Church thus commenced by the preaching of the\ndeacon would have dried up without hope of progress, had it not\nreceived the assistance of those whom Christ had set in the place of\nfathers, and who could bestow the gifts of the Holy Ghost. For[44]\n\"the Church is in the bishop,\" and, as S. Jerome said of a faction\nwhich had a deacon for its author, \"With the man the sect also\nperished, because a deacon could ordain no clerk after him. But it\nis not a Church which has no priest.\" Accordingly when[45] \"the\nApostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received\nthe word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John,\" who \"laid\ntheir hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.\" The\nprovidence of Christ, then, so ordered the propagation of His\nkingdom as to choose Peter and John to complete and perfect the\nSamaritan Church. But was this on equal terms, or is no superior\ndignity and authority apparent in Peter over John? A regard to the\nwords of Luke, and the series of acts recorded, will prevent such a\nmisconception. For he mentions Peter and John, but he sets Peter\nfirst, and in his record of what happened to Simon John acts the\nsecond part, and it is Peter alone who teaches, commands, judges,\nand condemns, with authority, as the head and supreme ruler. Simon\nMagus, tempted by beholding the gifts of the Holy Spirit visibly\nbestowed on imposition of the Apostles' hands, \"offered them money,\"\nto both Peter and John. But Peter alone replies, and not only so,\nbut condemns his profaneness, enlarges on his guilt, and solemnly\ndeclares that the gifts of God are not purchaseable with money.\n\"Keep thy money to thyself to perish with thee, because thou hast\nthought that the gift of God may be purchased with money;\" he\ndiscloses Simon's secret thoughts, \"for thy heart is not right in\nthe sight of God;\" he inflicts on him excommunication, \"thou hast no\npart nor lot in this matter;\" he exhorts him to repent, \"do penance\ntherefore from this thy wickedness, and pray to God, if perhaps this\nthought of thy heart may be forgiven thee.\" Now here John, the next\nof the Apostles in rank, is with Peter, yet he does not speak,\nteach, or enjoin: Peter does all this singly. He answers Simon's\nquestion, lances and probes the most secret wound of his conscience,\ndeclares how divine gifts are given, proscribes the plague of\nsimony, orders penance, and inflicts excommunication on a scandalous\npublic offender. Thus the twenty-second of the Apostolic canons\nruns, \"If any bishop, priest or deacon, hath obtained this dignity\nby money, let him and his ordainer be deposed, and altogether be\ndeprived of communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter.\" Nothing but an\ninequality of rank between Peter and John will account for Luke's\nnarration here. But if John was inferior to Peter, much more the\nrest.\n\nBut there is another proof of his superiority here, in that God\ncaused Simon Peter to engage Simon Magus. Thus, by His providence,\n\"reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things\nsweetly,\" the first-born of Christ is brought to conflict with the\n\"first-born of the devil,\" the chief of teachers with the earliest\nof heretics, and prime of that long brood of the evil one, who are\nto persecute \"the seed of the woman.\" Thus ancient writers record\nthat Peter afterwards went to Rome on purpose to expose the acts of\nthis same Simon. Thus they mention his engaging with the famous\nAlexandrine Apion, the enemy of the Jewish and the Christian faith\nalike. And hence, too, probably the very ancient writer (whoever he\nwas) of the Epistle of Clement to S. James, begins it by recording\nhow \"Simon, for his true faith and his firm grounding in doctrine,\nwas appointed to be the foundation of the Church, and for this very\nreason by Jesus Himself with most true augury had his name changed\nto Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the Apostles,\nto whom first the Father revealed the Son, whom Christ with reason\nblessed, the called and the elect, His guest and comrade, the good\nand the proved disciple, _he who, as the most able of all, was\ncommanded to illuminate the West, the darker quarter of the world_,\nand who was enabled to succeed.\"\n\nBut as to what is said that \"the Apostles who were in Jerusalem\n_sent_ to the Samaritans Peter and John,\" it must be remembered,\nthat at the head of those thus _sending_ was Peter himself, and that\nnext to him John was the most distinguished of the Apostolic\ncollege. And since it is evident from all that we have hitherto\nseen, that in whatever concerned the Apostles equally, Peter took\nthe leading part, and in their common deliberations exercised the\ninitiative, it must be concluded that he was likewise the first\nauthor of this resolution, to send himself and John to the\nSamaritans. And this is confirmed by our seeing that in the\nfulfilment of this mission he discharges the offices, and acts with\nthe authority, of head. To none else could the execution of a fresh\nadvance in the propagation of the Church be committed; and so great,\nbesides, were the jealousies between the Jews and Samaritans, that\nit needed no less than Peter's authority to induce the Jewish\nconverts to receive them into the bond of the same society.\n\nIV. But now we[46] draw nigh to the revelation of that great\n\"mystery which in other generations was not known to the sons of\nmen--that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body,\nand co-partners of His promise in Christ Jesus by the Gospel,\"\nwhereby was brought to pass the prophecy, \"from the rising of the\nsun even to the going down My Name is great among the Gentiles, and\nin every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My Name a\nclean oblation.\"[47] The hour was come \"when the true adorers were\nto adore the Father in spirit and in truth\" throughout every region\nof the world purchased with the blood of the Son of God, and of this\nevent, expected during four thousand years, God, by an unexampled\nhonour, disclosed to Peter, and through Peter, the time and the\nmanner. This greatest of purposes, after His own ascension, Christ\nleft to be revealed through him to whom He had committed the feeding\nof His sheep.\n\nWhile Peter[48] was \"passing through all,\" that is, exercising his\ngeneral supervision as primate of the Church, God sent His angel \"in\na vision manifestly\" to \"a certain man in Cesarea named Cornelius, a\ncenturion of that which is called the Italian band, a religious man,\nand fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people,\nand always praying to God.\" And the angel says to him: \"Thy prayers\nand thine alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God, and\nnow send men to Joppa, and call hither one Simon, who is surnamed\nPeter; he will tell thee what thou must do.\" Though God, then, sends\nan angel, it is left to _Simon, who is surnamed Peter_, to declare\nHis counsel, in what affected the salvation of innumerable souls.\nOther Apostles there were to whom had been said equally, \"Go ye into\nthe whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature,\" and \"Ye\nshall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and\nSamaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth;\" and \"as the\nFather hath sent Me, I also send you.\" Yet putting aside all these,\nas on so many other occasions, Peter is preferred, and that because\nto him alone was said, \"on this rock I will build My Church,\" and\nagain, \"Feed My lambs, be shepherd over My sheep.\" Fitting it was\nthat, when the wall between the Jews and Gentiles should be taken\naway, by him specially, all should be collected into one, on whom,\nas the divinely-laid foundation, all were to rest. Fitting, again,\nthat the Lord's prophecy, \"Other sheep I have which are not of this\nfold; those also I must bring; and they shall hear My voice; and\nthere shall be one fold and one shepherd,\" should be fulfilled\nchiefly by his ministry to whom the Lord had committed His own\noffice of universal visible pastor. For the Church, in her very\nbirth, and in the whole process of her growth, bore this upon her\nforehead, that _universality_ as well as _unity_ belonged\nsubstantially to Peter, and that it was no less his function to\ngather up all nations into the mould of unity by his ministration as\nthe one chief shepherd, than to embrace them all in the wide circuit\nof his love. Therefore it is a marvellous agreement in which the\n_institution_ of the Primacy has a corresponding _execution_; and as\nthe latter confirms the former, so from the former you might\nanticipate the latter before it was recorded in the sacred history.\n\nBut in the meantime, while the messengers of Cornelius were\napproaching the house in which Peter was a guest, \"there came upon\nhim an ecstasy of mind, and he saw the heaven opened, and a certain\nvessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the\nfour corners from heaven to the earth, wherein were all manner of\nfour-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of\nthe air;\" and while Peter is fixed in contemplation, \"there came a\nvoice to him, Arise Peter, kill and eat,\" that he might understand\nhow \"by[49] his preaching he was to make a sacrifice to the Lord of\nthose who were represented by these animals, bringing them into the\ndivine service through the mysteries of the Lord's passion,\" which\nhe not yet understanding, replies, \"Far be it from me, for I never\ndid eat anything that is common or unclean.\" Then the heavenly\n\"voice spoke to him again the second time, That which God hath\ncleansed, do not thou call common. And this having been done thrice,\npresently the vessel was taken up into heaven.\"\n\nHere three things are set forth; first, that as the ark of Noah\ncontained all sorts of animals, clean and unclean, so the fold of\nChrist was to gather from Jews and Greeks and barbarians \"a[50]\ngreat multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and\ntribes, and peoples, and tongues;\" secondly, that the blessings of\nChrist concerned all who did not reject the proferred grace;\nthirdly, that the elaborate system of Mosaic ordinances concerning\nmeats, rites, and ceremonies, had fallen to the ground. But to whom\nis disclosed, first and immediately, this whole dispensation of the\nfirst principles on which the Church was to be propagated? To none\nother but Peter, \"to me hath God shown to call no man common or\nunclean.\" Now the undoubted knowledge of this dispensation must\nappear of the greatest moment, whether in itself, or as concerns the\nJews, of whom the earliest church consisted, or the Apostles, by\nwhose ministry it was to be extended. And yet, by that providence\nwhich is ever over His Church, the wisdom of God so ruled it, that\nthrough Peter alone the Apostles should be taught when they were\nfirst to approach the Gentiles, and discharge their office of\nwitnesses before all nations without distinction. And that because\nHe had made Peter \"the greater one\" and \"the leader\" of all, and put\nhim in His own place, and constituted him supreme teacher in these\nwords, \"Confirm thy brethren.\" Thus[51] Epiphanius, in the fourth\ncentury, says that the charge of bringing the Gentiles into the\nChurch was laid upon all the Apostles, \"but most of all on holy\nPeter.\" Why this _most of all_? Because, while He had heard with the\nrest, \"make disciples of all nations,\" he had singly and peculiarly\nreceived the charge of the whole fold, and of the Apostles, as part\nof it.\n\nBut Peter, still pondering on the vision, hears a fresh voice from\nthe Spirit, \"Behold three men seek thee. Arise, therefore, get thee\ndown, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them.\" He\naccompanies the messengers and finds Cornelius, \"his kinsman and his\nspecial friends;\" he asks why they have sent for him, whereupon\nCornelius informs him of what had past, and concludes, \"now\ntherefore all we are present in thy sight, to hear all things\nwhatsoever are commanded thee by the Lord.\" Peter in reply sets\nforth to them the heads of Christian doctrine, and as he comes to\nthe words \"to Him all the prophets give testimony, that by His name\nall receive remission of sins, who believe in Him,\" \"the Holy Ghost\nfell upon all them that heard the word\" of life and truth from his\nlips. And the Jewish Christians who were with him, being astonished\nat this reception of Gentiles into the Church by the Holy Spirit's\nvisible descent, Peter cries, \"Can any man forbid water that these\nshould not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as\nwe?\" \"Words,\" says [52]S. Chrysostome, \"of one almost assaulting any\nthat would forbid, and say that should not be,\" and so \"he\ncommanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;\" for\nPeter also, like his Lord,[53] preached in person, but baptized by\nthe hands of others.\n\nAre not then the prerogatives of Peter written legibly on this whole\nnarration? First, among all the Apostles he alone is chosen to\nconsecrate to God the first fruits of the Gentiles. Again, through\nhim, as the teacher of all, God makes known to the Apostles\nthemselves when the door was to be opened to the Gentiles. Thirdly,\nwithout advising with the rest, he enlarges the fold of Christ,\nwhich in Christ's place he ruled, with the accession of the\nGentiles. Fourthly, the building of the Church is thus referred to\nhim alone. Further, he gathers up to himself the Church which is\nmade out of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles; as the foundation he\nsustains the whole; and when constructed, he binds it together.\nLastly, Luke, without having recorded a single speech of any other\nApostle, has given five of Peter, thus showing that Peter's words,\nas well as his actions, had a higher importance than theirs in the\nhistory of the Church's birth and growth; for, indeed, in the\nhistory of the head that of the body is included.\n\nOn Peter's[54] return to Jerusalem, \"the Apostles and brethren who\nwere in Judea, having heard that the Gentiles also had received the\nword of God,\"[55] \"they that were of the circumcision contended with\nhim,\" because he had \"gone in to men uncircumcised, and ate with\nthem.\" Hereupon Peter set forth to them the whole series of events,\nupon which \"they held their peace and glorified God, saying, God\nthen has also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life.\" Now some\nin late times have attempted to derogate from Peter's authority on\nthe strength of this incident. On the other hand S. Chrysostome,\nnot satisfied with setting forth Peter's rank, and assigning his\nwhole apology to a most gracious condescension, continues, \"See how\nhe defends himself, and _will not use his dignity as the Teacher_,\nfor he knew that the more gently he spoke with them, the surer he\nwas to win them.\"[56] And what expression can signify Peter's rank\nmore markedly than _the_ Teacher? And Gregory the Great sets forth\nPeter's distinctions, how he alone had received the keys, walked on\nthe waters, healed with his shadow, killed with his word, and raised\nthe dead by his prayer; then he goes on, \"and because, warned by the\nSpirit, he had gone in to Cornelius, a Gentile, a question was\nraised against him by the faithful, as to wherefore he had gone in\nto the Gentiles, and eaten with them, and received them in baptism.\nAnd yet the same first of the Apostles, filled with so great a grace\nof gifts, supported by so great a power of miracles, answers the\ncomplaint of the faithful by an appeal not to authority but to\nreason.... For if, when blamed by the faithful, he had considered\nthe authority which he held in holy Church, he might have answered,\nthat the sheep entrusted to the shepherd should not venture to\ncensure him. But if, in the complaint of the faithful, he had said\nanything of his own power, he would not have been the teacher of\nmeekness. Therefore he quieted them with humble reason, and in the\nmatter where he was blamed even cited witnesses. If, therefore, _the\nPastor of the Church, the Prince of the Apostles_, having a\n_singular_ power to do signs and miracles, did not disdain, when he\nwas censured, humbly to render account, how much more ought we\nsinners, when blamed for anything, to disarm our censurers by a\nhumble defence.\"[57]\n\nHere it occurs to observe with what different eyes Holy Scripture\nmay be read, for just where persons determined to deny Peter's\nauthority find an excuse for their foregone conclusion, the Fathers\ndraw arguments to praise the moderation with which he exercised that\nsame superior authority.\n\nV. But [58]founded as we have seen the Church to have hitherto been,\nand at each step of its course advanced, mainly by the authority of\nPeter, it could not hope to remain in a vigorous and united state\nwithout the continual exercise of _judicial_ and _legislative_\npower, and diligent _inspection_. Nor is there, in fact, one of\nthese which Peter did not exercise, and that in a manner to indicate\nthe ruler set over all. For as to the judicial power, do we not hear\nhim saying, \"Tell[59] me whether you sold the land for so much;\"\nand, \"Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst\nlie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the\nland? Whilst it remained did it not remain to thee? And after it was\nsold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in\nthy heart? Thou hast not lied to men but to God.\" And presently the\nsentence comes forth from him who binds in heaven as well as on\nearth. \"Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at\nthe door, and they shall carry thee out.\" Here then we have Peter,\nin the midst of the Apostles, yet acting singly as the supreme\njudge, and defender of ecclesiastical discipline, on which S.\nChrysostome says, \"For Peter was terrible, punishing, and convicting\nthe thoughts, to whom they adhered the more both for the sign, and\nhis first speech, and his second, and his third. For he it was who\ndid the first sign, and the second, and the present, which seems to\nme double, one to convict the thoughts, and another to kill with his\ncommand.\" Then, asking why nobody had announced her husband's death\nto Sapphira, \"This was fear of the Teacher; this respect of the\ndisciples; this obedience:\"[60] where he is mentioned not as _a_\nteacher, but the supreme and chief one.\n\nYet though the other Apostles were judges, with power to bind and to\nloose, though they were present, and concerned, for \"Ananias\nbringing a certain part, laid it at the feet of the Apostles,\" not\nof Peter only, it was not they, but Peter, who entered on the cause\nof Ananias and Sapphira, passed sentence, and inflicted punishment.\nWhy did he judge singly a cause which was brought before the common\ntribunal of the Apostles? Because Peter was to have the Primacy in\nall things; because from him the model of ecclesiastical judgments\nwas to be taken; because the charge of maintaining ecclesiastical\ndiscipline belonged in chief to him as the head.\n\nVI. But no less [61]markedly does Luke represent Peter as everywhere\nvisiting the Churches, providing for them as universal pastor, and\nexercising herein the administrative Primacy. \"The Churches,\" he\nsays, \"throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, had peace,\nbeing edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and were\nmultiplied by the consolation of the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass\n_that Peter, as he passed through, visiting all_, came to the saints\nwho dwelt at Lydda.\"[62] In illustration of this we may remember\nPaul's charge to Titus:[63] \"for this cause I left thee in Crete,\nthat thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and\nshouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.\"\nAnd again, what Luke writes of Paul himself: \"After some days Paul\nsaid to Barnabas, Let us return and visit our brethren in all the\ncities wherein we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how\nthey do.\"[64] And what[65] Eusebius, from S. Clement, relates of S.\nJohn, that he visited with authority the Churches of Asia, which he\nhad either founded, or specially attended to. By these passages we\nsee the nature of Peter's visitation, that it was pastoral, and\nlikewise the difference between his and these others, for they were\n_local_, but his _universal_. Titus acted in Crete, the special\nsphere of his labour, to which S. Paul the founder of that Church\nhad appointed him. Paul and Barnabas propose to visit \"our brethren\n_in every city in which we have preached the word of the Lord_;\" S.\nJohn exerts visitatorial power over the churches of that province\nwherein he dwelt, and that too, apparently, when he was the sole\nsurvivor of the Apostolic college, yet did not go into other parts.\nBut Peter's charge is oecumenical, and therefore his visitation\nuniversal. He inspects the labours of others, as well as his own.\nFor he was not the only Apostle at Jerusalem, nor had he singly\nbuilt up all the churches of Judea, Galileo, and Samaria, yet he\nalone makes a progress from Jerusalem to all these churches. Though\nnot the Bishop of Jerusalem, over which the Apostle James presides,\nhe goes everywhere, as \"the Bishop of Bishops.\"[66] No other reason\ncoherent with Scripture can we find for this universal inspection of\nPeter; for all the Apostles were indeed pastors, but he alone set\nover the whole fold; he alone not limited, like Paul, \"to the\nbrethren in every city wherein he had preached.\" He differs from\nall others as the universal from the particular, and so S.\nChrysostome says of him in this very passage, \"like a general he\nwent round surveying the ranks, seeing what portion was well massed\ntogether, what in order, what needed his presence. Behold him making\nhis rounds in every direction.\"[67]\n\nVII. Further, [68]we may see the deference paid to this supreme\nauthority of Peter by the Apostles and ancients at Jerusalem, on\noccasion of that severest dissension which threatened the unity of\nthe Church, and kindled the greatest agitation, the question whether\nGentile converts should be bound to obey the Mosaic ritual law. For\n\"the [69]Apostles and Ancients having assembled to consider of this\nmatter,\" after \"there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up,\nsaid to them.\" But why does Peter first rise and decide the cause?\nBecause he was first of the Apostles, and as such supreme arbiter in\ncontroversy. But consider what he says. \"Men and brethren, you know\nthat in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the\nGentiles should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe.\" _By my\nmouth_, he appeals to their knowledge of his election by God to the\nsingular privilege of receiving the Gentiles: in virtue of that\nelection he claims and exercises authority. \"And God, who knoweth\nthe hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well\nas unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying\ntheir hearts by faith.\" God, therefore, has already decided this\ncontroversy, by my ministry, whom He specially called thereunto, and\nby the effects which He caused to accompany it. Then, using words\nfull of force, being, indeed, very like those in which he had\nanswered Ananias and Sapphira, he continues, \"now, therefore, why\ntempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which\nneither our fathers, nor we, have been able to bear? But by the\ngrace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe that we shall be saved, in\nlike manner as they also.\" \"How full of power are these words,\" is\nthe comment of S. Chrysostome,[70] \"he says here what Paul has said\nat great length in the Epistle to the Romans.\" And then, speaking of\nthe heads of Paul's doctrine, he adds, \"the seeds of all this lie in\nPeter's discourse.\" This, then, is a _decision_, and given in no\nhesitating manner, but with severe censure of those who maintained\nthe opposite, as \"tempting God,\" words suitable for him only to use\nwho had authority over all. But how did the council receive them?\nThough \"there had been much disputing before,\" though the keenest\nfeelings had been excited, and the point involved the strongest\nprepossessions of the Jewish converts, \"all the multitude held their\npeace.\" They acquiesced in Peter's judgment, and now readily \"heard\nBarnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had\nwrought among the Gentiles by them.\" It follows, then, that on a\ncapital point, and in the first council of the Church, Peter\noccupied a position which befits only the supreme judge of\ncontroversies, so that had we no other evidence but this place\nwhereby to decide upon his rank and office, his pre-eminence would\nbe evident. \"See,\" says S. Chrysostome, \"he first permits a\ndiscussion to arise in the Church, and then he speaks.\"[71]\n\nBut is this affected by other persons likewise speaking and voting,\nas Paul and Barnabas? or by S. James likewise giving his sentence,\nas an Apostle? or by the whole matter being settled by common\nconsent? As little as to be _head_ involves being _all_; as to\npreside over the rest takes from them the power of deliberation, and\nresolution. Rather it is the office of the Head and the President to\ntake the initiative, and point out the course which others are to\nfollow.\n\nFor those here present were teachers, and had the prerogative of\nhearing and judging, as well as Peter; they were bound to weigh the\nmatter in controversy to the best of their power, and to decide on it\naccording to the proportion of faith. They stood to Peter in a relation,\nnot of simple obedience, as the ordinary members of the flock, but of\njudges, who, though responsible to his superintendence, yet are really\njudges, pass sentence, and decree by inherent authority. It is no part\nof the idea of a judge, that he should be supreme and irresponsible:\nthis is the _special_ privilege of the one supreme judge. Objections\nsuch as these, therefore, do not take from Peter his Primacy, and\nquality of Head, but claim for Paul, Barnabas, James, and the other\nApostles, the judicial authority and office, which they undoubtedly\npossessed.\n\nNor again, that, not Peter only, but all, passed the decree in\ncommon, as it is written: \"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to\nus;\" and as Paul and Timothy \"delivered to the cities the decrees to\nkeep that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients.\"[72] For a\ndecree made in common by many shews not an equality of power in\neach, but a competent authority to join in that decree. Such acts\nproceed, not only from equal, but from unequal assemblies. A\nquestion, therefore, terminated by common decision, and laws\nestablished by common consent, do indeed prove a power to deliberate\nand decree common to all participating, but do not prove that all,\nand every, of the judges were equal in their privileges, for who\ngives to the Ancients the same authority as to the Apostles?\n\nThis inequality is elsewhere established, and rests on its own\nproof, but bearing it in mind, we shall see that Peter is the first\nand chief author of this common decree, and that laws passed by\ncommon consent depend on him primarily as Head. Most unsuspicious\nwitnesses of this are the ancient writers, and this is the very\nconclusion which they drew from the account of this council. Thus,\nTertullian, in the second century, speaking of Peter's singular\nprerogatives, says, \"On him the Church was built, that is, through\nhim: it was he who hanselled the key. This is it. 'Ye men of Israel,\nhear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among\nyou, &c.' He, too, first by Christian baptism opened the approach of\nthe heavenly kingdom, by which offences, heretofore bound, are\nloosed, and those not loosed are bound, according to true salvation.\nAnd Ananias he bound with the chain of death: and him that was weak\nin his feet he delivered from his disease. But likewise, in that\ndiscussion as to maintaining the law, Peter, first of all, instinct\nwith the Spirit, and preluding with the vocation of the Gentiles,\nsays, 'And now why tempt ye the Lord, by imposing a yoke on the\nbrethren, which neither we, nor our fathers have been able to bear?\nBut by the grace of Christ we believe that we shall be saved, as\nalso they.' _This_ SENTENCE _both loosed what was given up of the\nlaw, and kept binding what was reserved_.\"[73] As clearly, S.\nJerome, in the fourth century, writes, that Peter \"used his wonted\nfreedom, and that the Apostle James _followed his sentence_, and all\nthe ancients at once _acceded to it, and that the decree was drawn\nupon his wording_.\"[74] A little later Theodoret wrote to S. Leo,\nthus: \"If Paul, the preacher of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy\nSpirit, hastened to the great Peter, to carry from him the solution\nto those at Antioch, at issue about living under the law; much more\ndo we, poor and humble, run to your Apostolic throne, to receive\nfrom you healing for the wounds of the Churches.\"[75] Why does he\nhere call Peter, _the great_, or say that Paul hastened to him for\nsolution of a grave contention? Did not Paul go to all the Apostles?\nBut Peter was the head among them, and had a power in chief--a power\nabove the rest, a \"more special\" power--of binding and loosing.\n\nVIII. One other [76]instance there is of Peter's superior dignity,\nand therefore importance, in the Apostolic college, which if,\nperhaps, less direct than some of the foregoing, is even more\npersuasive. For there was an Apostle associated, as we have seen, by\nour Lord with Peter and John in several favours not granted to the\nrest; one who with John received from Him the name Boanerges; the\nelder brother of John, who with him had once asked to sit on the\nLord's right hand and on His left in His kingdom. Now Luke is led in\nthe course of his narrative to mention the martyrdom of this great\nand favoured Apostle; the first likewise of the Apostolic choir who\ndrank, as he had promised, of His Lord's baptism, and sealed his\nlabours and trials with his blood. The occasion was a great and\nstriking one. It is thus recorded by Luke. \"And at the same time\nHerod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict some of the\nChurch. And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword.\"\nThis is the first and the last time that he is mentioned by himself\nin Luke's inspired history of the universal Church. Great as he was,\nso eminently favoured by his Lord, the elder brother of John,\nnothing is said of the Church's anxiety for his danger, her prayers\nfor his release, her sorrow at his loss, or her exultation at his\ntriumph by witnessing unto blood. He passed to his throne in heaven\nwith this short record. The more emphatic is the contrast following.\n\"And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter\nalso. Now it was in the days of the azymes. And when he had\napprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four\nfiles of soldiers to be kept, intending after the pasch to bring him\nforth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison. _But prayer\nwas made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him._\" That is,\nby the instinct of self-preservation she prayed for her head. A few\nyears later another Apostle, after glorious labours by land and sea,\nand missions of unrivalled success, was seized and imprisoned in\nthis same city of Jerusalem, and in danger of his life. But we do\nnot hear of prayers being offered up without ceasing even for Paul,\nthe doctor of the nations. The Church's safety was not bound up with\nhis, any more than with that of James, and therefore not even of the\ngreat preacher \"in labours more abundant than all,\" are we told that\nin the hour of danger \"prayer was made without ceasing by the Church\nunto God for him.\" James and Paul were most distinguished _members_,\nbut Peter was more. This was an honour reserved for the Head alone,\nas the life of the Head was peculiarly precious to the whole body.\nThus S. Chrysostome explains it. \"The prayer is a proof of\naffection: they all sought for a Father, a kind Father.\"[77] And\nthen Luke proceeds to give at length Peter's delivery out of prison\nby the angel, and his departure in safety to another place. But\nthere is no other solution of such a difference in recording what\nhappened alike to James, to Peter, and to Paul, but that Peter held\nthe place of father in the Lord's family, of commander in His army,\nof steward in His household, delivering to each of His servants\ntheir measure of wheat in due season.\n\nThe result,[78] then, of our particular enquiry in the Acts is to\ndemonstrate two things, that Peter discharged the office of Father\nand Head in the Lord's family, and that the Church received and\nadmitted him when so acting, with a consciousness that such was the\nwill of Christ.\n\nNow this office did not consist in \"lording it\" over his brethren,\nin assuming high titles, and interfering with the ministry of others\nwhen exercised in its due course, in rejecting their assistance, or\nimpeding the unanimous exercise of their counsel. On the contrary,\nthe Lord had before prescribed that \"the greater\" among them should\nbe as the younger, and \"the leader\" as he that ministers, proposing\nto them Himself as the great model, who had exercised the highest\npower with the utmost gentleness, and, being \"the Lord,\" had become\n\"the servant of all.\" What, then, did this office of Primate consist\nin? We may say that Peter was undoubtedly such, if he constantly\nexercised the power of a head in building up the Church, in\nmaintaining discipline, in reconciling dissensions, and in general\nadministration. Now it would be doing Peter wrong to suppose that he\nusurped as peculiar to himself what equally belonged to all the\nApostles; or that, having received the special power of the Holy\nGhost, he did not fulfil his own advice to others, \"not to lord it\nover the clergy, but to be made a pattern of the flock.\"[79] And the\nfour points just mentioned may be reduced to a triple authority, a\nPrimacy _magisterial_, _judicial_, and _legislative_. Let us take in\nat one glance what has been said of Peter in regard to each of\nthese.\n\nAs to the _magisterial_, or power of authoritative teaching, and\ngeneral administration, Peter is constantly taking the lead, he is\nthe mouthpiece of the Apostles: he alone, or he first, by teaching\nplants the Churches; he alone, or he in chief, completes them when\nplanted; he it is who by divine revelation given to himself,\ndiscloses to the rest the dispensation of God; and he in words full\nof power sets forth to these assembled in council the course which\nthey are to pursue.\n\nAs to the _judicial_, none other judgments are found in that portion\nof the Acts which contains the history of the whole Church, save\nthose of which he was either the _sole_ or the _chief_ author. Alone\nhe took cognisance of Ananias and Sapphira, and alone he punished\nthem. And Simon he censured in chief, and excommunicated.\n\nAs to the _legislative_, Peter alone promulged the law as to\nreceiving the Gentiles; alone he prescribed that for abrogating the\nMosaic ceremonial ordinances; and he was the chief author of the\ndecree which expressed in terms his own previous act, and was put\nforth in common by the Apostles and Ancients.[80]\n\nAgain, compare the _institution_ of the Primacy with its _exercise_.\nIts institution consisted in three things. 1. That Peter was named\nby Christ the foundation of the Church, with whom its whole fabric\nwas most intimately to cohere, and from whom it should derive\nvisible unity and impregnable strength: 2. That the authority of\nuniversal pastor, and the care of the whole fold, was committed to\nhim: 3. That to him belonged the confirmation of his brethren, and a\npower of the keys to which all were subject. Now consider the\nexecution.\n\nAs foundation of the Church, he gathers up to himself congregations\nfrom the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles.\n\nAs universal pastor, he collects from these three the flock,\nnourishes, defends, inspects it, and fills up one place of highest\nrank in the ministry forfeited by the traitor.\n\nAs confirmer of the brethren, he disclosed to them the heavenly\nvision signifying the universal calling of the Gentiles, and the\nabrogation of the Mosaic law. He acts in the Lord's household as the\nbearer of the keys, going to all parts, defending and inspecting\nall. By himself he binds and looses, calling Ananias and Sapphira to\nhis tribunal, and excommunicating the first heretic.\n\nSo exactly, then, do the institution of the Primacy and the acts of\nPeter fit into each other, that from the former you may predict the\nlatter, and from the latter prove the former. They are like cause\nand effect, or an a priori and an a posteriori argument. They are a\nreciprocal confirmation to each other; just as if by time you\ncalculate the sun's rising, and see the diffusion of his light, from\nhis having risen you infer his light, and from his light conclude\nthat he has risen.\n\nNor in the Apostolic Church does any one appear to resist or\nquestion this office of Peter. Rather upon him all eyes are fixed,\nfor him all are anxious; no Abiram rises up against him with the\nwords of rebellion; \"Thou takest too much upon thee, seeing all the\ncongregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among\nthem, wherefore then liftest thou up thyself above the congregation\nof the Lord?\"[81] No Aaron in a moment of delusion cries, \"Did the\nLord speak by Moses only? hath He not spoken also by us?\"\n\nYet Peter acts not like one out of a number, and occasions of\ncontention are not wanting, strong prepossessions and keen\nfeelings.[82] He is everywhere; his pre-eminence and his control are\nuniversal: he can act with severity, and there are some impatient\neven of a just control. When Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at his\nfeet, none murmured. When he exclaimed, in full council, \"now,\ntherefore, why tempt you God?\" the whole multitude was silent. When\nhe explained the reception of the Gentiles, those who had murmured\n\"held their peace, and glorified God.\"[83]\n\nBut had Peter not possessed, by divine commission, the authority\nwhich he exercised, it is clear, from the conduct of Paul, that he\nwould have met with opposition from each in proportion to his\nadvance in Christian perfection. Paul's censure of his indulgence to\nthe prejudices of the circumcision, proceeding as it did from\ncharity, shews this. But what would Paul, and what would the other\nApostles have done, had they seen Peter perpetually taking the lead,\nand exercising the power of a head, without any special title\nthereto? Would they not have resisted him to the face, and before\nall, and declared that there was no difference of authority between\nthem? Yet, not a trace of such resistance appears, while on\nnumberless occasions the Apostles, and the whole assembly of the\nfaithful, yield to him the Primacy, a sign truly that they\nrecognized in him one who had received the place of Christ as\nvisible Head among them.\n\nThe place of Christ _as visible Head_, for infinite indeed is the\ndistance between Christ and Peter, as to the headship of mystical\ninflux and the source of grace. Neither he nor any creature has part\nwith Christ as to this latter, of which Paul writes, \"that God hath\nset all things under His feet, and given Him to be Head over all to\nthe Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in\nall;\" of which again, \"from whom the whole body, being compacted and\nfitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to\nthe operation in the measure of every part maketh increase of the\nbody, unto the edifying of itself in charity;\" and \"the husband is\nthe head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is\nthe Saviour of His body:\" and all this \"to present it to Himself a\nglorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.\"[84]\nIn _this_ sense Headship belongs to Christ, not only first and\nchiefly, but absolutely and solely. But, as to the Headship of\nexternal government and visible unity, though here also the same\nApostle calls Him, \"the head of the body the Church, who is the\nbeginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things He may\nhold the primacy,\"[85] to this Christ Himself has in a measure\nassociated Peter by saying to him specially, \"Feed My sheep--follow\nthou Me.\"\n\nAnd observe how that divine injunction was fulfilled. For as\nfollowing our Lord with loving gaze through the Gospels we see every\nobject grouped about that heavenly figure of His; as our eyes rest\never upon Him in the synagogue, in the market-place, among the\ncrowd, before the Pharisees, the elders, the chief priests, healing\nthe sick, raising the dead, supporting and animating His\ndisciples--so turning to the Acts we see a human copy indeed of that\nDivine portrait, but still one wrought by the Holy Spirit out of our\nredeemed flesh and blood. We see the fervent Apostle treading in his\nmaster's steps, the centre and the support of his brethren, the\nfirst before the Council, and before the people, ready with his\nwords and his deeds, uttering to the dead, as the echo of his Lord,\n\"Arise,\" and healing the sick with his shadow. With reason, then, do\nthe inspired writers use of Peter and of Christ similar forms of\nspeech, and as they write, \"Jesus, and His disciples,\" \"there went\nwith Him His disciples,\" \"there He abode with His disciples,\" so\nthey write, \"Peter standing up with the Eleven,\" \"they said to Peter\nand to the rest of the Apostles,\" \"Peter and the Apostles\nanswering.\" What above all is remarkable is to observe the same\n_proportion_ between the figure of Peter and the Apostles in the\nfirst twelve chapters of the Acts, as between the figure of our Lord\nand the Apostles in the Gospel. Such was the power and the will of\nthe Divine Master when He said, \"Feed My sheep; follow thou Me.\"\nSuch the truth of the disciple, answering, \"Lord, Thou knowest all\nthings, Thou knowest that I love Thee.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Passaglia, p. 138.\n\n[2] Passaglia, p. 140. St. Chrys. in Acta, Hom. 1.\n\n[3] St. Chrys. Hom. in Ascens., and on Acts, Tom. 3, p. 773.\n\n[4] Acts xvii. 28-9, and compare 1 Cor. xii. 12-17 with Eph. iv. 16.\n\n[5] Dionys. de Coel. Hier. cap. 1, Sec. 3.\n\n[6] S. Cyril. Thes. lib. 34, p. 352, and lib. 9, on John, p. 810.\n\n[7] Passaglia, p. 143.\n\n[8] Passaglia, p. 144.\n\n[9] Acts i. 13; ii. 14; iii. 1-3; iv. 19; viii. 14.\n\n[10] Acts i. 15; ii. 14, 37; iii. 4; v. 29.\n\n[11] Acts ii. 13, 37, 38; iii. 11, 12.\n\n[12] St. Chrysostome.\n\n[13] Euthalius, apud Zaccagnium, p. 410.\n\n[14] On Acts, Hom. 21, n. 2.\n\n[15] Hom. on beginning of Acts, n. 8. Tom. 3, 764.\n\n[16] Passaglia, p. 148.\n\n[17] Ps. lxix. 26; cviii. 8.\n\n[18] Hom. 3, in Act. n. 1, 2, 3.\n\n[19] Authentikos.\n\n[20] Authentei.\n\n[21] Acts 2.\n\n[22] On the Acts, Hom. 4, n. 3.\n\n[23] St. Chrysostome, as before.\n\n[24] Passaglia, p. 153.\n\n[25] Acts i. 8; John xv. 27.\n\n[26] On Acts, Hom. 7, n. 1.\n\n[27] Acts iv. 4.\n\n[28] Acts iii. 12-26; iv. 8-19.\n\n[29] Acts iii. 11, 12-26.\n\n[30] Acts iv. 7, 8.\n\n[31] On Acts, Hom. 8, n. 2.\n\n[32] Acts ii. 44; iv. 32; John xvii. 21.\n\n[33] Passaglia, p. 157.\n\n[34] John xv. 22-4.\n\n[35] Matt. x. 7.\n\n[36] Mark xvi. 15-17.\n\n[37] John xx. 21.\n\n[38] Compare Acts ix. 33, with Mark ii. 3-11.\n\n[39] Mark v. 40; Acts ix. 39.\n\n[40] Acts v. 12-14.\n\n[41] Matt. xv. 30.\n\n[42] Passaglia, p. 163.\n\n[43] Matt. xv. 24; x. 5; Acts i. 8.\n\n[44] St. Cyprian, Ep. 69. St. Jerome, dialogue con. Luciferianos.\n\n[45] Acts viii. 14.\n\n[46] Passaglia, p. 174.\n\n[47] Eph. iii. 5; Mal. i. 11.\n\n[48] Acts ix. 32.\n\n[49] Bede on this text.\n\n[50] Apoc. vii. 9.\n\n[51] Haer. 28, s. 3.\n\n[52] Hom. 24 on the Acts, n. 1.\n\n[53] John iv. 2.\n\n[54] Passaglia, p. 181.\n\n[55] Acts xi. 1-4.\n\n[56] On Acts, Hom. 24, n. 2.\n\n[57] Lib. 9. Ep. 39.\n\n[58] Passaglia. p. 188.\n\n[59] Acts v. 8. 3.\n\n[60] On Acts, Hom. 12.\n\n[61] Passaglia, p. 190.\n\n[62] Acts ix. 31.\n\n[63] Titus i. 5.\n\n[64] Acts xv. 36.\n\n[65] Hist. Ecc. Lib. 3, ch. 23.\n\n[66] So called by Arnobius, on psalm 138.\n\n[67] On Acts, Hom. 21, n. 2.\n\n[68] Passaglia, p. 192.\n\n[69] Acts xv. 6.\n\n[70] Hom. 32, n. 1.\n\n[71] Hom. 32, Tom. 9, p. 250.\n\n[72] Acts xv. 28; xvi. 4.\n\n[73] De Pudicitia, c. 21.\n\n[74] S. Jerome, Ep. 75, inter Augustinianas, Tom. 2, p. 171.\n\n[75] Theodoret, Ep. 113, Tom. 3, 984.\n\n[76] Passaglia, p. 197.\n\n[77] On Acts, Hom. 26, n. 2.\n\n[78] Passaglia, p. 198.\n\n[79] 1 Pet. v. 3.\n\n[80] Princeps hujus fuit decreti, says St. Jerome to St. Augustine,\nEp. 75, n. 8. inter Augustinianas.\n\n[81] Numbers xvi. 3; xii. 2.\n\n[82] Acts vi. 1; xv. 2; xi. 2.\n\n[83] Acts xi. 18.\n\n[84] Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23, 27.\n\n[85] Col. i. 18.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTESTIMONY OF S. PAUL TO S. PETER'S PRIMACY.\n\n\nIn leaving the Gospels and the Acts we quit those writings in which\nwe should expect, beforehand, that divine government to be set\nforth, which it pleased our Lord to establish for His church. In\nexact accordance with such expectation we have seen the institution\nof the apostolic college, and of S. Peter's Primacy over it,\ndescribed in the Gospels, and the history in the Acts of its\nexecution and practical working. Both institution and execution have\nbeen complete in their parts, and wonderfully harmonise with each\nother. But in the other inspired writings of the New Testament,\ncomprising the letters of various Apostles, and specially of S.\nPaul, we had no reason to anticipate any detailed mention of Church\ngovernment. The fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were written\nincidentally on different subjects, no one of them leading him to\nset forth, with any exact specification, that divine hierarchy under\nwhich it was the pleasure of the Lord that His Church should grow\nup. Moreover, it so happened that the [1]circumstances of S. Paul's\ncalling to be an Apostle, and the opposition which he sometimes met\nwith from those attached to Jewish usages, caused him to be a great\ndefender of the Apostolic dignity, as bestowed upon himself, and\ncontinually to assert that he received it not of men, but of God.\nHad there, then, been no recognition at all of S. Peter's superior\nrank in the Apostolic College to be found in his writings, it would\nnot have caused surprise to those who consider the above reasons.\nAnd proportionably strong and effective is the recognition of that\nrank, which, though incidental, does occur, and that several times.\nIf, then, S. Paul, being so circumstanced, selected expressions\nwhich seem to indicate a distinction of dignity between the Apostles\nand S. Peter, they claim a special attention, and carry a double\nforce. Now on putting these together we shall find that they show\nnot merely a distinction of dignity, but a superior authority, in\nPeter.\n\nThe first are four several passages in the first Epistle to the\nCorinthians, in all of which S. Peter holds the higher place, and in\ntwo is moreover mentioned singly, while the rest are mentioned only\nin mass. These are the following, \"Now this I say, that every one of\nyou saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I of Apollo; and I of Cephas;\nand I of Christ.\" Again: \"All things are yours, whether it be Paul,\nor Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things\npresent, or things to come, for all are yours, and you are Christ's,\nand Christ is God's.\" Again, \"Have we not power to carry about a\nwoman, a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and the\nbrethren of the Lord, and Cephas?\" And once more: \"That He was seen\nby Cephas, and after that by the eleven.\"[2] First, we may remark\nthat the place of dignity in a sentence varies[3] according to its\nnature: if it _descends_, such place is the first; but if it\n_ascends_, it is the furthest point from the first. Now in the first\ninstance the discourse ascends, for what can be plainer than that it\nterminates in Christ, as in the supreme point? \"Every one of you\nsaith, I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I\nof Christ;\" so S. Chrysostome observes, \"It was not to prefer\nhimself before Peter that he set him last, but to prefer Peter even\ngreatly before himself. For he speaks in the ascending scale:\" and\nTheodoret: \"They called themselves from different teachers: now he\nmentioned his own name and that of Apollo: but he adds also the name\nof the chief of the Apostles.\"[4] As plain is this in the second\ninstance, where S. Paul, developing his thought, \"all things are\nyours,\" adds, \"whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas,\" or if that be\nnot sufficient, \"the world\" itself, which, carried away in a sort of\ntransport, he seems to divide into its parts, \"or life, or death, or\nthings present, or things to come, all,\" I repeat, \"are yours:\" but\nonly, you are not your own, \"you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.\"\nIn all which, from human instruments, who plant and water, he rises\nup to God, the ultimate source, the beginning and the end. Stronger\nyet is the third passage, for being in the very act of setting forth\nthe dignity of his own Apostolate, \"have we not power,\" he says, \"to\nlead about a sister, a woman, as well as the rest of the Apostles,\nand the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?\" Now, whether \"the rest of\nthe Apostles\" here means, those who, in the looser signification are\nso called, as \"the Apostles of the Churches,\" and \"Andronicus, and\nJunias--who are of note among the Apostles,\"[5] or the original\nTwelve, the ascending scale is equally apparent. For why is Peter\ndistinguished by name from all the rest? Why alone termed by his\nprophetical name? S. Chrysostome, again tells us why. \"Look at\nPaul's wisdom. _He puts the chief the last. For there he puts that\nwhich was strongest among the principal. For it was not so\nremarkable to shew the rest doing this, as him that was chief, and\nhad been entrusted with the keys of heaven._ But he puts not him\nalone, but all, as if he would say, whether you look for inferiors,\nor superiors, you have examples of all. For the brethren of the\nLord, being delivered from their first unbelief,[6] were among the\nprincipal, though they had not reached the height of Apostles, and,\ntherefore, he put them in the middle, with the highest on the two\nsides:\"[7] words in which he seems to indicate that Peter was as\nexcellent among the Apostles, as they among the rest of the\ndisciples, and the Lord's brethren.\n\nOf the superiority contained in the fourth passage, we have spoken\nabove, under another head: and, therefore, proceed to much more\nremarkable testimonies of S. Paul.\n\nIn the epistle to the Galatians, S. Paul has occasion[8] to defend\nhis Apostolic authority, and the agreement of the Gospel which he\nhad preached with that of the original Apostles. After referring to\nhis marvellous conversion, he continues, \"immediately I condescended\nnot to flesh and blood; neither went I to Jerusalem to the Apostles,\nwho were before me, but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to\nDamascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to visit\nPeter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the\nApostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord.\" At\nlength, then, S. Paul goes to Jerusalem, and that with a fixed\npurpose, \"to visit Peter.\" But why Peter only, and not the rest of\nthe Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord?[9] Why speaks he of\nthese, and of James himself, besides, as if he would intimate that\nhe had little care of seeing them? No other answer can be given to\nsuch queries, than is shadowed out in the prophetic name of Peter,\nand contained in the explanation of it given by Christ Himself,\n\"Upon this Rock I will build My Church.\"\n\nFor, to prove this, let us go back once more to witnesses beyond\nsuspicion, who wrote a thousand years before the denial of Peter's\nPrimacy began. The Greek and Latin Fathers see here a recognition of\nhis chief authority. Thus Theodoret, \"Not needing doctrines from\nman, as having received it from the God of all, he gives the fitting\nhonour to the chief.\" Theodoret follows S. Chrysostome, who had\nsaid, \"After so many great deeds, needing nothing of Peter, nor of\nhis instruction, but being his equal in rank, for I will say no more\nhere, still he goes up to him as to the greater and elder:\" his\nequal in the Apostolic dignity, and the immediate reception of his\nauthority from Christ, but yet his inferior in the range of his\njurisdiction, Peter being \"greater and elder.\" And he goes on, \"he\nwent, but for this alone, to see him and honour him by his presence.\nHe says, I went up to visit Peter. He said not to see Peter, but to\nvisit Peter, as they say, in becoming acquainted with great and\nillustrious cities. So much pains he thought it worth only to see\nthe man.\" And he concludes, \"This I repeat, and would have you\nremember, lest you should suspect the Apostle, on hearing anything\nwhich seems said against Peter. For it was for this that he so\nspeaks, correcting by anticipation, that when he shall say, I\nresisted Peter, no one may think these words of enmity and\ncontention. For he honours the man, and loves him more than all. For\nhe says that he came up for none of the Apostles, save him.\"\nElsewhere, S. Chrysostome, commenting on the charge, Feed My sheep,\nasks, \"Why, then, passing by the rest, does He converse with him\n(Peter) on these things?\" And he replies, Peter \"was the one\npreferred among the Apostles, and the mouth-piece of the disciples,\nand the head of the band: _therefore_, too, Paul then went up to\nvisit him _rather than the rest_.\"[10] Tertullian, the most ancient\nof the Latins, says, \"then, as he relates himself, he went up to\nJerusalem for the purpose of becoming acquainted with Peter, that\nis, according to duty, and the claim of their identical faith and\npreaching:\"[11] the _duty_, which Paul had to Peter; the _claim_\nwhich Peter had on Paul. In the fourth century, Marius Victorinus\nobserves: \"After three years, says he, I came to Jerusalem; then he\nadds the cause, to see Peter. For if the foundation of the Church\nwas laid in Peter, as is said in the Gospel, Paul, to whom all\nthings had been revealed, knew that he was _bound_ to see Peter, as\none to whom so great an authority had been given by Christ, not to\nlearn anything from him.\"[12] The writer called Ambrosiaster, as his\nworks are attached to those of S. Ambrose, and contemporary with\nPope Damasus, (A.D. 366-384) remarks, \"It was proper that he should\ndesire to see Peter, because he was first among the Apostles, to\nwhom the Saviour had committed the care of the Churches.\" S. Jerome,\nmore largely, says, \"not to behold his eyes, his cheeks, or his\ncountenance, whether he were thin or stout, with nose straight or\ntwisted, covered with hair, or as Clement, in the Periods, will have\nit, bald. It was not, I conceive, in the gravity of an Apostle, that\nafter so long as three years' preparation, he could wish to see\nanything human in Peter. But he gazed on him with those eyes with\nwhich now he is seen in his own letters. Paul saw Cephas with eyes\nsuch as those with which all wise men now look on Paul. If any one\nthinks otherwise, let him join all this with the sense before\nindicated, that the Apostles contributed nothing to each other. For\neven in that he seemed to go to Jerusalem, in order that he might\nsee the Apostle, it was not to learn, as having himself too the same\nauthor of his preaching, but _to shew honour to the first\nApostle_.\"[13] Our own S. Thomas sums up all these in saying, \"the\ndoctor of the Gentiles, who boasts that he had learnt the Gospel,\nnot of man, nor through man, but instructed by Christ, went up to\nJerusalem, conferred concerning the faith _with the head of the\nChurches_, lest perchance he might run, or had run, in vain.\"[14]\n\nThese last words lead us attentively to consider the passage which\nfollows in S. Paul. At a subsequent period the zealots of the law\nhad raised against him a report that the Gospel which he preached\ndiffered from that of the Twelve. At once to meet and silence such a\ncalumny, he tells us that \"after fourteen years, I went up again to\nJerusalem, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up\naccording to revelation, and,\" assigning the particular purpose,\n\"conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,\nbut apart with them who seemed to be something; lest, perhaps, I\nshould run, or had run, in vain.\" Then, having proved the identity\nof his doctrine with that of those who \"seemed to be something,\"\nthat is, Peter, James, and John, though to him they \"added nothing,\"\nhe specifies Peter among these, and proceeds to draw a singular\nparallel between, on the one hand, Peter, as accompanied by James\nand John, and himself, as working with Barnabas and Titus. If we set\nthe clauses over against each other, this will be more apparent:--\n\n    When they had seen that              As to Peter was that of\n    to me was committed the Gospel       the circumcision,\n    of the uncircumcision,\n\n    For He who wrought in                Wrought in me also among\n    Peter, to the Apostleship of         the Gentiles,\n    the circumcision,\n\n    [15]James, and Cephas, and           Gave to me and Barnabas\n    John, who seemed to be               the right hand of fellowship;\n    pillars,\n\nwhere it would appear that James and John stand in the like relation\nto Cephas, as Barnabas and Titus, just before mentioned, to Paul.\nAnd S. Chrysostome, who, it must be remarked, reads Cephas, and not\nJames, first, as do some manuscripts and many Fathers, observes,\n\"where it was requisite to compare himself, he mentions Peter only,\nbut were to call a testimony, he names three together and with\npraise, saying, 'Cephas, and James, and John, who seemed to be\npillars.'\" And further, Paul \"shows himself to be of the same rank\nwith them, and matches himself not with the rest, but with the\nleader, showing that each of them enjoyed the same dignity,\"[16]\nthat is, of the Apostolic commission, and the divine cooperation.\nAnd Ambrosiaster explains the parallel: \"Paul names Peter only, and\ncompares him to himself, as having received the Primacy _for the\nfounding of the Church_, he being in like manner elected to hold a\nPrimacy _in founding the Churches of the Gentiles_, yet so that\nPeter, if occasion might be, should preach to the Gentiles, and Paul\nto the Jews. For both are found to have done both.\" And presently,\n\"by the Apostles who were the more illustrious among the rest, whom\nfor their stability he names pillars, and who were ever in the\nLord's secret council, being worthy to behold His glory on the\nmount,\" (where Ambrosiaster confuses James, the brother of the Lord,\nwith James the brother of John,) \"by these he declares to have been\napproved the gift which he received from God, that he should be\nworthy to hold the Primacy in the preaching of the Gentiles, as\nPeter held it in the preaching of the circumcision. _And as he\nassigns to Peter for companions distinguished men among the\nApostles, so he joins Barnabas to himself; yet he claims to himself\nalone the grace of the Primacy as granted by God, like as to Peter\nalone it was granted among the Apostles_.[17]\n\nNow Baronius proves that the above words cannot be taken of a\ndivision of jurisdiction, and that the singular dignity of Peter is\nmarked in them. \"For as a mark of his excellence Christ Himself, who\ncame to save all men, with whom there is no distinction of Jew and\nGreek, was yet called 'minister of the circumcision,' by Paul, (Rom.\nxv. 8,) a title of dignity, according to Paul's own words, for\ntheirs was 'the adoption of children, and the glory, and the\ntestament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and\nthe promises,' while 'the Gentiles praise God for His mercy,' But\njust as Christ our Lord was so called minister of the circumcision,\nas yet to be the Pastor and Saviour of all, so Peter too was called\nthe minister of the circumcision, in such sense as yet to be by the\nLord constituted (Acts ix. 32,) pastor and ruler of the whole flock.\nWhence S. Leo, 'out of the whole world Peter alone is chosen to\npreside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the\nApostles, and the collected Fathers of the Church, so that though\nthere be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds,\nyet Peter rules all by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules\nby Sovereign power.'\"[18]\n\nThe parallel, then, drawn by Paul between himself and Peter,\ndistinctly conveys that as he was superior to Barnabas and Titus,\nand used their cooperation, so was Peter among the Apostles, and\nspecially the chief ones, James and John, as their leader and head.\nFor what is the meaning of the words, \"He who wrought in Peter to\nthe Apostleship of the circumcision?\" Was the Apostleship of the\ncircumcision entrusted to Peter only? It needs no proof that it was\nalso entrusted to James and John, nay, Paul himself immediately says\nso, \"They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship,\nthat _we_ should go unto the Gentiles, and _they_ unto the\ncircumcision.\" Why then does Paul so express himself as to intimate\nthat the Gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter only? For the\nsame reason that he said that to himself \"was committed the Gospel\nof the uncircumcision,\" and that God \"wrought in me also among the\nGentiles.\" Now Barnabas likewise had been[19]separated by the Holy\nGhost Himself for the Gentile mission; Barnabas, too, and Titus\nwere discharging the office of ambassadors for Christ among the\nGentiles: \"that _we_,\" Paul says, not I, \"should go to the\nGentiles.\" The terms, therefore, used by Paul both of himself and\nPeter, do not _exclude_ the rest, but express the _superiority_ of\nthe one named singly before the rest, as if he alone held the\ncharge. Their fittest interpretation, then, will be, \"The Apostles\nsaw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was no less given to me\n_above_ the rest, than the Gospel of the circumcision to Peter\n_above_ the rest; for He who wrought in Peter _above_ the rest in\nthe Gospel of the circumcision, wrought also in me _above_ the rest\nin the Gospel of the uncircumcision.\" But what can set forth S.\nPeter's dignity more remarkably than to exhibit him in the same\nlight of superiority among the original Apostles, as S. Paul was\namong S. Barnabas and his other fellow-workers?\n\nFurther confirmation of this is given by the argument with which he\nrefutes the calumny urged against him of disagreement with the\nApostles. For while he appeals to them _in general_, and to his\nunion with them, he likewise _specifies_ the point which favoured\nthat union. It was the parallel between himself and Peter, as we\nhave seen; it was the exact resemblance between his mission and that\nof Peter, which was the cause of their joining hands: they approve\nPaul's Apostleship because they see that it follows the type of\nPeter's.\n\nAnd other words of Paul which follow, prove not only the point of\nhis own cause, but the source of Peter's singular privileges. \"But\nwhen Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,\nbecause he was to be blamed: for before that some came from James,\nhe did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew,\nand separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.\nAnd to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that\nBarnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I\nsaw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I\nsaid to Cephas before them all, If thou being a Jew livest after the\nmanner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel\nthe Gentiles to live as the Jews?\" For why did Paul here censure\nPeter _only_? By his own account not only Peter, but the rest, and\nBarnabas himself amongst them, set apart as he was by the Holy Ghost\nto preach to the Gentiles, did not defend Christian liberty, as they\nought to have done. Why, then, does he single out Peter among all\nthese, resist him to the face, and so firmly censure all, in his\nperson? No answer can be given but one: that by this dissembling of\nPeter the zealots of the law gathered double courage to press\nagainst Paul their calumny of dissension from Peter, and to infer\nthat he had run in vain, from the indulgence which Peter showed;\nthat Peter's authority with all was so great that his example drew\nthe pastors and their flocks alike to his side, and that it was\nrequisite to correct the members in the head. From this S.\nChrysostome proves that it was really the Apostle Peter, which some,\nas we shall soon see, denied: \"For to say, that I resisted him to\nthe face, and to put this as a great thing, was to show that he had\nnot reverenced the dignity of his person. But had he said it of\nanother, that I resisted him to the face, he would not have put it\nas a great thing. Again, if it had been another Peter, his change\nwould have not had such force as to draw the rest of the Jews with\nhim. For he used no exhortation, nor advice, but merely dissembled,\nand separated himself, and that dissembling and separation had\npower to draw after him all the disciples, _on account of the\ndignity of his person_.\"[20] Again, another writer of the fourth\ncentury tells us this: \"Therefore he inveighs against Peter alone,\nin order that the rest might learn in the person of him who is the\nfirst.\"[21] It was, then, Peter's primacy, and the necessity of\nagreeing with him thence arising, which led Paul to resist him\npublicly, and, disregarding the conduct of the rest, to direct an\nadmonition to him alone. \"So great,\" S. Jerome tells us, on these\ntwo passages, \"was Peter's authority, that Paul in his epistle\nwrote, 'Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and\nI tarried with him fifteen days.' And again in what follows, 'After\nfourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking\nTitus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and\nconferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,'\n_showing that he had no security in preaching the Gospel, unless it\nwere confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those who were with\nhim_.\"[22]\n\nBut this passage,[23] concerning the reprehension of S. Peter by S.\nPaul, has afforded so signal an instance \"of the unlearned and\nunstable wresting Scripture to their own proper destruction,\"[24]\nthat we must dwell a little longer upon it. First, the Gnostics and\nthe Marcionites quoted it to accuse the Apostles of ignorance, and\nto favour their own claim to a progressive light. In Peter, they\nwould have it, there was still a taint of Judaism. Next Porphyry,\nwho \"raged against Christ like a mad dog,\"[25] tried by this passage\nto weaken the authority of the Apostles, and to convict Paul of\nambition and rashness, who censured the first of the Apostles and\nthe leader of the band, not privately, but openly before all, as S.\nChrysostome and S. Jerome tell us. Julian the apostate succeeded\nthese, and tried, by means of Paul's contention with Peter, to bring\ndiscredit on the religion itself. For who, he asked, could value a\nreligion whose chief teachers were guilty of hypocrisy, ignorance,\nand ambition? And in complete accordance with the spirit of these,\nall, who, since the sixteenth century, have attempted to impugn S.\nPeter's prerogatives, have rested their chief effort on the\nexaggeration and distortion of this reprehension. \"This,\" says\nBaronius, \"is the stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, on which\na great number have dashed themselves. For those, who without any\ndiligent consideration have superficially interpreted a difficult\nstatement, have gone so far in their folly as either to accuse Paul\nof rashness for having inveighed against Peter not merely with\nfreedom, but wantonness, or to calumniate Peter as a hypocrite, for\nacting with dissimulation; or to condemn both, for not agreeing in\nthe same rule of faith.\"[26]\n\nIn most remarkable contrast with these stand out three several\ninterpretations, which prevailed in early times, all differing from\neach other in points, but all equally careful to maintain the\ndignity of Peter, and to clear up the conduct of Paul. First, from\nS. Clement of Alexandria in the second century up to S. Chrysostome\nin the fourth, we find a number of Greek writers asserting that it\nwas not the Apostle Peter, who was here meant, but another; S.\nJerome gives their reasons thus: \"there are those who think that\nCephas, whom Paul here writes that he resisted to the face, was not\nthe Apostle Peter, but another of the seventy disciples so called,\nand they allege that Peter could not have withdrawn himself from\neating with the Gentiles, for he had baptized Cornelius the\ncenturion, and on his ascending to Jerusalem, being opposed by those\nof the circumcision who said, 'why hast thou entered in to men\nuncircumcised, and eaten with them?' after narrating the vision, he\nterminates his answer thus: 'If, then, God hath given to them the\nsame grace as to us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I\nthat I should withstand God?' On hearing which they were silent, and\nglorified God, saying: 'Therefore to the Gentiles, also, God hath\ngiven repentance unto life.' Especially as Luke, the writer of the\nhistory, makes no mention of this dissension, nor even says that\nPeter was at Antioch with Paul; and occasion would be given to\nPorphyry's blasphemies, _if we could believe either that Peter had\nerred, or that Paul had impertinently censured the prince of the\nApostles_.\"[27]\n\nBut this interpretation, contrary both to internal evidence and to\nearly tradition, and suggested only by the anxiety to defend S.\nPeter's dignity, did not prevail. Another succeeded, supported by S.\nChrysostome, S. Cyril, and the greatest Greek commentators, and for\na long time by S. Jerome, even more remarkably opposed to the\napparent sense of the passage, and only, as it would seem, dictated\nby the same desire to defend the dignity of S. Peter, and the\nconduct of S. Paul. Admitting that it was really Peter who was here\nmentioned, they maintained that it was not a real dissension between\nthe two Apostles, but apparent only, and arranged both by the one\nand the other, to terminate the question more decidedly. S.\nChrysostome[28] sets forth at great length this opinion: \"Do you\nsee,\" says he, \"how S. Paul accounts himself the least of all\nsaints, not of Apostles only? Now he who was so disposed with\nrespect to all, both knew how great a prerogative Peter ought to\nenjoy, and reverenced him most of all men, and was disposed towards\nhim as he deserved. And this is a proof. The whole earth was looking\nto Paul; there rested on his spirit the solicitude for the Churches\nof all the world. A thousand matters engaged him every day; he was\nbesieged with appointments, commands, corrections, counsels,\nexhortations, teachings, the administration of endless business; yet\ngiving up all these, he went to Jerusalem. And there was no other\noccasion for this journey save to see Peter, as he says himself: 'I\nwent up to Jerusalem to visit Peter.' Thus he honoured him, and\npreferred him to all men.\" Suspecting, too, that an accusation\nagainst Peter's unwavering faith, might be brought from the words,\n\"fearing those of the circumcision,\" he breaks out, 'What say you?\nPeter fearful and unmanly? Was he not for this called Peter, that\nhis faith was immovable? What are you doing, friend? Reverence the\nname given by the Lord to the disciple. Peter fearful and unmanly!\nWho will endure you saying such things?'\"\n\nNow compare[29] together these two interpretations of the Greek\nFathers with that of the reformers and their adherents since the\nsixteenth century. A more complete antagonism of feelings and\nprinciples cannot be conceived. I. There is not a Greek Father who\ndoes not infer the singular authority of Peter from the first and\nsecond chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. There is not an\nadherent of the reformers who does not trust that he can draw from\nthose same chapters matter to impugn S. Peter's Primacy. II. The\nGreek Fathers anxiously search out every point which may conduce to\nPeter's praise. The adherent of the reformers suppresses all such,\nand seems not to see them. III. If anything in Paul's account seems\nat first sight to tell against Peter's special dignity, the Greek\nFathers are studious carefully to remove it; the adherents of the\nreformers to exaggerate it. IV. The Greek Fathers prefer slightly to\nforce the obvious meaning of the words, and to desert the original\ninterpretation, rather than set Apostles at variance with each\nother, or admit that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, was not\ntreated with due deference. The adherents of the reformers intensify\neverything, take it in the worst sense, and are the more at home,\nthe more bitterly they inveigh against Peter.\n\nNow turn to the third interpretation, that of the Latin Fathers.\nThey admit both that it was Peter and that it was a real dissension,\nbut they are as anxious as the Greek to defend Peter's dignity. Thus\nTertullian:[30] \"If Peter was blamed--certainly it was a fault of\n_conduct_, not of _preaching_.\" And Cyprian:[31] \"not even Peter,\nwhom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when\nafterwards Paul disagreed with him respecting circumcision, claimed\naught proudly, or assumed aught arrogantly to himself, saying that\nhe held the Primacy, and that obedience rather was due to him by\nthose younger and later.\" And Augustine: \"Peter himself received\nwith the piety of a holy and benignant humility what was with\nadvantage done by Paul in the freedom of charity. And so he gave to\nposterity a rarer and a holier example, that they should not\ndisdain, if perchance they left the right track, _to be corrected\neven by their youngers_, than Paul, that even _inferiors_ might\nconfidently venture to resist _superiors_, maintaining brotherly\ncharity, in the defence of evangelical truth. For better as it is on\nno occasion to quit the proper path, yet much more wonderful and\npraiseworthy is it, willingly to accept correction, than boldly to\ncorrect deviation. Paul then has the praise of just liberty, and\n_Peter of holy humility_: which, so far as seems to me according to\nmy small measure, had been a better defence against the calumnies of\nPorphyry, than the giving him greater occasion of finding fault: for\nit would be a much more stinging accusation that Christians should\nwith deceit either write their epistles, or bear the mysteries of\ntheir God.\"[32]\n\nNow, to see the[33] fundamental opposition between the Greek and\nLatin Fathers, and the reformers, let us observe that, though there\nare three ancient interpretations of this passage, differing from\neach other, the first denying that the Cephas so reprehended by\nPaul, was the chief of the Apostles, the second affirming this, but\nreducing the whole contention to an arrangement of prudence between\nthe two Apostles, and the third maintaining the reality of the\nreprehension, yet all three have in common the reconciling Peter's\nchief dignity with the reprehension of him, and the two latter,\nbesides, are much more careful to admire his modesty, than Paul's\nliberty, and make the most of every point in the narration setting\nforth Peter's Primacy. On the other hand the reformers use this\nreprehension as their sharpest weapon against his authority, praise\nPaul's liberty to the utmost in order to depress that authority,\nhunt out everything against Peter, and pass over everything for him.\nIt is equally evident that their motive in this runs counter to the\nfaith universal in the Church during the first four centuries; and\nthat their inference cannot be accepted without rejecting all\nChristian antiquity, and the very sentiments expressed by Paul\nhimself, as we have seen, towards Peter.\n\nBut as to the reprehension itself, it would seem to have been not on\na point of _doctrine_ at all, but of _conduct_. S. Peter had long\nago both admitted the Gentiles into the Church, and declared that\nthey were not bound to the Jewish law. But out of regard to the\nfeelings of the circumcised converts, he pursued a line of conduct\nat Antioch, which they mistook to mean an approval of their error,\nand which needed, therefore, to be publicly cleared up. Accordingly,\nPeter's fault, if any there were, amounted to this, that having,\nwith the best intention, done what was not forbidden, he had not\nsufficiently foreseen what others would thence infer contrary to his\nown intention. Can this be esteemed either a dogmatic error, or a\nproof of his not holding supreme authority? But the _event_ being\ninjurious, and contrary to the truth of the Gospel, why should not\nPaul admonish Peter concerning it? But very remarkable it is, that\nhe quotes S. Peter's own example and authority, opposes the\nantecedent to the consequent fact, and maintains Gospel liberty by\nPeter's own conduct. S. Chrysostome remarked this. \"Observe his\nprudence. He said not to him, Thou dost wrong, in living as a Jew,\nbut he alleges his former mode of living, that the admonition and\nthe counsel may seem to come not from Paul's mind, but from the\njudgment of Peter already expressed. For had he said, Thou dost\nwrong to keep the law, Peter's disciples would have blamed him, but\nnow, hearing that this admonition and correction came not from\nPaul's judgment, but that Peter himself so lived, and held in his\nmind this belief, whether they would, or would not, they were\nobliged to be quiet.\"[34]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Passaglia, p. 206.\n\n[2] 1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 22; ix. 5: xv. 5.\n\n[3] Passaglia, p. 124-6.\n\n[4] S. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Hom. 3, n. 2. Theodoret on text.\n\n[5] 2 Cor. viii. 23; Rom. xvi. 7.\n\n[6] John vii. 5.\n\n[7] In 1 Cor. Hom. 21. n. 2.\n\n[8] Passaglia, p. 208.\n\n[9] Gal. i. 16-19.\n\n[10] Theodoret and Chrysostome on the text, and on John, Hom. 88.\n\n[11] De Praesc. c. 23.\n\n[12] Comm. in Gal. i. 18. Mai nova collectio. Tom. 3.\n\n[13] Ambrosiaster and S. Jerome on the text.\n\n[14] S. Thomas Cant. Epist. Lib. i, 97.\n\n[15] An argument has been drawn by some against S. Peter's primacy\nfrom S. Paul here placing S. James first. Now as to this we must\nremark that some most ancient manuscripts, and the original Latin\nversion, read \"Peter, and James, and John,\" and that this is\nfollowed by Tertullian, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster,\nAugustine, Theodoret, Jerome, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, and\nCassiodorus, of whom Jerome is the more important, in that he had\nstudied so many ancient commentaries before writing his own. But\nsupposing that the vulgar reading is the true one, Peter's being\nonce placed by S. Paul between S. James and S. John will not\ncounterbalance the vast positive evidence for his primacy. Those who\nwish to see the probable reasons why S. James was here placed first,\nmay consult Passaglia, b. 1, c. 14, who treats of the question at\nlength. Perhaps S. Paul, narrating historically a past incident,\nrecalled them to his recollection _in the order of time_, in which\nthey received him: and S. James, residing constantly at Jerusalem,\nmight very probably have seen him first.\n\n[16] S. Chrys. in Gal. c. 2.\n\n[17] Comm. on Gal. ii. 7, 8.\n\n[18] Baron. Ann. A.D. 51. Sec. 29. S. Leo. Serm. 4.\n\n[19] Acts xiii. 2.\n\n[20] Hom. on, I resisted Him to the face, n. 15.\n\n[21] Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii. 14.\n\n[22] Epist. inter. Augustin. 75, n. 8.\n\n[23] Passaglia, p. 217.\n\n[24] 2 Pet. iii. 16.\n\n[25] S. Jerome.\n\n[26] Ad. Ann. 51, Sec. 32.\n\n[27] S. Jerome on Gal. ch. 2.\n\n[28] Homily on the text, I resisted him to the face, n. 8, Tom. 3,\np. 368.\n\n[29] Passaglia, p. 232.\n\n[30] De Praese. c. 24.\n\n[31] Cyprian, Ep. 71.\n\n[32] Ep. 82, n. 22.\n\n[33] Passaglia, p. 240.\n\n[34] Hom. on text, n. 17.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nS. PETER'S PRIMACY INVOLVED IN THE FOURFOLD UNITY OF CHRIST'S\nKINGDOM.\n\n\nThe doctrine[1] of S. Paul has brought us to a most interesting\npoint of the subject, what, namely, is the principle of unity in the\nChurch. A short consideration of this will shew us how the office of\nS. Peter enters into and forms part of the radical idea of the\nChurch, so that the moment we profess our belief in one holy\nCatholic Church, the belief is likewise involved in that Primacy of\nteaching and authority which makes and keeps it one.\n\nThe principle of unity, then, is no other than \"the Word made\nflesh:\" that divine Person who has for ever joined together the\nGodhead and the Manhood. Thus, S. Paul speaks to us of God \"having\nmade known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good\npleasure, which He purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the\nfulness of times, _to gather together under one head all things in\nChrist, both which are in heaven and which are on earth_:\" at whose\nresurrection, \"He set all things under His feet, and gave Him to be\nhead over all to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him\nwho filleth all in all.\" And again, \"the head of every man is\nChrist;--and the head of Christ is God.\" \"And we being many are one\nbody in Christ, and every one members one of another:\"[2] as, again,\nhe sets forth at length in the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to\nthe Corinthians, calling that one body by the very name of Christ.\n\nWith one voice the ancient Fathers[3] exult in this as the great\npurpose of His Incarnation. \"The work,\" says S. Hippolytus,[4] \"of\nHis taking a body, is the gathering up into one head of all things\nunto Him.\" \"The Word Man,\" says S. Irenaeus,[5] \"gathering all things\nup into Himself, that as in super-celestial, and spiritual, and\ninvisible things, the Word of God is the chief, so also in visible\nand corporeal things He may hold the chiefship, assuming the Primacy\nto Himself, and joining Himself as Head to the Church, may draw all\nthings to Himself, at the fitting time.\" And again, \"The Son of God\nwas made Man among men, to join the end to the beginning, that is,\nman to God;\" or, as Tertullian says,[6] \"that God might shew that in\nHimself was the evolution of the beginning to the end, and the\nreturn of the end to the beginning.\" And Oecumenius, \"Angels and\nmen were rent asunder; God then joined them, and made them one\nthrough Christ.\" S. Gregory Thaumaturgus breaks out, \"Thou art He\nthat didst bridge over heaven and earth by Thy sacred body.\" And\nAugustine,[7] \"Far off He was from us, and very far. What, so far\noff as the creature and the Creator? What, so far off as God and\nman? What, so far off as justice and iniquity? What, so far off as\neternity and mortality? See how far off was 'the Word in the\nbeginning, God with God, by whom all things were made.' How, then,\nwas He made nigh, that He might be as we, and we in Him? 'The Word\nwas made flesh.'\" \"Man, being assumed, was taken into the nature of\nthe Godhead,\" says S. Hilary:[8] and S. Chrysostome,[9] \"He puts on\nflesh, that He who cannot be held may be holden:\" \"dwelling with\nus,\" says Gregory[10] of Nazianzum, \"by interposing His flesh as a\nveil, that the incomprehensible may be comprehended.\" \"For since,\"\nadds S. Cyril,[11] \"man's nature was not capable of approaching the\npure and unmixed glory of the Godhead, because of its inherent\nweakness, for our use the only-begotten one put on our likeness.\"\n\"In the assumption of our nature,\" says S. Leo,[12] \"He became to us\nthe step, by which through Him we may be able to mount unto Him:\"\n\"the descent of the Creator to the creature is the advance of\nbelievers to things eternal:\" and, \"it is not doubtful that man's\nnature has been taken into such connection by the Son of God, that,\nnot only in that Man who is the first-born of all creation, but even\nin all His saints, there is one and the same Christ: and as the Head\ncannot be divided from the limbs, so neither the limbs from the\nHead. For though it belong not to this life, but to that of\neternity, that God be all in all, yet even now He is the undivided\ninhabitant of His temple, which is the Church.\" For all the above is\ncontained in our Lord's own words, \"that they all may be one, as\nThou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee,\" on which S. Athanasius[13]\nsays, \"that all, being carried by Me, may be all one body and one\nspirit, and reach the perfect man:\"--\"for, as the Lord having\nclothed Himself in a body, became man, so we men are deified by the\nWord, being assumed through His flesh.\" S. Gregory,[14] of Nyssa,\nhas unfolded this idea thus: \"since from no other source but from\nour lump was the flesh which received God, which, by the\nresurrection, was together with the Godhead exalted; just as in our\nown body the action of one organ of sense communicates sympathy to\nall that which is united with the part, so, just as if the whole\nnature (of man) were one living creature, the resurrection of a part\npasses throughout the whole, being communicated from the part to the\nwhole, according to the nature's continuity and union.\" And\nanother,[15] interpreting the words, \"that they all may be one,\"\n\"thus I will, that they being drawn into unity, may be blended with\neach other, and becoming as one body, may all be in Me, who carry\nall in that one temple which I have assumed; the temple, namely, of\nHis Body.\" And lastly, S. Hilary[16] deduces this not only from the\nIncarnation, but from the Blessed Eucharist. \"For, if the Word be\nreally made flesh, and we really receive the Word as flesh, in the\nfood of the Lord, how is He not to be thought to remain in us\nnaturally, since, both in being born a man, He assumed the nature of\nour flesh, never to be severed from Him, and has joined the nature\nof His flesh to the eternal nature under the sacrament of the flesh\nto be communicated to us.\"\n\nSo deep in the junction of the divine and human natures in our\nLord's adorable Person lies the root of unity for that humanity\nwhich He purchased with His blood. It is in virtue of this headship\nthat the whole mystical body is one, and \"we all members one of\nanother.\" By this headship our Lord nourishes and cherishes the\nChurch, and communicates to her incessantly that stream of grace by\nwhich she lives. And as this headship flows from the union of the\nGodhead and Manhood, so it is inseparable from His Person, and\nincommunicable. But He has Himself, in His parting discourse,\nrecorded by S. John, dwelt upon the great sacrament of unity, the\nresult of this headship, and set it forth as the sign and seal of\nHis own divine mission, and the one convincing proof of His\nreligion's superhuman origin. By following His words we shall see\nthat this unity is not simple but fourfold, and we shall trace the\nmutual relation and subordination to the divine Headship of its\nseveral kinds.\n\n1. And first, \"In[17] that day,\" says He, that is, after His own\nresurrection, \"ye shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me,\nand I in you,\" whereby He declares that, in the completion of the\ndispensation, the union between Himself and the faithful shall be\nsuch as to image out the mutual indwelling of the Father and the\nSon. Which again is further expressed, \"I[18] am the true vine, and\nMy Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not\nfruit He will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, He will\npurge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.... I am the vine; you\nthe branches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth\nmuch fruit: for without Me you can do nothing. If any one abide not\nin Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and\nthey shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.\nIf you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you shall ask\nwhatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.\" In these words He\nsets forth that union of mystical influx, by cooperation with which\nHis disciples keep His words and abide in His love, and of which He\nis Himself the immediate principle.\n\n2. But He does not stop at this interior and invisible union between\nHis disciples and Himself: He speaks likewise of a new and special\ncommand, and of a special gift, by which their union with each other\nshould be known. \"A[19] new command I give unto you, that you love\none another: as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By\nthis shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love\none to another.\" And again, \"This[20] is My command, that you love\none another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this hath no\nman, that any one lay down his life for his friends.--These things I\ncommand you, that you love one another.\" But the Holy Spirit, whom\nour Lord was about to send forth, is the efficient principle of the\nlove here enjoined, by His substantial indwelling, as we are told,\n\"The[21] charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy\nGhost who is given to us.\" From Him, therefore, bestowed by the Head\nof the Church, springs that unity of charity, which, being itself\ninternal, is shown in outward signs, and constitutes that\ndistinctive spirit of the Christian people, the spirit characterising\nit, and analogous to the national spirit in civil organization.\n\n3. But our Lord likewise speaks of a third unity, springing from the\ndirection of one and the same divine Spirit. \"And[22] I will ask the\nFather, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide\nwith you for ever: the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot\nreceive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him: but you shall\nknow Him, because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you.\"\n\"The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My\nname, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your\nmind whatsoever I shall have said to you.\" \"It[23] is expedient to\nyou that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you;\nbut if I go, I will send Him to you.\" \"But when He, the Spirit of\ntruth, is come, He will teach you all truth. For He shall not speak\nof Himself, but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak;\nand the things that are to come, He shall show you. He shall glorify\nMe, because He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it to you.\" Of\nthe nature of this unity we may judge by the gifts and offices\nassigned to that Spirit and Paraclete from whom it springs. Now He\nis repeatedly termed \"the Spirit of truth,\" and His office, to\n_suggest_, to _announce_, to _teach_, and _to lead into all truth_.\nThis unity, therefore, is opposed to the division produced by\nignorance and error, and so is the unity of faith, or Christian\nprofession. Thus our Lord promises, besides the unity of charity,\nthat of faith, the efficient principle of which, as well as of the\nformer, is contained in the communication of the Holy Spirit. But it\nis no less true in the supernatural order of divine gifts, than in\nthe order of nature, that the first cause produces its effects by\nmeans of second causes. And here, as often as the Lord promises the\nSpirit of truth, He promises Him _to the Apostles_, and assures His\nperpetual abidance with them and the successors in their charge,\nthus, \"That He may abide with you for ever:\" \"He shall abide with\nyou, and shall be in you:\" \"He shall teach you all things, and bring\nall things to your mind which I have said unto you:\" \"Whom I will\nsend unto you from the Father:\" \"I will send Him unto you:\" \"He\nshall lead you into all truth:\" \"He shall show you the things that\nare to come.\" And so the unity of faith may be expected from its\n_supreme_ cause, the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, _through the medium_\nof the Apostles and their legitimate successors: the Holy Spirit in\nits _ultimate_, but they its _subordinate_ principle: He is the\n_source_, but they the _channel_. Thus to trust to the invisible\naction of the Spirit, but to despise the office and direction of the\nteachers ordained by Christ, in the very virtue of that Spirit, is\nto reject His divine institution, and to risk a shipwreck of the\npromised gift of faith and truth.\n\nFor in exact accordance with our Lord's words here, S. Paul has set\nforth not only the institution, but the source, as well as the end\nand purpose, of the whole visible hierarchy. It is instituted by our\nLord, as an act of His divine headship; its source is in \"one and\nthe same Spirit dividing to every one according as He will;\" its end\nand purpose is, \"the edifying the body of Christ, until we all meet\ninto the unity of faith.\"[24]\n\nEach of these points is important. Our Lord's divine headship over\nthe Church, all encompassing, as it is, and the spring of all\nblessing and unity, does not dispense with the establishment of a\nvisible hierarchy, but rather is specially shown therein. And again,\nthe Holy Spirit is the source and superior principle of all\nspiritual gifts to all, but yet He acts _through_ this hierarchy. He\nis the spirit who maintains faith and truth, but it is by the\ninstruments of His own appointing.\n\nNow these three points, the bestowal of all spiritual gifts and\noffices by Christ in virtue of His mystical headship, the Holy\nSpirit being the one superior principle of such gifts and offices,\nand His manifold operation therein through the visible hierarchy,\nare set forth most distinctly in two passages of S. Paul, the\ntwelfth chapter of the First to the Corinthians, and the fourth\nchapter to the Ephesians. \"To every one of us is given grace,\naccording to the measure of the giving of Christ. Wherefore he\nsaith, Ascending on high He led captivity captive; He gave gifts to\nmen. Now that He ascended, what is it but because He also descended\nfirst into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the\nsame also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill\nall things. And He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other\nsome evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the\nperfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the\nedifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of\nfaith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,\nunto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that\nhenceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried\nabout with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by\ncunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. But doing\nthe truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the\nHead, even Christ; from whom the whole body, being compacted and\nfitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to\nthe operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the\nbody, unto the edifying of itself in charity.\" \"And the\nmanifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. To\none indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom; and to another\nthe word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another,\nfaith, in the same Spirit; to another, the grace of healing, in one\nSpirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy;\nto another, the discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of\ntongues; to another interpretation of speeches. But all these things\none and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as\nHe will. For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the\nmembers of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so\nalso is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one\nbody, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free, and in one\nSpirit we have all been made to drink.\"[25]\n\nThus, then, we have been brought by the words both of our Lord and\nof S. Paul, through an inward invisible unity, that of mystical\ninflux from the vine to its branches, and again, that of charity,\nand that of faith and truth, to an outward and visible unity, one of\nsocial organization, called forth by the great Head for the purpose\nof exhibiting, defending, maintaining, and conveying the former,\nsince it is expressly said that He gave it \"for the perfecting of\nthe saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the\nbody of Christ,\" and in order that \"we may be no more children\ntossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine.\" And\nthe inward source and cause of this unity are indeed invisible,\nbeing the Holy Spirit of God, sent down by Christ, when He ascended\nup on high, to dwell permanently among men, but its effects are\nexternal and most visible, even the growth of a body \"unto a perfect\nman, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ,\" a body\nwhich has an orderly arrangement of all its parts, and a hierarchy\nof officers to continue till the end of all. And the function of\nthis hierarchy is one never to be superseded, and which none but\nitself, the organ of the Holy Spirit, can perform, namely, to bring\nits members \"to meet in the unity of the faith, and of the\nknowledge of the Son of God.\" As our Lord says, in the promise,\nbefore His passion, \"I will ask the Father, and He shall give you\n(the Apostles) another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for\never, the Spirit of truth,\" so S. Paul of the accomplishment after\nHis ascension, \"He gave some Apostles and some prophets, and other\nsome evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,\" yet \"all\nthese things worketh one and the same Spirit.\" For as the divine\nHead took to Himself a body, bridging thereby the worlds of matter\nand of spirit, and as \"in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead\n_corporally_,\" so in His Church, in perfect analogy with the\nArchetype, the visible is the channel of the invisible, and the\noutward organization is instinct with inward life, and the hierarchy\nis the gift of the mystical Head, and the instrument of the one\nsanctifying Spirit. To think otherwise, to disregard the external\nframework, under a pretence of exalting the inward spirit, is to\nundo so far the work of the Incarnation, and to renew the insanity\nof those early heretics who in one way or another would \"dissolve\"\nChrist; for there is no less \"one Body,\" than there is \"one Spirit.\"\n\nBut if His headship of mystical influx is _alone_ and _immediately_\nsufficient, as is so often objected, for the maintenance of external\nunity, to what end is the creation of this visible hierarchy? For\nthe objection that the invisible headship of Christ renders a\nvisible headship unnecessary, and indeed an infringement on His sole\ndivine prerogative, whatever force it may have, tells not more\nagainst an oecumenical head of the Church, than against every order\nand officer of the hierarchy. These all, and with them the whole\nsystem of sacraments as well as symbols, become alike unnecessary\nand even injurious, if each member of the mystical body be knit to\nChrist _immediately_ without any outward framework. And with what\nface especially can those maintain that the bishop is the visible\nhead of each diocese, and in being such does not contradict, but\nillustrate, the headship of Christ, who yet deny that there is one\nin the whole Church put in the like place over bishops, and see in\nsuch an appointment an infringement on the office of Christ? Such an\nargument is so profoundly illogical and inconsistent, that one has\ndifficulty in believing it to be seriously held, or is hopeless of\nbringing conviction to those who cannot see an absurdity.\n\nLet those, then, who confound together the supreme Headship of\nChrist over His Church, whereby He communicates to it life and\ngrace, with the inferior and subordinate headship of external unity,\nsee to what their objection tends. It stops at nothing short of\ndestroying the whole visible hierarchy, and the sacramental grace of\nwhich it is the channel. Holy Scripture, on the contrary, tells us\nin these passages that the providence by which the Church is\ngoverned resembles that by which this outward universe is ruled, in\nthe subordination of second causes to the supreme cause. Christ\nrepeats as Redeemer His work as Creator, to give life and force to\nthese second causes, and while He works in the members of His body\nboth \"to will and to do,\" bestows on them the privilege of\ncooperating with Him. Thus the dignity of supreme Head which belongs\nto Christ, and is incommunicable, no more takes away the ministry of\nthe external head who is charged with the office of effecting and\nmaintaining unity, than it impedes the ministry of \"apostles,\nprophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors,\" to whom Christ\nentrusted the Church, that by their means it might be brought to\nsanctity and perfection.\n\n4. And these words bring us to the fourth unity mentioned by our\nLord. For not until \"He ascended up on high\" did \"He give gifts to\nmen.\" And this visible hierarchy, the sign and token of His mystical\nHeadship, and fostering care, is by Him quickened and informed with\nthe Holy Spirit, when He is Himself invisible at the right hand of\nthe majesty of God. This absence, too, is what He foretold, saying,\n\"And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I\ncome to thee; Holy Father, keep them in Thy name whom Thou hast\ngiven Me; that they may be one, as we also are. While I was with\nthem, I kept them in Thy name.--And now I come to Thee.\"--These\nwords of our Lord show that it was His will that His believers\nshould be no less one among each other, by an outward and visible\nunion, than they were one by the internal bond of charity, the\nguidance of one Spirit of truth, and the influx of the one Vine. And\nso far we have seen that, to guard and maintain that unity under the\nguidance of the Spirit of truth, He called forth the visible\nhierarchy, in all its degrees. But what, then, was the external root\nand efficient principle of this visible hierarchy, when He was gone\nto the Father? Did He not likewise provide for the loss occasioned\nby His own absence, which He had foretold? The argument of S. Paul\nproves that He did so provide, as well as His own words. For S. Paul\ndeclares the Church to be \"one Body.\" Was it then a body without a\nhead, or a body with a head invisible? Or did the Lord of all,\nhaving with complete wisdom framed His mystical body in all its\nparts and proportions, and having set _first_ Apostles, and then in\ntheir various degree, doctors and pastors, in one single, and that\nthe main point, reverse the analogy of all His doings? Did He\nappoint every officer in His household, except the one who should\nrule all? Did He construct the entire arch, save only the keystone?\nDid He make a bishop to represent His person, and be the centre of\nvisible unity in every diocese, but none to represent that person in\nthe highest degree and to be the centre of unity to the whole\nChurch? Was it the end of His whole design \"to gather together in\none the children of God, that were dispersed,\" in order that there\nmight be \"One Fold,\" and did He fail to add, \"One Shepherd?\" Yet S.\nPaul declares that \"there are many members, but one body.\" How can\nthe distinct and diverse members be reduced to the unity of a body,\nbut by the unity of the head, as the efficient principle? In\naccordance with which we may observe that never is the image of a\nbody used in Scripture to represent the Church, but it is thereby\nshown to be visible; and never is it compared with a body as a type,\nbut that body is shown complete with its head. Such are the\nwell-known images of one House, Kingdom, City, Fold, and Temple, to\nwhich we have had so often to appeal. Even the unity of things in\nthemselves dissimilar is derived in Scripture from the unity of the\nHead. Thus the man and the woman are said in marriage to be one, and\nthat in a great mystery, representing Christ and the Church, but\nthis, because \"the husband is the head of the wife.\" And Christ is\nsaid to be one with the faithful, because \"the head of every man is\nChrist:\" and God one with Christ, because \"the head of Christ is\nGod.\" If, then,[26] the Church is one body, it receives, according\nto the reasoning of Holy Scripture, that property from the unity of\nits head.\n\nBut such a one body, while yet militant upon earth, S. Paul declares\nit to be, setting forth at the same time the various orders of its\nhierarchy. Is it then a body complete, or incomplete? With a head or\nwithout one? For it is no reply to say that it has indeed a head,\nbut one invisible. That invisible headship did not obviate, as we\nhave seen, the necessity of a visible hierarchy: why then does it\nobviate the like and even more striking necessity, that the\nhierarchy too must have its visible head? If it was, so to say, the\nvery first act of our Lord's supreme headship over all to the\nChurch--the very token that He had led captivity captive--to quicken\nthe visible ministry which He had established by sending down the\nHoly Spirit to abide with it for ever, is the one place most\nnecessary in that ministry to be the only one left vacant by Him? Is\nthe one officer most fully representing Himself to be alone omitted?\n\"The _perfecting_ of the saints\" (a metaphor taken as we have seen,\nfrom the exact fitting together of the stones in a building,) and\n\"the edifying of the body of Christ,\" are described as the end to be\nreached by those to whom \"the work of the ministry\" is committed,\nbut as this applies in a higher degree to the Bishop than to the\npriest, so it applies in the highest of all to the Bishop of\nbishops.\n\nAgain, God's method of teaching by symbols, which runs through the\nwhole Scripture, and the institution of Sacraments, proves to us His\nwill to lead us on from the visible to the invisible, and to make\nthe former a channel to the latter. For \"we are all baptized into\none body,\" and the outward act both images and conveys the inward\nprivilege. And again in the highest conceivable instance, \"because\nthe head is one, we being many are one body, who all partake of\nthat one bread.\"[27] In like manner the outward unity of the Church\nmust accurately represent, and answer to the inward, which, we know,\nis derived from the Person of Christ, who is its head. And so that\nPerson must be specially represented in the outward unity.\n\nAnd this is one reason why no unity of a college, whether of\nApostles, or of Bishops, will adequately express that visible\nheadship of which our Lord's Person is the exemplar. For the root of\nall lies in a personal unity, that of the Godhead and Manhood, and\ntherefore a merely collective or representative unity cannot express\nit. And if the Apostle wrote, \"God hath set in the Church _first_\nApostles,\" yet he also wrote that the grand result, \"the perfecting\nof the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ,\" was due to\nthe ministry, not only of Apostles, but of prophets, evangelists,\npastors, and doctors, each in their degree; they all conspire to a\njoint action, which does not impede the existence of distinct orders\nin the hierarchy. And his expression that the Apostles are _first_\nin this hierarchy, without defining their mutual relations to each\nother, does not exclude those other passages of Scripture which _do_\ndefine those relations, and which make Peter among the Apostles \"the\nfirst,\" \"the ruler,\" \"the greater,\" the Judah among his brethren,\nthe foundation of the whole building, and the one shepherd in the\nuniversal fold. And the more so because S. Paul uses three\nexpressions of the Church, two of which are _relative_, but one\n_absolute_. He calls it \"the body of Christ,\" and \"Christ,\" which\nare relative; but he also calls it \"one body,\" which is absolute.\nNow, these expressions are not to be severed from each other, as if\neach by itself would convey the whole idea of the Church, which\nrather is to be drawn from them all together. In answer to what the\nChurch is, we must not say that it is _either_ \"the body of Christ,\"\n_or_ mystically called \"Christ,\" _or_ set before us as \"one body,\"\nfor it is _all_ of these at once, relatively \"Christ,\" and \"the body\nof Christ,\" and absolutely \"one body.\"\n\nAs, then, the former expressions show that the Church is one _in\nreference to Christ_, so the latter shows that it is so _in itself_,\nand _simply_. For as the Church is called \"Christ,\" and \"the Body of\nChrist,\" because it is one with Christ by mystical union, drawing\nits supernatural life from Christ its head, so it is called \"one\nbody,\" because in the variety of members and parts, of which it\nconsists, no one is wanting to its being one body in itself, and to\nits being seen to be such. But it would neither be so, nor seem to\nbe so, if it were without a visible head, the origin and principle\nof its inherent visible unity. And so where the Church is called by\nS. Paul \"one Body,\" he declares that it has a visible head.\n\nThus it is that the inherent notion of the Church, as one visible\nbody, and the whole dispensation by which visible things answer to\ninvisible, as their archetypes, demand one visible head. Now to this\n_inherent_ necessity let us add the force of _positive_ teaching.\nWhen our Lord in almost His last words to His Church prays to His\nFather, \"while I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy\nname--but now I come to Thee,\" what does He but suggest the\nappointment of another visible head to take that place which He was\nleaving? and further, what does He but name one to that high\ndignity, when He calls him \"the greater\" and \"the ruler\" among his\nbrethren, commits them to him to be confirmed by him, and makes him\nthe shepherd of the whole flock? What else had He done but prepare\nthem for such a nomination, when He promised _one_ that he should\nbe the foundation of His Church, and the bearer of the keys? What\nelse did Christians from the beginning see in such an one, when they\ncalled him the _head_, the _centre_, the _fountain_, the _root_, the\n_principle_ of ecclesiastical unity?\n\nLet us remark, once more, as a confirmation of the above, that the\narchetype of visible unity in the Church, which our Lord sets before\nus in His prayer to the Father, is no other than that most high and\nsolemn of all things conceivable, the mutual indwelling of the\nFather and the Son. \"Holy Father, keep them in Thy name whom Thou\nhast given Me, that they may be one, as We also are;\" and again, for\nall successive generations of the faithful, \"that they all may be\none, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may\nbe one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.\"\nNow the relation established by our Lord between Peter and the rest\nof the Apostles, by appointing him the visible head of the Church,\nand between Peter's successor and all bishops, does represent, so\nfar as earthly things may, and in a degree which nothing else on\nearth reaches to, the mutual relation of the three divine Persons to\neach other. For as these are distinct, but inseparable, so, too, are\nthe Apostles. As the fulness of the Godhead is _first_ in the Father\nand _then_ in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, so the fulness of\npower _first_ promised and given to Peter, is _then_ propagated to\nthe other Apostles united with him. As in the Father the economy of\nthe divine Persons is summed up under one head, and gathered into a\nmonarchy, so in Peter is gathered up the fulness of ecclesiastical\npower, which, through union with him, is one in all, as the Church\nis one, and the Episcopate one. Moreover, as it is the dignity of\nthe Father to be the exemplar, principle, root, and fountain of\nunity in the Trinity, so is it the dignity of Peter to be the\nexemplar, principle, root, and fountain of visible unity in the\nkingdom of God, which is the Church. This is alluded to by Pope\nSymmachus, thirteen hundred and fifty years ago: \"There is one\nsingle priesthood in the different prelates, (of the Apostolic See)\nafter the example of the Trinity, whose power is one and\nindivisible.\"[28] And long before him S. Cyprian: \"The Lord says, 'I\nand the Father are one.' And again it is written of the Father and\nthe Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' Is there a\nman who believes that this unity, coming from the divine solidity,\ncohering by heavenly sacraments, can possibly be broken in the\nChurch, and torn asunder by the collision of adverse wills? This\nunity he who holds not, holds not the law of God, holds not the\nfaith of the Father and the Son, holds not the truth unto\nsalvation.\"[29]\n\nWhereas, then, all unity in the Body of Christ, the Church, is\nderived ultimately from the person of its Head, the Word Incarnate,\nthat unity is yet four-fold in its operation, and the efficient\nprinciple of one sort is not to be confounded with that of another.\nThere is the _mystical_ unity, which consists in the perpetual\ndivine influx from the great invisible Head to His members; there is\nthe _moral_ or _spiritual_ unity of charity, consisting in the\npresence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and these\ntwo are internal, and in closest correspondence. There are two\nlikewise external, which may be called the _civil_ or _political_\nunity, consisting in the public profession of the same faith, the\nsame truth, for what the _law_ is to temporal states, the _faith_ is\nto the great spiritual kingdom of Christ; and this unity is indeed\ninspired by the Holy Spirit, but is maintained by Him through the\nvisible hierarchy; and lastly, correspondent to the unity of faith,\nthere is the _visible_ unity of external organization, the immediate\nor efficient principle of which lies in the visible headship over\nthe Church attached by the Lord to S. Peter's chair. The latter two,\nwhile they correspond to each other, are indeed subordinate to the\nformer, the unity of faith to that of charity, as the unity of the\nvisible headship to that of the invisible; yet the very truth of the\nBody which the Lord has assumed, and in which He reigns, and the\nwhole analogy of His dealings with men, and the sacraments whereby\nHe makes us \"partakers of the divine nature,\" warn us that it is of\nthe highest importance for us to see how external unity is the\nchannel of internal, and the visible the road to the invisible. No\nwords can be more emphatic to this effect than those with which the\nApostle introduces the description of the visible hierarchy, and the\ndivine headship which called it forth. \"There is _one Body_ and one\nSpirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one\nfaith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and\nthrough all, and in us all.\" From which he goes on to say,\n\"Ascending up on high, He gave gifts to men--some Apostles, and some\nprophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and teachers.\" And\nlastly, \"the Head over all things to the Church,\" is \"the Saviour\n_of the Body_.\"[30]\n\nBut if this be so, we can say nothing more highly to exalt S.\nPeter's office in the Church, for he is the great bond and stay of\nthis outward unity, as even[31] enemies confess. As surely as in a\nreal monarchy the person of the sovereign ties together every part\nof the political edifice, and is endued with majesty because he is\nat once the type of God, and concentrates in one the power and\ndignity of the whole community, so it is in that divine structure in\nwhich \"the manifold wisdom of God\" is disclosed to all creation. The\npoint of strength is felt alike by friend and foe. On the Rock of\nPeter has fallen every storm which the enmity of the evil one has\nraised for eighteen hundred years; but yet the gates of hell have\nnot prevailed against it. In the Rock of Peter, and the divine\npromise attached to it, every heart faithful to God and the Church\ntrusts now, as it trusted from the beginning. Many temporal monarchs\nin their hour of pride have risen against S. Peter's See, but the\ngreatest of them all[32] declared that no one had ever gained honour\nor victory in that conflict, and he lived to be the most signal\ninstance of his own observation. \"God is patient, because He is\neternal,\" and the Holy See prevails in its weakness over power, and\nin its justice over cupidity, because while temporal dominion passes\nfrom hand to hand, and stays not with any nation, following the\ngift of God which the poet calls fortune,\n\n    Perche una gente impera, e l'altra langue,\n    Seguendo lo giudizio di costei\n    Che e occulta, come in l'erba l'angue,--(DANTE, _Inferno_.)\n\nthe visible kingdom of Christ, which is His Church, lasts for ever,\nand is built upon the rock of Peter. The long line of descendants,\nfrom Constantine and from Charlemagne, have in their turn impugned\nand illustrated this glorious privilege of the Papal See. What is\nthere so stable in an empire of commerce, or so solid in the\nnicely-balanced and delicate machinery of a constitutional monarchy,\nas to exempt them from the action of an universal law, or to ensure\ntheir victory in the doomed contest with the Vicar of Christ?\nMightier things than they have done their worst, have oppressed,\ntriumphed, and become extinct, and if it be allowed them in the\ncrisis of their trial to crucify Christ afresh, He will yet reign\nfrom the cross, and \"draw all men unto Him.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] In this chapter I have availed myself of Passaglia, b. 1, c. 25,\nand b. 2, c. 11.\n\n[2] Eph. i. 9, 22; 1 Cor. xi. 2; Rom. xii. 5.\n\n[3] See Petavius, De Incarn. Lib. 2, c. 7 and 8, for the following\nquotations.\n\n[4] Hippolytus, quoted by Anastasius, p. 216.\n\n[5] Irenaeus, Lib. iii. 18, and iv. 37.\n\n[6] De Monogamia, c. 5.\n\n[7] Augustine, 21 Tract. in Joannem.\n\n[8] Hilary on Psalm 68.\n\n[9] S. Chrys. Tom. 5, (Savile) Hom. 106.\n\n[10] Greg. Naz. Orat. 36.\n\n[11] S. Cyril, Dialog. 1, De Trin. p. 399.\n\n[12] S. Leo. 5 Serm. on Nativity, c. 4 and 5, 12th Serm. on Passion,\nc. 3.\n\n[13] S. Athanasius, Orat. 3, Contr. Arian. Tom. 1, p. 572. Oxf.\nTrans. p. 403.\n\n[14] Greg. Nyss. Tom. 2, p. 524. Catechet Oratio, c. 32.\n\n[15] Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, quoted by Photius, cod. 229.\n\n[16] S. Hilary, de Trin. Lib. 8. n. 13.\n\n[17] John xiv. 20.\n\n[18] John xv. 1-2, 5-7.\n\n[19] John xiii. 34-6.\n\n[20] John xv. 12.\n\n[21] Rom. v. 5.\n\n[22] John xiv. 16-18. 26.\n\n[23] John xvi. 7. 13-15.\n\n[24] 1 Cor. xii. 11; Eph. iv. 13.\n\n[25] Eph. iv. 7-16; 1 Cor. xii. 7-13.\n\n[26] Passaglia, p. 254.\n\n[27] 1 Cor. x. 17.\n\n[28] Mansi, Concil. Tom. 8, 208.\n\n[29] S. Cyprian, de Unitate.\n\n[30] Eph. iv. 4. 8. 11; i. 22; v. 23.\n\n[31] That such was the belief of the most ancient fathers, Ignatius,\nIrenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, see a most curious\nadmission of the Lutheran Mosheim, in his dissertation, De Gallorum\nappellationibus, &c. s. 13. And his way of extricating himself is at\nleast as curious as the admission. His words are, \"Cyprian and the\nrest cannot have known the corollaries which follow from their\nprecepts about the Church. For no one is so dull as not to see that\nbetween a certain unity of the universal Church, terminating in the\nRoman pontiff, and such a community as we have described out of\nIrenaeus and Cyprian, there is scarcely so much room as between hall\nand chamber, or between hand and fingers. If the _innocence_ of the\nfirst ages stood in the way of their anticipating the snares which\nignorantly and unintentionally they were laying against sacred\nliberty, those succeeding at least were more sharp-sighted, and it\nwas not long in becoming clear to the pontiffs what force in\nestablishing their own power and authority such tenets possessed.\"\nSo the ancient fathers were not intelligent enough to see that _the\nhand was joined to the fingers_. But the other alternative was still\nharder to Mosheim, that Lutheranism was fundamentally heretical and\nschismatical.\n\n[32] Napoleon.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSUMMARY OF PROOF GIVEN FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.\n\n\nIt would now seem to be made clear to all that the controversy on S.\nPeter's Primacy relates _generally_ to the question of inequality in\nthe Apostolic college, and _specially_ to the question, whether\nChrist, the Founder of the Church, set any one of the Apostles, and\nwhom of them in particular, over the rest. For as, on the one hand,\nthere would have been no room for the superior dignity of the\nPrimacy, had all the Apostles been completely equal, and\nundistinguished in honour and authority from each other; so, on the\nother hand, it is the nature of the Primacy to be incapable of even\nbeing contemplated, save as fixed on some certain definite subject.\n\nBut to determine the two questions, whether the Apostles stood, or\ndid not stand, on a complete equality, and whether one of them was\nsuperior to the rest in honour and dignity, it seemed requisite to\nexamine chiefly four points.\n\nFirst, the words and the acts of Christ respecting the Apostles.\n\nSecondly, His expressions which seemed to mark the institution of a\n_singular_ authority.\n\nThirdly, the mode of writing and speaking usually and constantly\nemployed by the Evangelists and other inspired writers.\n\nLastly, the history of the Church, from its beginning, from which\nmight be drawn conjectures, or even certain proofs, of the power\nwhich either all the Apostles had exercised equally, or one had held\nabove the rest.\n\nFor should it become plain, from the agreement of these four\nsources, that a certain one of the Apostles, and that one Simon\nPeter, had been distinguished from the rest by the acts and words of\nChrist, and set over the Apostles; had been invariably described by\nthe inspired writers, as the Head and supreme authority; and in the\nhistory of the rising Church, been portrayed in a way which could\nonly befit the universal ruler, no difficulty would remain, and\nthere would be arguments abundant to prove that Christ was the\nauthor both of the inequality among the Apostles, and of Peter's\nPrimacy.\n\nNow we seem to have proved _absolutely_, what we proposed\n_hypothetically_. For we have shewn that Christ declared by His\nwhole method of acting, and by solemn words and deeds, that He did\nnot account Peter as one of the rest, but as their Leader, Chief,\nand Head.\n\nWe have shown it to have been the will of Christ to concentrate in\nPeter the distinctions which belong to Himself, as Supreme Ruler of\nthe Church. For such must be deemed the properties of being the\nFoundation, the Bearer of the keys, the Holder of universal\nauthority, the Supporter, and lastly, the Chief Shepherd. Of these\nthere is no one which He did not promise to Peter singly, and confer\non Peter singly: no one, with which He did not associate Peter, and\nPeter only, in making him the foundation of His Church, bestowing on\nhim the keys, and universal power of binding and loosing, in\nsetting him over his brethren to confirm them, and over His fold as\nuniversal Pastor.\n\nWe have shown that the Evangelists place almost the same distinction\nbetween the Apostles and Peter, as between Peter and Christ, while\nstill among us. For as they set forth Peter as second after Christ,\nso do they subject the Apostles to Peter; as the acts and words of\nChrist occupy the foreground in respect to those of Peter, so do his\nin respect to those of the Apostles; as Christ, in their histories,\nis pre-eminent above Peter, so is Peter more conspicuous than the\nApostles; and as the Gospels cannot be read without seeing in them\nChrist as the prototype, so neither can they without seeing that\nPeter approaches the nearest to Christ.\n\nWe have shown that S. Paul spoke of S. Peter in no other way than\nthe Evangelists, and that his pre-eminence is evident in S. Paul's\nEpistles, as well as in the Gospels.\n\nLastly, we have shown that Peter shines as the superior luminary in\nthe history of the rising Church. The lustre of his deeds in the\nActs recalls that of Christ in the Gospels. In the Gospels Christ is\nnamed by far most frequently; in the Acts no one occurs so often as\nPeter. The discourses, the acts, the miracles of Christ occupy every\npage of the Gospels; and in that portion of the Acts which embraces\nthe history of the whole Church, a very large part has reference to\nthe discourses, the acts, and the miracles of Peter. In the Gospels,\nChrist leads, the Apostles follow; in the Acts, Peter takes the\nprecedence, the Apostles attend him. In the Gospels, Christ teaches,\nand the Apostles, in silence, consent; in the Acts Peter alone makes\nspeeches, and explains the doctrine of salvation; the Apostles by\ntheir silence consent. In the Gospels, Christ provides for the\nApostolic college, guards it from injury, defends it when attacked;\nin the Acts, Peter provides for filling up the place of Judas,\ndetermines the conditions of eligibility, enjoins the election, and\ndefends the Apostles before people, rulers, and chief priests, in\nquality of their head.\n\nMoreover, he alone is pre-eminent in exercising the triple power of\n_authoritative Teacher, Judge, and Legislator_. _Of authoritative\nTeacher_, not only towards Jews and Gentiles, whom he is the first\nto join to Christ, so that the same person who was the Church's rock\nand foundation, also became its chief architect; but towards the\nApostles likewise, who are taught by his ministry, that the time was\ncome for the blessing of redemption to be extended no less to\nGentiles than to Jews, and that the burden of legal rites could not\nbe laid on the Gentile converts without tempting God. _Of Judge_,\nbecause, while the Apostles are silent, he is the first to hear the\ncauses of the faithful, to erect a tribunal, to examine the accused,\nto issue sentence, and to support and confirm it by inflicting\nexcommunication. Of _Head and Supreme Legislator_, both when he\nsingly visits Christians in all parts, and provides for their needs,\nor when he uses the prerogative of first voting, and draws with\nauthority the wording of the law to which the rest are to give an\nunanimous consent.\n\nFrom this compendious enumeration we draw a multifold proof, both of\ninequality in the Apostolic college, and of Peter's superiority at\nonce in rank and in real government.\n\nI. For, _first_, a college cannot be considered equal, out of which\nChrist chose one, Simon Peter, whom, by His words and His actions,\nHe showed to be set over all. Now Christ's whole course of speaking\nand acting, of which the Gospels give us the picture, tends to\nexhibit Peter as chosen out from the rest, and set over them.\nAccordingly, neither is the college of the Apostles equal, nor can\nPeter be accounted as one of the rest.\n\nII. Again, one who has received all in common with the rest, but\nmuch besides peculiar to himself, special and distinguishing, must\nseem to be taken out of the common number. Now such must Peter have\nbeen among the Apostles, since Christ granted nothing to them which\nHe denied to Peter, but did grant to Peter many most distinguishing\ngifts which He gave not to the rest.\n\nIII. And, further, it is apparent that the Foundation and the\nSuperstructure, the Bearer of the keys, and those who inhabit the\nhouse or city whose keys he bears, the Confirmer, and those whom he\nis to confirm, the universal Pastor and the sheep committed to his\ncharge, cannot be comprehended under the same order and rank. Now\nthe distinctions expressed by the terms Foundation, Bearer of the\nkeys, Confirmer, and universal Pastor, are Peter's official insignia\nin reference to, and over, the Apostles themselves. His distinction\nfrom them, therefore, and the inequality of the apostolic college,\nare plain.\n\nPerhaps this may be put somewhat otherwise even more clearly. And\nso, IV. Let it first be considered, what is plain in itself, that a\ndistinction carrying pre-eminence depends on distinction in\nperfection and gifts, and follows in a greater or less degree from\nthe greater or less inequality of these, or in case of their parity\nexists not at all. Next, be what we hold both of reason and of faith\nremembered, that \"every best gift and every perfect gift, is from\nabove, coming down from the Father of lights,\" that God is the\nfountain head of all good, and that all gifts whatsoever flow over\nfrom Him to His creatures. From both points it follows that the\namount of the creature's dignity and perfection lies in the\nparticipation of divine goods, and is greater or less in proportion\nto the participation and association with divine goods. So, then,\nthe controversy on Peter's Primacy and the inequality of the\nApostolic college, comes ultimately to this: _whether Christ, the\nGod-man, associated Peter singly, above all, with Himself, in the\npossession of those properties on account of which He stands Himself\nrelated to the Church as its supreme Ruler_. For let it be once\nevident that Christ did so, and it will of necessity be evident\nalso, not only that Peter was preferred to all, but wherein his\nleadership and headship consisted. And since we have made the\ninquiry, there is abundant evidence to prove that Christ really did\nassociate Peter singly in five properties, which, belonging to\nHimself _primarily_ and _chiefly_, contain the special cause for\nwhich He is the Prince and Supreme Head of the Church.\n\nFor, in truth, it is specially due to the properties and\ndistinctions of _Foundation, Bearer of the keys, Establisher, Chief\nShepherd_, and _Lord_, who has received all authority from the\nFather, that the Church has an entire dependence on Christ, is\nsubject to Him, and that He enjoys over the Church the right and\nauthority of Supreme Lord and Ruler. But which of these properties\ndid He not choose to communicate to Peter, according to the degree\nin which they were communicable? He bestowed them all upon Peter,\nand upon Peter alone, so that Peter also is termed _the Foundation,\nthe Bearer of the keys, the Confirmer, the universal Pastor_, and\n_the_[1] _Chief of the whole Church_. We see, therefore, a\nremarkable proof of Peter being distinguished from the rest of the\nApostles, and set over them, in his singular and special association\nwith these gifts.\n\nAgain, V., to this tends that disposition of divine wisdom which\nprovides that Peter holds in the Church, and among the Apostles, a\nrank of dignity greatly resembling that which Abraham among the\nPatriarchs, and Judah among his brethren, received from God. The\nformer of these relations has been exhibited, and shown not to be\narbitrarily conceived, but grounded on due proof. The latter will be\npresently farther touched upon. Now who shall deny Abraham that\nsuperiority whereby he was made the Father and Teacher of all the\nfaithful, or strip Judah of the dignity in which he excelled his\nbrethren, and was in many points preferred to them? As little may\nany one strip Peter of his authority as supreme teacher, and take\nfrom him those singular endowments, which make him \"the greater one\"\namong his brethren the Apostles.\n\nEspecially as, VI., this authority of Peter is clearly confirmed by\nthe mode of writing usual to the Evangelists. For it is monstrous\nand preposterous to confound with the rest one whom the Evangelists\nconstantly distinguish and prefer to all. For what more could they\ndo to show their purpose to distinguish Peter, select him from the\nrest, and place him at all times before all the Apostles? We may\nventure to say that they omitted nothing to this end. And so it is\nabsurd to doubt of Peter's prerogatives, or set him on the same\nfooting with the rest.\n\nFor, indeed, VII., no one would endure it to be denied, from the\nusual mode of writing of the Evangelists, that Christ was\npre-eminent among the Apostles as their Supreme Head, and was\nremoved from them in dignity by an infinite interval. Now though the\nEvangelists do not give Peter all things, nor in the same degree,\nyet they do give him much, and in a degree not dissimilar, to\ndistinguish him from the rest, showing him, as in a nearer relation\nto Christ, so proportionally exalted above the other Apostles.\n\nAnd this proof, VIII., is the more persuasive because S. Paul\nfollows the very same mode of speaking as the Evangelists. For in\nrepeatedly mentioning S. Peter in his epistles, he always gives him\nthe place of honour, and joins him as near as may be with Christ.\nWho then can doubt that Peter held a certain pre-eminent rank?\n\nAnd the more, IX., because what is read in the Acts, and the view of\nprimitive history therein contained, looks the same way, and seems\nset forth with the same purpose. For if you compare together the\nActs and the Gospels, the mind at once suggests that the position of\nPrototype which Christ holds in the Gospels, belongs to Peter in the\nActs, and that Peter seems distinguished above the rest of the\nApostles in the Acts, as Christ is pre-eminent far above all in the\nGospels. Now what is the result of so apparent a likeness? What is\nit fair to deduce from such a bearing in the Evangelical and\nApostolical history? Those who are obedient to reasoning, and follow\nthe bright torch of the Scriptures, must confess with us that in\nthis parallelism of both histories, and so of Christ and Peter, is\ncontained a mark and sign, proving that Peter follows next after\nChrist in dignity and authority.\n\nIn authority, X., I repeat, and, therefore, that kind of superiority\nwhich very far surpasses the limits of precedence and order. For\nwhat are the grounds on which we see Peter's eminence in the Acts,\nor a resemblance between the Acts, when speaking of Peter, and the\nGospels when speaking of Christ? Chiefly these, that Peter is set\nforth as remarkable, singly, above all, for the use and exercise of\nthe triple power, of Judge, Legislator, and authoritative Teacher.\nNow, the superiority herein asserted, not merely distinguishes Peter\nfrom the rest, but attaches to him a greater authority over the\nrest.\n\nXI. And, indeed, propose an hypothesis which is necessary to solve a\ncomplex and undoubted series of facts: is such an hypothesis thereby\nmade a certainty. At least these are the principles of philosophy,\nfrom which the laws of reasoning will not allow us to depart. Now,\nPeter's pre-eminence and supremacy are such an hypothesis, without\nwhich you can render no sufficient cause of the facts narrated in\nthe first twelve chapters of the Acts. Accordingly, this supremacy\nof Peter may be considered as proved.\n\nXII. Or to put the argument somewhat differently, thus: As the\nexistence of causes is deduced, _a posteriori_, from effects, so it\nis perfectly established, _a priori_, whenever the series and sum of\neffects, of which the senses are cognisant, are foretold from it\nwith certainty. We deduce the force of gravity necessarily from its\neffects, a posteriori, but we likewise determine it to exist, with a\njudgment no less invariable, a priori, when it is such that we do\nnot merely guess at, but certainly anticipate, its sensible\neffects. Now Peter's supremacy is not inaptly compared with this\nvery force of gravity. For it is a characteristic of each to be, in\nits proper order of things, the source and principle in which\neffects are involved, which afterwards become apparent, whether in\nthis physical universe, or in the supernatural region of the Church.\n\nSuppose, then, Peter to have held the dignity which we claim for\nhim. What happens in the Acts which might not, nay, which should\nnot, have been anticipated? Is it his being mentioned above all, his\nspeaking in the name of all, his constantly taking the lead, and his\neminence, as if he were the head? But it could not be otherwise if\nhe alone received from Christ a higher dignity than all the rest. Is\nit his discharging the office of supreme Judge, Legislator, Teacher,\nand Doctor? Is not this just what was to be expected from the rank\nof Head and universal Pastor? The Primacy, then, the larger\nauthority, and the unshared majesty of Peter, belong to that class\nof truths which are indubitably believed on the strength of\ndeduction, and rational anticipation.\n\nHaving noted, if not all, at least the greater number of those\narguments which we have alleged hitherto in favour of our cause, we\napproach the question which was secondly to be cleared up, what,\nnamely, is _the force and nature of that Primacy_, which the same\narguments prove to belong to Peter. For I know that all Protestants\nare possessed with the notion that no other pre-eminence should be\nascribed to Peter, on scriptural authority, than one limited to a\ncertain precedency of honour and order. That _precedency_ should be\ngranted Peter they are not unwilling to admit, but _supremacy_, they\nstoutly maintain, must not and cannot be allowed him. As to which\ntheir opinion I consider, that it would be much the shorter way to\nstrip Peter utterly of every prerogative, than to attenuate the\ndistinctions applied to him in Scripture to a sort of shadowy\nprecedency. I consider that nothing is so foreign to truth and the\nScriptures, as on their testimony to allow that Peter was\ndistinguished from the rest of the Apostles, but to confine that\nsuperiority within the very narrow bounds of honour and order.\n\nFor, _first_, whence do we most evidently and chiefly draw the\ngreater dignity which Peter clearly possessed above the others? We\ndraw it from the endowments separately bestowed upon him, whereby he\nbecame the Foundation of the Church, the Supreme Bearer of the keys,\nthe Confirmer of his brethren, and the universal Pastor. But are\nthese names, images, signs, expressing a naked superiority of honour\nand order, or rather designating an authority of jurisdiction and\npower? I cannot hesitate to assert either that these forms are most\nfitted of all to express a singular authority, or that none such\nexist in language. For, _secondly_, their force is to ascribe to\nPeter the main sway, and to mark him as set for the head and leader\nof all. Who that hears them can, without perverting the natural\nforce of words, or disregarding the laws of interpretation, imagine\nanything merely honorary, or figure to himself Peter with a mere\ngrant of precedency?\n\nEspecially as, _thirdly_, he is named in Scripture not only _the\nFirst_, but, comparatively, the _Greater_, and absolutely, the\n_Superior_.[2] Now these terms do, of themselves, and far more if\nyou consider the context of the discourse in which they occur,\nexpress a singular authority, and one without rival. An authority,\n_fourthly_, kindred to that with which Christ, while yet in His\nmortal life, presided over the Apostolic college, and administered\nas supreme Head, the company which He had formed. For we can never\nsufficiently urge a point which, being in itself most true, is of\nitself abundantly sufficient completely to set at rest the present\ncontroversy. It is this, that Peter's Primacy proceeds from a\nsingular association with those distinctions, in virtue of which\nChrist is considered the Head and Chief, and Supreme Ruler of the\nChurch. So that the more his Primacy is depressed, the more Christ's\nprerogatives and dignity are lowered; nor can he be confined to a\nprecedency of honour and order, without Christ's superiority being\nshut within well nigh the same limits.\n\nBesides, _fifthly_, are tokens wanting in Scripture which disclose\nthe nature of Peter's Primacy? Are there not effects which unfold\nthe force and quality of the cause from which they spring? Such\ntokens there are in abundance, and such effects manifold. These are,\nthe care with which Peter guarded the Apostolic college; the\nauthority with which he visited Christians in every part; the\nsingular exercise of judicial power, by which he established Church\ndiscipline, and provided for its maintenance; his acts of\nauthoritative teaching; his drawing the form of laws which were to\nrule the universal Church; and, in short, the wonderful regard with\nwhich that Church followed Peter as its Head, and the Steward of all\nthe Lord's family. What Primacy is it which these tokens set forth?\nWhat cause which these effects demonstrate? Is it one limited to a\nprecedency of honour and order? or one pre-eminent by an inherent\njurisdiction and authority? It is a point which needs no further\nwords. For if any there be whose minds are not struck by a candid\nand sincere exposition of facts, you will in vain attempt to\npersuade them by arguments.\n\nUnless, indeed, _sixthly_, they allow themselves to be forced out\nof their prejudice by the Scriptures exhibiting such a Primacy of\nPeter as compels all others to profess one and the same faith with\nhim, and to maintain one and the same society. For such an\nobligation could proceed neither from titles of honour, nor from\nprecedency. It demanded a stronger cause--none other, in fact, but\nthat supreme authority by which Peter is made head of all.\n\nBut we shall feel much more at home in the truth of this deduction,\nif we enquire a little more deeply into the reasons for selecting\none among the rest, namely Peter, and instituting the Primacy. For\nthe purpose, and end proposed in a work, have the force of a\n_negative_ rule by which we may judge with certainty what ought to\nbe done, or could not be left undone. I know well that it does not\nfollow, if anything has been instituted for a certain purpose, that\nit ought to be endowed _only_ with those properties which appear\nnecessary for the end to be gained; for it may be much more\nmunificently established than the absolute need required. But at the\nsame time I know that there would be a failure in prudence and\nwisdom in one who, desiring a certain work for a specific end, did\nnot provide it with everything that could be deemed necessary. Thus\nthe _knowledge of the intention and purpose_ is equivalent, if not\nto a _positive_ rule, determining all and singular the powers\nbestowed on any institution, at least to a _negative_, ascertaining\nwhat must be given to it, and what cannot be denied to it.\n\nNow is the purpose for which Christ instituted the Primacy, and\nhonoured Peter with its dignity, unknown, or is it most truly\nascertained? The end which moved Christ to make the college of\nApostles unequal, and to set Peter as head over it, is it secret, or\nvery conspicuous? There are in all three _classes of reasons_ which\nenable us to form, not a mere guess, but an ascertained judgment, as\nto the purpose of Christ in instituting the Primacy. There are\n_typical_ reasons, drawn from previous shadowings forth of it: there\nare _analogical_, derived from relations of resemblance; and there\nare _real_, inherent in the testimonies themselves, and the Church's\nendowments. Let us briefly exhibit these in order.\n\nI. By, then, that signal agreement wherewith the two dispensations,\nthe old and the new, correspond to each other, the first in outline,\nand the last as filled up, this rudimental, and that complete, we\nare plainly instructed that it was Christ's purpose for Peter, in\nthe new dispensation, to bear the character, whose lineaments had\nbeen traced before in Abraham, and to be eminent among the Apostles,\nfor the prerogative which Abraham had possessed among the\nPatriarchs. Now Abraham's special prerogative, and pre-eminence, was\nthis, that no one could share either promise, whether carnal or\nspiritual, which is expressed in Scripture, by \"the Blessing,\" who\nwas not joined with Abraham by a double, that is, a carnal and\nspiritual, a physical and moral, bond. For to him and to his seed\nwere the promises made, with the condition, that only by conjunction\nwith him, and with his seed, they could flow over to the rest.\nSince, then, in the new dispensation, Peter was to sustain the\ncharacter of Abraham in the old, and since the only-begotten Son of\nthe Father, having put on the form of a servant, granted to Peter\nthe prerogative which, in prelude of His future order, He had given\nto Abraham, it is plain that Simon was chosen, honoured with the\nname of Cephas, and preferred above all, in order that from him as\nsupreme minister of Christ, and by union with him as visible head,\nall the members of the Church's body might enjoy the blessings and\nfruits of the Christian institution.\n\nThe deductions from this are easy to see. For two things chiefly\nfollow, specially declarative of the nature of the Primacy, and\nshewing its intent, to be the cause and efficient principle of that\nunity by which the Church of Christ is one visible body. First,\nthere follows the _duty_ laid upon all the faithful, of being joined\nwith Peter, if they would not fall from those promises with which\nChrist has most bountifully enriched His mystical Body, being no\nother than that which reverences Peter as its visible head.\nSecondly, there follows Peter's _jurisdiction_, in virtue of which\nhe enjoins all to form one communion and society with him, as well\nas effects, defends, and maintains it. Now, nothing can be stronger\nthan this ordinance of Christ, either to prove a Primacy of supreme\njurisdiction, or to unfold its purpose of effecting and maintaining\nunity.\n\nThe same is the bearing of another type no less remarkable, and no\nless adopted to explain the whole matter. For, as Israel, \"according\nto the flesh,\" was the shadow of the \"Israel of God,\" which was\n\"according to promise:\"[3] and as the kingdom of Israel was a type\nand ensample of the kingdom of heaven, the approach of which Christ\nproclaimed in these words, \"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom\nof heaven is at hand:\" so the twelve sons of Israel, the heads of\nthe Israelitish race, represented and imaged out those Twelve whom\nChrist chose, made princes in His Church, and endowed with supreme\nauthority to build up that Church's structure, and enrich it day by\nday with new accessions of spiritual children. Of this type our\nLord's words are the strongest guarantee: \"Amen, I say unto you,\nthat you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of\nMan shall sit on the throne of His Majesty, you also shall sit on\ntwelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\" And, again, in\nthe very discourse where He sets forth the future Superior, \"I\ndispose to you, as My Father disposed to Me, a kingdom; that you may\neat and drink at My table, in My kingdom; and may sit upon thrones,\njudging the twelve tribes of Israel.\"[4]\n\nBut now, though all the sons of Israel in the former typical kingdom\nwere chiefs, and heads of tribes, yet one of them, that is Judah,\nhad a special prerogative, which the Scriptures set forth, and which\nwas called the _right of the first-born_. In virtue of this, on the\none hand, Judah was esteemed the Lord of his brethren, whom they\nwere to reverence as the parent of the whole family, and on the\nother, it was only by union with him, and with the seed that was to\nspring from him, that the other chiefs could promise to themselves\nthe divine blessing. And so the tribe of Judah had a great\npre-eminence over the other eleven. It was its prerogative to take\nthe[5] lead: it had received from God the promise of an[6] authority\nwhich was not to terminate before the old covenant should be\ntransformed into the new: from it was the seed[6] to be expected,\nwhich should be the source of blessing to all nations, prefigured as\nthey were by the twelve tribes; the other tribes were bound[7] to\nunion with it, and to the profession of its religion, on pain of\nfalling into schism, and forfeiting the divine covenant. All this\nwas expressed by Jacob in prophetic inspiration, when he addressed\nJudah as the head and root of his line: \"Judah (praise) art thou,\nthy brethren shall praise thee: thy hand is on the neck of thine\nenemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee.\" It remains,\nthen, to ask, who was to represent Judah's person in the new\nkingdom, and on whom Christ bestowed the prerogative, the type and\nimage of which had gone before in Judah. It is most plain that this\nwas Simon Peter, for whom we have, therefore, to claim a double\nprerogative, the one of being the source and origin, from which no\none may be separated without severance from the kingdom and promises\nof Christ: the other of being the first-born, as betokening\nexcellence, by which he was pre-eminent in the possession of special\nrights among his brethren, the Apostles.\n\nThe former prerogative was expressed by the Fathers of Aquileia,\nwhen, in the words of S. Ambrose, they stated their belief in S.\nPeter's chair, \"For thence, as from a fountain head, the rights of\nvenerable communion flow unto[8] all.\" The latter is confirmed and\nillustrated by the solemn expressions so often recurring in\nChristian records, wherein Peter is called, \"[9]the Bishop of\nBishops,\" \"[10]the Pastor of Pastors,\" \"[11]first prelate of the\nApostles,\" \"[12]Patriarch of the whole world,\" \"[13]universal\nbishop,\" \"[14]father of fathers,\" \"[14]having the dignity of\npastoral headship,\" \"[14]the most divine head of all heads,\narch-pastor of the Church.\"\n\nII. To these reasons, which, as we think, may be called _typical_,\nsucceed the _analogical_, which prove with equal evidence the\npurpose of the Primacy as instituted, and its inherent powers. If we\nask what are these reasons from analogy, and to what they point, one\nonly answer can be given commended by any show of truth, that the\nPrimacy was instituted in order that the Church of Christ might seem\nto be moulded after the analogy of one human body, one house, one\nkingdom, one city, and one fold. But whence the need that so very\nremarkable and clear an analogy should be obtained by the\ninstitution of the Primacy? Doubtless because the Primacy was\ncreated as a principle, by whose virtue and efficiency what was\nvarious and manifold should be gathered up into unity, because it\nwas to be a head in which all the diverse members of the\necclesiastical body should be joined, the centre of the Church's\ncircle.\n\nTherefore the reasons drawn from analogy show that the unity of the\nChurch is to be considered the special end for which the Primacy was\ninstituted, and the Primacy itself a principle abundantly provided\nwith all those means by which so admirable a blessing as unity may\nbe first produced and then maintained.\n\nAnd this is confirmed by another analogy, well worthy of close\nattention. This consists in the double and reciprocal relation in\nwhich the universal Church stands to particular Churches, and the\ninstitution of the Primacy to the institution of bishops, who, by\nChrist's appointment, govern those particular Churches: an agreement\nwhich ought to have especial force with those who believe in the\ndivine institution of bishops. For as the whole society of true\nbelievers, and the particular congregations of which it is made up,\nare called in Holy Scripture and the Christian records by one and\nthe same name of the Church, so is there the very closest analogy\nbetween the bond which connects the universal Church and that which\nconnects its several parts.\n\nExactly, then, as it is asserted with great truth of all these\nparticular Churches that they are one house, one city, and one fold,\nso must this be repeated of the whole Church, since it is set forth\nin Scripture by no other images, and has no less right to claim the\nproperty of unity. Hence S.[15] Chrysostome's golden saying, \"If it\nis the Church of God, it is united and one, not at Corinth only, but\nin the whole world. For _the Church_ is a name not of division, but\nof union and harmony;\" and S.[16] Gregory calls it, \"The tunic\nwithout seam, woven from the top throughout.\"\n\nNow the same reason which existed for instituting particular bishops\nto govern and preserve in unity particular flocks, moved Christ to\ninstitute an universal Primate, and to set him over the whole fold.\nIf in the former case the best description of a particular Church is\nthat of S. Cyprian, \"A people united to its priest, and a flock\nadhering to its pastor;\"[17] in the latter the _form of unity_,\nwhich Christ established in the universal Primate, no less imposes\non all, both taught and teachers, the necessity of saying with S.\nJerome, \"I following none as the first save Christ, am joined in\ncommunion with your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter.\nUpon that rock the Church is built, I know. Whoever outside of this\nhouse eateth the lamb, is profane. If any one was not in the ark of\nNoah, he shall perish. I know not Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I am\nignorant of Paulinus. Whoever gathers not with thee, scatters: that\nis, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist.\"[18]\n\nIII. A great accession of evidence will accrue to what we have said\nif we attentively consider the reasons deduced from the texts\ncontaining the institution of the Primacy, and those proceeding from\nthe inherent properties of the Church. To speak of the texts first:\n\n1. Either they carry no meaning with them, or they prove at least\nthis, that Christ, in instituting the Primacy, intended,[19] while\nexhibiting the whole Church under the usual image of a house and\nbuilding, to give it a _foundation_, the bond at once of its\nstrength and unity; and, again, while communicating to one the\nspecial gift of unwavering faith, to make him the channel for\nestablishing and[20] _confirming_ all the faithful; to[21] render\nthe fold which he had gathered out of all nations one by the unity\nof a supreme visible _pastor_, and to[22] constitute in the Lord's\nfamily, amid so manifold a distinction of officers, one of such\neminence as to be _the Ruler_ and _the Greater_ among all.\n\nBut can we, or ought we, to conclude from this as to the purpose of\nthe Primacy, and as to its constituent force and principle?\nAssuredly these texts prove directly and categorically that the\nPrimacy was set up as _the efficient principle_, whereby to mould\nthe Church's visible unity, and was endowed with all that authority,\nwithout which unity could neither have been produced, nor maintained\nin existence.\n\n2. And in this judgment we shall be confirmed if we investigate the\nproperties of which the Church cannot be deprived, without taking a\nform and an appearance different from that which it received from\nChrist. The first which occurs is that _identity_ by which the\nChurch must always be like itself, and cannot be substantially\ndifferent at its beginning and in its growth; one thing when it had\nChrist for its visible head, and another when His words had come to\npass, \"A little while, and now you shall not see Me--because I go to\nthe Father.\" Now at its first commencement, in the time of our\nLord's mortal life, the Church presented the form of a society\ngoverned by the supreme power of one, and deriving its visible unity\nfrom one supreme visible head. That it might not subsequently lose\nthis identity, and put on another form, our Lord chose a Primate to\nbe the principle of visible unity, and to have the power of a head\nover the whole body.\n\nAnd indeed this was necessary to maintain the double character and\ntest of[23] _unity_ and[24] _Catholicity_, by which the Church is\ndistinguished in Holy Scripture and in the records of Christian\nantiquity. As to _unity_, not only are the expressions in the\ncreeds, and the more ample explanation of them in the[25] Fathers,\nmost clear and emphatic, but likewise what is said in the Holy\nScriptures of the _end_ for which the Church was founded by Christ.\nFor the[26] grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men,\ninstructing those who had[27] changed the truth of God into a lie,\nand liked not to have God in their knowledge, that[28] denying all\nthese things they might become an acceptable people, and[29]\nenlightened by Christ, and sanctified in the truth, might by the\nprofession of one faith be[30] one body and one spirit, in the\nsame[31] manner in which the Father and the Son are one, and might\nbe[32] divided by no sects and dissensions, which are manifestly the\nworks of the flesh, not of God, who is not the[33] God of dissension\nbut of peace. For therefore[34] Christ, the only-begotten of the\nFather, gave His blood for it, to present it to Himself, a glorious\nChurch, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, which would\nbreak peace, and disturb the agreement of faith; but that it should\nbe holy and without blemish,[35] immovable through that rock on\nwhich it rests, and against which not even the gates of hell shall\nprevail; wisely ordered as the[36] house of God, in which[37] all\nhear his voice, who is set over as the[38] ruler, and has received\nhis brethren to be[39] confirmed, and the[40] care of the whole\nflock;[41] endued with virtue from on high, and strengthened by\nthe[42] Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father; possessing the\npower of[43] authoritative teaching, which if any[44] hear not, nor\nobey, they are to be accounted as heathens and publicans, by a\njudgment which binds both in heaven and on earth. Are there any who\ndo not see that in this description, which sets forth the Church's\npre-ordained end, its proper character and very lineaments, the\nPrimacy itself is included, and exhibited as the principal cause\nwhich effects the unity of the whole body? I hardly think that any\nsuch can be, so apparent is the bond which ties these several parts\ntogether.\n\nYet perhaps this may be more vividly brought out if we shortly\nmention the common opinions among Protestants on the Church's unity.\nFor, omitting those who hold an[45] invisible Church, and so expunge\nvisible unity from its attributes, all the other opinions may be\nreduced to three.\n\nA. Anglicans, whose belief has been set forth, besides Pearson on\nthe Creed, with more than usual care by Dodwell, (in his Treatise on\nthe Bishop, as the Principle of Unity, and S. Peter's Primacy among\nthe Apostles as the Exemplar of Unity,) begin by noting that the\nquestion of visible unity cannot be determined in the same way as it\nrespects the universal Church, or each particular Church. But why?\nBecause, they say, it was indeed the will of Christ, that each\nparticular Church should have a double unity, inward and outward,\nbut it was not His will that the whole Church, the sum of these\nparticular Churches, should have the same mark and test. Because, it\nwas His will that both unities should characterise the particular\nChurches, to use a school phrase, _separately_ and _distributively_,\nbut not the whole body, and the sum of these, taken _collectively_.\nWhence they conclude that Bishops were chosen and made, by the\ncommand of Christ, to preside over particular Churches, and be in\nthem the source and principle of external unity, but that a Primate\nwas not chosen, to whom the whole Church should be subject, and on\nwhom its external unity should depend.\n\nAt this argument one is lost in astonishment, how it could have\nsuggested itself to learned men, and gained their assent. For what\nhad they to prove, or how could they assure themselves, or others,\nas to either of these two points, that external unity was necessary\nto particular Churches, but not to the whole Church, or that the\ninstitution of Bishops, presiding over particular Churches, came\nfrom Christ, but not that of the Primate, whose charge was to rule,\nadminister, and maintain in unity the whole Church. Had they texts\nwherein to trust? But as often as the Bible speaks of the Church's\nunity, it means that Church, which is called \"the kingdom of God,\"\n\"the kingdom of Christ,\" and \"the kingdom of heaven,\" which is\ntermed \"the inheritance of the Gentiles,\" and embraces with a\nmother's bosom, and a mother's love, the whole race of man, from one\nend of the earth to the other. Had they creeds to cite? But in these\nunity is attributed to that Church only, which is so termed\nabsolutely, and very often has the epithet of Catholic.\n\nMoreover, is the word Church, in its unrestricted application, of\ndoubtful meaning? On the contrary, it is specially defined as well\nin the Holy Scriptures,[46] where it expresses of itself the whole\nsociety of believers, as in the Fathers, such as Irenaeus,[47]\nTertullian,[48] Clement[49] of Alexandria, Origen,[50] Hilary,[51]\nJerome,[52] and all the rest without exception, who, in using it,\nexpress the whole Christian people joined in one sole communion. It\nis defined also by Councils, as in the Canons of Laodicea,[53]\nCarthage,[54] and Constantinople,[55] where the Church means the\nwhole assembly of orthodox believers, as distinct from heretics and\nschismatics. It is defined in the most ancient explanation of the\ncreeds, the unanimous meaning of which Tertullian seems to have\nrendered in saying: \"And, therefore, so many and so great Churches\nare that first one from the Apostles, whence all come. So all are\nfirst, and all Apostolical, while all set forth one unity, while\nthey have interchange of peace, the appellation of brotherhood and\nthe common rights of friendship, privileges regulated by no other\nprinciple than the tradition of the same sacrament.\"[56] Lastly, the\nvery heretics[57] defined this term, who, in order to make\nthemselves understood, could use the word Church in no other sense\nthan to express the universal assembly of the faithful.\n\nAfter this it is not at all necessary to ask Anglicans afresh if\nthey have ancient Fathers whose authority they can quote. What these\nthought and believed about the Church's unity is fully shown by\nthose whom we have quoted, and by the words of Irenaeus, \"The Church,\nthough dispersed throughout the whole world, yet as if it were\ncontained in the same house, carefully preserves the rule of faith,\nand holds it as if she had one soul and one heart, nay, and teaches\nit with one consent, as if she spoke with one voice. For although\ndifferent tongues occupy the world, yet the force of tradition is\none and the same, nor do the Churches of Germany, Spain, Gaul, the\nEast, Egypt, Libya, and the middle of the world, embrace any other\nfaith. But as there is one and the same sun shining over the whole\nworld, so the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and\nenlightens all men who desire its knowledge.\"[58]\n\nWhat, then, was the motive of Anglicans, in maintaining the unity of\nparticular churches, and the institution of bishops cohering with\nit, to be necessary, while they denied the necessity of unity in the\nChurch universal, or of a Primate's institution, to effect universal\nunity? What induced them to assert incompatibilities, and defend\nthem as a matter of life and death? The evidence of the Scriptures,\nand the unquestionable belief of all Christian antiquity, extorted\nfrom them the acknowledgment that unity was a mark of the Church,\nand the ascription to Christ of the institution of bishops as\nnecessary for the forming and maintaining unity. _But the fixed\npurpose of defending their schism, and their determination to reject\nthe Primacy, urged them to deny that unity in the whole Church was\nordered and provided for by Christ._ The result of these\naffirmatives and negatives was a doctrinal[59] monster of\nincomparable ugliness, an outrage on the light both of nature and of\nrevelation, as incapable of defence, as abhorrent from reason and\nfrom grace.\n\nB. The second Protestant opinion has been set forth at length by[60]\nVitringa, and supported with all his ingenuity. It is that of those\nwho distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church, one interior,\nspiritual, proceeding from union with one and the same invisible\nHead, Jesus Christ, and completed and perfected by the inhabitation\nof the Holy Spirit, and the bestowal of heavenly gifts; the other\nexterior, visible, depending on profession of the same faith,\nparticipation of the same sacraments, obedience to the same\nsuperiors. Having made this distinction, they proceed to argue for\nthe purpose of proving that while the former unity is universal, and\nabsolutely necessary, the latter is neither universal nor necessary,\nsave hypothetically, (of which hypothesis Vitringa nowhere explains\nthe nature,) and so is capable both of extension and restriction. In\na word, they attach simple and absolute necessity and universality\nto the spiritual and invisible unity, but by no means to the\nexternal and visible.\n\nBut for this what are their authorities? Can they allege the most\nancient Fathers in unbroken succession from the Apostles? Nay, they\ncandidly confess that the Fathers thought external and visible unity\nsimply and absolutely necessary, and not those only of the fourth\nand fifth century, but those of the second and third. Witness\nVitringa,[61] who says, \"If we consult on this point the doctors of\nthe ancient Christian Church, they seem on all hands to have\nembraced the view that the communion of believers in holy rites, in\nthe supper of the Lord, and in reciprocal offices of brotherly love,\nwas maintained absolutely, not hypothetically. They supposed, and\nseem to have persuaded themselves, that all who were joined to the\nChristian Church by the due rite of baptism after previous\npreparation, were really regenerated by the grace of the Holy\nSpirit, and so that the Christian Church was an assembly of men,\nwho in far greater part, saving hypocrites, of whom a few might\nexist in secret, participated in the renewing and sanctifying grace\nof the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, to be joined to the Church was much\nthe same as being joined to the heavenly city. To have one's name on\nthe Church's books, much the same as to have it in God's book of\nlife. On the other hand, to be severed from Church communion, or to\nuse Tertullian's words, \"to be deprived of the sacrament of the Body\nand Blood of the Lord, and to be debarred from all brotherly\ncommunion,\" was to risk salvation, and incur the danger of eternal\ndeath. That is, they supposed that no one was saved out of the\nexternal communion of the Church, which they confounded with the\nmystical and spiritual communion of the Saints. And again, kindred\npoints to these, and resting on the same principle, that bishops\nrepresent the office and person of Jesus Christ Himself in the\nChristian Church; that those who separated themselves from them when\nrightly and duly elected, separated themselves at the same time from\nthe communion of Christ Himself. That those who were absolved by the\nbishops after penance publicly performed according to the canons of\necclesiastical discipline, restored to their rank, and honoured with\nthe kiss of peace, were absolved in the heavenly court by God\nHimself, and Christ the Judge. Lastly, which was the most[62]\n_audacious_ of all such hypotheses, that it was all over with the\nsalvation of all who separated themselves in schism from the\nexternal communion of the Church and its rites, although hitherto\nthey had neither been tainted with heresy, nor involved in crimes\ndestructive of the Christian[63] profession. It would be easy for me\nto support at length each one of these particulars by the sentiments\nand the discipline of the doctors of the primitive Church, were they\nunknown to the more instructed, or did my purpose allow it. I now\nonly appeal to Cyprian's letter to Magnus, in the whole of which He\nsupposes and urges the very hypotheses which I have been\nenumerating; and amongst the rest, speaking of Novatian's schism, he\nwrites thus distinctly: \"But if there is one Church, which is\nbeloved by Christ, and alone is cleansed in His laver, how can he\nwho is not in the Church,\" (that is, in communion with that\nparticular external assembly which makes a part of the external\nCatholic Church,) \"be loved by Christ, or washed and cleansed in His\nlaver? Wherefore as the Church alone possesses the water of life,\nand the power of baptizing and washing a man, let him who asserts\nthat any one can be baptized and sanctified with Novatian, first\nshow and teach that Novatian is in the Church, or [64]_presides over\nthe Church_. For the Church is one, which, being one, cannot be at\nonce within and without. For if it is with Novatian, it was not with\nCornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who succeeded the Bishop\nFabian in regular order, and whom the Lord hath glorified with\nmartyrdom over and above the rank of his high priesthood, Novatian\nis not in the Church.\"[65] It is the precise thing which we have\nbeen stating.\"\n\nBut where did Vitringa and the supporters of his doctrine get\ncourage to contradict the whole line of Fathers and their unbroken\ntradition? You would surely expect from them decisive arguments, and\nexpressions from Holy Writ distinctly laying down no other than a\n_hypothetical_ necessity of visible and external unity. But you may\nsearch in vain all over the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Acts, for\nany such. Not only is there no mention in them of such a distinction\nas that invisible unity is absolutely necessary, while external and\nvisible unity is but hypothetically so, but this latter is plainly\nenjoined and set forth as the note which the mystical body of\nChrist, the true Church, cannot be without; and its violation is\nreckoned among those works of the flesh which exclude from the\nkingdom of God.\n\nHow, besides, can that be deemed necessary only under hypothesis,\nwithout holding and faithfully maintaining which you cut yourself\noff from the very fountain of blessing, and transgress and subvert\nthe order appointed by God for attaining salvation? Such an\nassertion would be senseless. Yet in most of the Protestant\nconfessions,--the Helvetic, art. xiv., the Galliean, art. xvi., the\nScotch, art. xxvii., the Belgian, art. xxviii., the Saxon, art.\nxii., the Bohemian, art. viii., and that of the Remonstrants, art.\nxxii.,--it is laid down as an indisputable principle, \"That the\nheirs of eternal life are only to be found in the assembly of those\ncalled.\" What then do those who violate outward and visible unity,\nand withdraw from the outward and visible body of the Church? They\nstop up the very way which Providence has opened for their obtaining\n\"the inheritance of sons.\"\n\nFor indeed Christ is the Saviour, but of His mystical body,\nwhich[66] is the Church, which therefore He purchased with His own\nblood, joined to Himself by that closest bond of being His spouse,\nenriched with promises,[67] provided with all manner of graces, and\nmost nobly dowered with[68] truth, charity, and the Holy Spirit, to\ngive her at last salvation, and[69] \"the weight of eternal glory.\"\nBut have these things reference to a visible or an invisible Church?\nTo a Church one and coherent, or rent and torn by factions? It is\nthe Church which Christ founded, which He made to be[70] \"the light\nof the world,\" bound together by[71] manifold external links,\nordered to be one with the unity of a house, a family, a city, a\nkingdom; with that unity wherewith the Father and the Son are one;\nin which He placed[72] pastors and doctors to bind and to loose, and\nto watch over the agreement of all the parts; which He founded upon\nPeter, committed in chief to Peter to rule and to feed it. Such,\nthen, as fall off from one single visible Church are of the\ncondition of those whom the Apostles of the Lord foretold, that \"in\nthe last time there should come mockers, walking according to their\nown desires in ungodlinesses: these are they who separate\nthemselves, sensual men, having not the[73] Spirit:\" these tear\nthemselves from their Saviour, lose the fruit purchased by His\nblood, and fall from the inheritance which the Head obtained for His\nbody and His members.\n\nTherefore the necessity of union with the one single visible Church\nis as great as the necessity of union with Christ the Head, as the\nnecessity of the remission of sins, \"for[74] outside of it they are\nnot remitted: for this Church has specially received the Holy Spirit\nin earnest, without whom no sins are remitted:\" as the necessity of\ncharity, \"[75]for it is this very charity which those who are cut\noff from the communion of the Catholic Church do not possess,\"\nwhence \"[76]whatsoever thing heretics and schismatics receive, the\ncharity which covers a multitude of sins is the gift of Catholic\nunity and peace:\" as great, in fine, as the necessity not to involve\noneself \"in[77] a horrible crime and sacrilege,\" \"in[78] the\ngreatest of evils,\" one \"by[79] which Christ's passion is rendered\nof no effect, and His body is rent,\" by which[80] the sin is\ncommitted of which Christ said, \"It shall not be forgiven, neither\nin this world nor in the world to come:\" by which one is estranged\n\"from the sole Catholic Church, which retains the true worship, in\nwhich is the fountain of truth, the home of faith, the temple of\nGod, into which if any one enter not, or from which if any one go\nout, he loses the hope of life and eternal salvation. Let no one\nflatter himself in the spirit of obstinate contention, for life is\nat issue, and salvation, which without care and caution will be\nforfeited.\"[81] Can any necessity be greater, or less conditional\nthan this? Or what can be more plain than this statement of the\nsimple and absolute necessity of visible unity and outward\ncommunion?\n\nWhere then are we to find the cause which induced so many learned\nand able Protestants first to imagine this distinction between the\nnecessity of internal and external communion and unity, and then to\ndeceive themselves and others with such a mockery? The real cause\nwas, as I believe, that having denied the institution of the\nPrimacy, and the authority lodged in it for the purpose of forming\nand maintaining unity, they were without a criterion or proof, in\nvirtue of which, among so many Christian societies divided from and\ncondemning each other, they could safely choose the one with which\nthey were to be joined in communion, and the outward unity of duty\nand obedience. For they would readily conclude that the unity so\noften commended in Scripture, and so earnestly enjoined, could not\nbe external, since God, who does not command impossibilities, had\ninstituted no visible sign to mark that company of Christians, which\nalone among all the rest was the continuation and development of the\nChurch founded by Christ, and built up by the Apostles.\n\nC. From the same source must the third Protestant doctrine on unity\nbe derived. [82]Jurien filled up the sketch of this, which\n[83]Casaubon, [84]Claude, and [85]Mestrezat had drawn, and it became\nso popular as not only to infect a large number of Protestants, but\nto exert a withering influence on certain unstable members of the\nCatholic body. It teaches that we must believe not only in an\ninternal and spiritual, but in a visible and external unity, for the\nScriptures plainly urge its necessity, and Christian tradition fully\ndescribes it, so that there is not a truth more patent or\nestablished on greater authority; but this unity is restricted\nwithin narrow bounds, and confined to the articles called\nfundamental, though as to how many these are no one defender of the\nsystem is agreed with another. For it is sufficient for Christians\nnot to differ in the profession of such articles for them to be\ndeemed members of one and the same Church. Whence they infer that\none and the same true Church is made up out of almost all Christian\nsocieties, the Roman, the Greek, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the\nWaldensian, the Lutheran, the Anglican, and the Calvinist, for their\ndifferences, important as they are, offer no hindrance to the unity\nwhich Christ enjoined, the Apostles preached, the creeds express,\nand universal tradition demands.\n\nAs Bossuet,[86] the brothers Walemburg,[87] Nicole,[88] and even\nsome Protestants have most fully dealt with this portentous opinion,\nthere is no need to urge much against it here. I prefer repeating\nthe question, what _occasion_ the Protestants had to get up so\nunheard-of a paradox, and a system so absurd? It was twofold: one\ntheoretical, and the other practical.\n\nThe theoretical was this. The crime of heresy, depicted in\nScripture, and Christian antiquity, with colours so dark, had\ngradually lost its foulness and its magnitude in the minds of\nProtestants, who had, at length, come to the pass of reckoning\nreligious, as well as civil, liberty, among the unquestionable\nrights of man. As if, all other human acts being subject to a law,\nthose alone which proceed from the intellect are exempt: as if the\ndifference between right and wrong, which embraces the whole range\nof man's life, did not relate to its noblest part, in the acts of\nthe intellect and the reason: as if God had laid down a law of\njustice, charity, fortitude, and prudence, but entirely omitted a\n_law[89] of faith_: as if the will submitted to a law of _good_, but\nthe mind owned no law of _truth_: or as if God cared for the boughs\nand leaves, but took no thought of the root.[90] But what could\nProtestants do? Having allowed to all full license of thought, and\noverthrown the authority which ruled the mind, they were forced,\nwhile they kept the _name_ of heresy, to give up the _thing_ meant\nby it, and the effects springing from that thing: they were forced\nto attenuate to the utmost the crime of heresy, and to reduce to the\nsmallest possible number the articles necessary to be believed by\nall; they were forced to extend beyond all measure the Church's\nlimits, while they contracted beyond all measure the range of\nnecessary unity.\n\nBesides the theoretical, there was a practical occasion in those\nschisms which, not merely in later or in mediaeval times, but in the\nfirst ages also, rent the Christian society. Jurien and Pfaff appeal\nto these, pretentiously enumerating those which arose under Popes\nVictor, Cornelius, Stephen, Urban VI., and Clement VII., and those\nnamed from Donatus, Meletius, and Acacius. Then they ask if the true\nChurch of Christ can be thought to consist in one single society\nperfectly at union with itself. They allege many conjectures against\nthis, but dwell on the argument, that _in defect of a visible\nexternal test_, such an assertion could not be maintained without\n_imposing upon all a most intolerable burden of searching out where\nis the true doctrine and the legitimate ministerial succession_: for\nit is not until those are found, that, at length, that one single\nsociety will be recognised, with which, as the only true Church,\nunity of Communion is to be kept.\n\nNow, I profess that I do not see how this argument can be met, if\nthe institution of the Primacy, and its proper function to form and\nmaintain unity, be rejected. For, without this, by what visible\ntoken among so many Christian societies, divided by intestine\ndissension, and condemning each other, can you distinguish the one\nwhich has the character of the true Church, and the right to exact\ncommunion with itself? There is none to be found; and so, either all\nhope of finding the true Church must be relinquished, or an enquiry\nmust be undertaken into purity of doctrine, and legitimate\nministerial succession, on the termination of which the only true\nChurch will at last be found. But as this latter course is to by far\nthe greater number of men impossible, dangerous[91] to all without\nexception, and most foreign to the Christian temper, the only\nconclusion remaining, is, that the selection of a Primacy with the\npower of effecting unity impressed upon it, _is most intimately\ninvolved and bound up in the visibility and unity of the true\nChurch_.\n\nAnd quite as closely is it bound up with that other test of the\nChurch, its Catholicism. We are not to believe Voss and King,[92] in\ntheir assertion that this test began to be applied first in the\nfourth century, for the purpose of distinguishing the genuine\ncompany of the orthodox, and the true body of Christ, from heretics\nand schismatics. For we find the Church distinguished by the epithet\nof Catholic, not merely in the records of the fourth[93] and\nfifth[94] century, but in those of the third,[95] and the\nsecond,[96] at the beginning of which S. Ignatius wrote, \"Follow all\nof you the bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father; and the body of\npresbyters, as Apostles. But reverence deacons, as the command of\nChrist. Without the bishop let nothing of what concerns the Church\nbe done by any one. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is\nunder the bishop, or with his sanction. Where the bishop is, there\nalso let the multitude be; as, where Christ Jesus is, _there is the\nCatholic Church_.\"[97] As, therefore, that cannot be the Church of\nChrist, which is not Catholic, we ought to investigate the meaning\nwhich is given to this word by the consent of all orthodox\nbelievers.\n\nNow, two points are signified in it, one of which is its _material_,\nthe other its _formal_, or _essential_, part. Its _material_ part\nis, that the geographical extension of the true Church be such that\nits mass be _morally_[98] universal, _absolutely_ great, and\neminently visible, but _comparatively_ with all heretical and\nschismatical sects, larger and more numerous. Of this _material_\nmeaning attached to the epithet, Catholic, we find abundant\nwitnesses in all[99] the orthodox writers who defended the cause of\nthe Church against the Donatists, and again, against the\nLuciferians,[100] and Novatians; and likewise, in those who have\nexplained the creeds,[101] and, as occasion offered, have touched on\nthe force of the term Catholic.[102] But the same first cited\nwitnesses tell us that universal diffusion is not sufficient, and\nthat we require another element to infuse a soul into this\nuniversally extended body, and to bring it to unity.\n\nFor two properties are continually recurring in Christian records, one\nof which may be called _negative_, the other _affirmative_. The force\nof the former is to _expel from the circle of the one true Catholic\nChurch all sects of heretics and Schismatics_: of the latter, that\nthis Church _consist in one single communion and society, whose\nmembers cohere together by hierarchical subordination_.\n\nBut is it true that both these points are so plainly and constantly\ninculcated? To remove all doubt we will quote the authors who most\ndistinctly assert the one and the other. As to the first, there are\n[103]Clement of Alexandria, [104]Tertullian, [105]Alexander of\nAlexandria, [106]Celestine, [107]Leander, the Emperor Justinian;[108]\nthen again the Councils of Nice,[109] Sardica,[110] and the\nthird of [111]Carthage; nay, the heretics[112] themselves; and all\nthese agree in asserting that _there is one only ancient Catholic\nChurch_, outside of which the divine patience endures and bears with\nheresies, which are as thorns. Thus in language ecclesiastical and\nChristian nothing can be considered as more certainly proved than\nthat the epithet of Catholic is _distinctive_, and shows the\ncommunion which rejects from its bosom all heresies and all schisms.\nIt was with great reason, therefore, that [113]Pacian wrote what\n[114]Cyril of Jerusalem, and [115]Augustine very frequently\nrepeated, \"Our people is divided from the heretical name by this\nappellation, that it is called Catholic.\"\n\nMoreover this unity, which we have said may be called _negative_, is\nnecessary indeed to the understanding of the Church as Catholic, but\nis by no means sufficient to complete the idea of Catholicity. To it\ntherefore must be added the _affirmative_ unity, by which\nCatholicism is not only divided from heretics and schismatics, but\nbecomes in itself a coherent body with members and articulations. It\nis to the assertion and maintenance of this unity, which is the soul\nof Catholicity, and without which it cannot even be conceived, that\nhas reference what we so often read in the monuments of antiquity\nabout the [116]necessity of communion among the members of the\nChurch and the [117]tokens and means of that communion. There are\nvery distinct and innumerable testimonies about it in the ancient\nFathers,[118] declaring its _necessity_, and setting forth its\n_mode_ of composition and coherence.\n\nFor to set forth the _mode_ of this is the plain drift of what\n[119]Irenaeus writes in confutation of heretics by the tradition of\nthe Apostolical churches: \"For since it would be very long in the\ncompass of our present work to enumerate the successions of all the\nChurches, taking that Church which is the greatest, the most\nancient, and well known to all, founded and established at Rome by\nthe two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, by indicating that\ntradition which it has from the Apostles, and the faith which it\nannounces to men, which has reached even to us by the succession of\nbishops, we confound all those, who, in whatsoever manner, either\nthrough self-pleasing, or vain glory, or blindness and evil\nintention, [120]gather otherwise than they ought. _For_ to this\nchurch on account of its superior chiefship, it is necessary that\nevery Church should come[121] together, that is, the faithful who\nare everywhere; for in this Church the tradition which is from the\nApostles has been ever preserved by those who are everywhere.\n...By this ordination and succession, the tradition and preaching of the\ntruth, which is from the Apostles in the Church, has reached down to\nus. And this proof is most complete, that it is one and the same\nvivifying faith, which has been preserved, and handed down in truth,\nin the Church from the Apostles to the present day.\"\n\nThe churches, therefore, which are everywhere diffused, derive that\nstrength and harmony of parts, out of which the whole body of the\nCatholic Church is made up, from the fact of their agreeing in the\nunity of faith and preaching with that Church of Peter, which is the\ngreatest, the chief, and the more powerful. It follows that the\nPrimacy of Peter, and the authority inherent in it to effect unity,\nis that principle which Christ selected, that the Church which He\nhad set up might be Catholic, and bear the note of Catholicity on\nits brow.\n\nAnd Cyprian would set forth the same _mode_ of communion, when he\nspeaks of the _coherence of bishops_, by which both the _Catholic\nepiscopate_ is made _one, and the Church one and Catholic_. For as\nthe _several communities draw the unity of the body from the unity\nof the prelates_ to whom they are subject; so all prelates, and the\ncommunities subject to them, constitute _one Catholic episcopate and\none Catholic Church_, because they cohere with the _principal_\nchurch, _the root and matrix_, which is the Church of Peter, _upon\nwhom_ the Lord founded the whole building, and whom He instituted\n_to be the fountain and source of Catholic unity_.[122]\n\nThese words are a clue to understand [123]Tertullian's meaning, when,\nalready become a Montanist, he called the Catholic Church, whose\ndiscipline he was attacking, _the Church near to Peter_--\"Concerning\nyour opinion, I now enquire whence you claim this right to the\nChurch. If because the Lord said to Peter, 'Upon this rock I will\nbuild My Church,' 'to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven,' or 'whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose on earth, shall be\nbound or loosed in heaven,' you, therefore, pretend that the power\nof binding and loosing is derived to you, that is, to all the Church\nnear to Peter; how do you overthrow and change the manifest\nintention of the Lord in conferring this on Peter[124] _personally_,\n'Upon thee I will build My Church,' and 'I will give to thee the\nkeys,' not to the Church, and 'whatsoever thou bindest or loosest,'\nnot what they bind or loose.\" Now he used this mode of speaking\nbecause it was customary with Catholics, who were wont to exhibit\n_nearness with Peter_ as the characteristic of the Church, and the\nnecessary condition for sharing that power, whose plenitude and\nnative source Christ had lodged in Peter.\n\nThis certain and undoubting judgment of Catholics, Tertullian\nhimself, before his error, had clearly expressed in his book, De\nScorpiace, c. x., where he says, \"For if you yet think the heaven\nshut, remember that the Lord here (Matt. xvi. 19) left its keys to\nPeter, and _through him to the Church_.\" Nearness, then, with\nPeter, and [125]_consanguinity of doctrine_ thence proceeding, are no\nless necessary to the Church, that it may be the Catholic Church\nwhich Christ founded and built upon Peter, than that it be partaker\nin those gifts which, again, He Himself granted only to unity, as it\nis effected in Peter and by Peter.\n\nNow not only the most ancient Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and\nCyprian, but the whole body of them, assign the origin of this to\nPeter. This they make the vivifying principle of agreement, society\nand unity, without which the Church can neither be intrinsically\nCatholic, nor the mind conceive it as such. It is so stated by\n[126]Pacian, [127]Ambrose, the [128]Fathers of Aquileia, [129]\nOptatus, [130]Gregory Nazianzen, [131]Jerome, [132]Augustine, [133]\nGelasius, [134]Hormisdas, [135]Agatho, [136]Maximus Martyr, and, to\nshorten the list, by Leo[137] the Great. It is in setting forth the\nunity of the Catholic episcopate that he writes what ought never to\nbe forgotten by Christian minds: \"For the compactness of our unity\ncannot remain firm, unless the bond of charity weld us into an\ninseparable whole, because, as we have many members in one body,\nand all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one\nbody in Christ, and every one members one of another. For it is the\nconnection of the whole body which makes one soundness and one\nbeauty; and this connexion, as it requires unanimity in the whole\nbody, so especially demands concord among bishops. For though these\nhave a like dignity, yet have they not an equal jurisdiction; since\neven among the most blessed Apostles, as there was a likeness of\nhonour, so was there a certain distinction of power, and the\nelection of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to\none, from which mould, or type, the distinction also between bishops\nhas arisen, and it was provided by a great ordering, that all should\nnot claim to themselves all things, but that in every province there\nshould be one whose sentence should be considered the first among\nhis brethren; and others again, seated in the greater cities, should\nundertake a larger care, through whom the direction of the universal\nChurch should converge to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere\ndisagree from its head.\"\n\nAnd, if I do not deceive myself, the direct drift of all this is to\nanswer the question, whether the doctrine of Peter's Primacy, and\nits virtue, as the constituent of unity and Catholicity, is\ncontained in the most solemn standard of faith, the creed. For\nalthough there are unimpeachable testimonies to prove that the\ncreeds were not published and explained to Catechumens, in order to\nconvey to them a full and complete Christian instruction; and though\nit be proved further to have been the purpose of the Church's\nancient teachers to omit many points in the creeds which were to be\nset before the initiated at a more suitable season afterwards, it\nmay nevertheless be said that the most commonly received articles\nof the creed may be regarded as so many most fruitful germs, from\nwhich the remaining doctrines would spontaneously spring. And so, to\nkeep within our present point, what is more plain than that the sum\nof doctrine concerning Peter's Primacy, contained in the Bible,\nillustrated by the Fathers, and defined by Councils, is involved in\nthat article of the creed in which we profess that the Church is one\nand Catholic? No doubt there nowhere occurs in the creeds,\n_expressed in so many words_, mention of Peter, or of the Primacy\nbestowed on him, or of hierarchical subordination; yet it is most\ndistinctly stated that the Church is one and Catholic. What meaning,\nthen, were the faithful to give to those epithets? What were they to\nintend in the words, I believe one Catholic Church? What but the\nmeaning of the words themselves, which they received from the\nChurch's teachers together with the creeds? But they could not form\nthe conception of one Church and that Catholic, without thinking\nlikewise of one Catholic _principle_ of the Church; nor could they\nassign the dignity of that one Catholic principle to any other but\nPeter, whom alone they had invariably been taught to have been set\nover all. For what S.[138] Bernard wrote in mediaeval times, \"For\nthis purpose the solicitude of all Churches rests on that one\nApostolic See, that all may be united under it and in it, and it may\nbe careful in behalf of all to preserve the unity of the Spirit in\nthe bond of peace,\" must be considered nothing but a repetition of\nthe faith which resounded through the whole world, from the very\nbeginning of the Christian religion.\n\nUnless, therefore, any can be found who prefer asserting _either_\nthat true believers _never_ understood what they believed, in\nprofessing the Church to be one and Catholic, _or_ that they\nunderstood this _otherwise_ than it had been universally and\nconstantly explained by the Church's teachers; it must be admitted,\nthat faith in Peter's Primacy, and in the power bestowed upon it for\nthe purpose of making the visible kingdom of Christ one and\nCatholic, is coeval with that profession of the creeds which sets\nforth the Church as one and as Catholic.[139]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Hegoumenos, Luke xxii. 26, the very term still given in\nthe East to the head of a religious community; and also, as has been\nsaid, that which marks our Lord in the great prophecy of Micah,\nrecorded in Matt. ii. 6.\n\n[2] Protos, meizon, hegoumenos. See ch. 2.\n\n[3] 1 Cor. x. 18; Gal. vi. 16.\n\n[4] Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 29.\n\n[5] See Num. ii. 3-9; x. 14; Judges i. 1-3; xx. 18.\n\n[6] Gen. xlix. 10; and see John iv. 22.\n\n[7] 3 Kings, xii.\n\n[8] S. Ambrose, Ep. 11.\n\n[9] Arnobius Junior in Ps. 138.\n\n[10] Eucherius of Lyons, hom. in vig. S. Petri.\n\n[11] Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, on the Transfiguration.\n\n[12] The Archimandrites of Syria to Pope Hormisdas, Mansi 8, 428.\n\n[13] S. Bernard, de Cons. Lib. 2, c. 8.\n\n[14] S. Theodore Studites to Pope Leo III., Lib. 1, Ep. 33.\n\n[15] In 1 Cor. Hom. 1, n. 1.\n\n[16] S. Greg. Naz., Orat. 12, alluding to John xix. 23.\n\n[17] S. Cyprian, Ep. 79.\n\n[18] S. Jerome, Ep. 57.\n\n[19] Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n[20] Luke xxii. 31-2.\n\n[21] John xxi. 15.\n\n[22] Luke xxii. 26.\n\n[23] Unity, John x. 16; xvii. 20-23; 1 Cor. xii. 12-31; Ephes. ii.\n14-22; iv. 5; 1 Cor. i. 10.\n\n[24] Catholicity. Luke xxiv. 47; Mark xvi. 20; Acts i. 8; ix. 15;\nRom. x. 18; Colos. i. 8-23.\n\n[25] For all the fathers hold the doctrine thus expressed by St.\nHilary of Poitiers on Ps. 121, n. 5. \"The Church is one body, not\nmixed up by a confusion of bodies, nor by each of these being united\nin an indiscriminate heap and shapeless bundle; but we are all one\nby the unity of faith, by the society of charity, by concord of\nworks and will, by the one gift of the sacrament in all.\" No notion\nof the Church's unity in England, it may be remarked, outside of\nCatholicism, goes beyond \"the indiscriminate heap and shapeless\nbundle.\"\n\n[26] Tit. ii. 11.\n\n[27] Rom. i. 25.\n\n[28] Tit. ii. 14, with 1 Pet. ii. 25.\n\n[29] John xvii. 17.\n\n[30] Eph. iv. 4.\n\n[31] John xvii. 21.\n\n[32] Gal. v. 20, 19.\n\n[33] 1 Cor. xiv. 33.\n\n[34] Eph. v. 27.\n\n[35] Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n[36] 1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\n[37] Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n[38] Luke xxii. 26.\n\n[39] Luke xxii. 31-2.\n\n[40] John xxi. 15.\n\n[41] Acts i. 4-8.\n\n[42] John xv. 26.\n\n[43] Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n[44] Matt. xviii. 18.\n\n[45] The first Reformers fell into this grievous error because they\nhad no other way to defend their schism. They may be passed over at\npresent, as in most even of the Protestant confessions visibility is\nreckoned among the notes of the Church.\n\n[46] 1 Cor. vi. 4; x. 32; xi. 22; xii. 28; Ephes. i. 22; iii. 10-21;\nv. 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Colos. i. 18-24; 1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\n[47] Irenaeus, Lib. 1, c. 3, Lib. 3, c. 4.\n\n[48] Tertullian, de Praesc. c. 4.\n\n[49] Clement. Stromat. Lib. 7, 17.\n\n[50] Origen in Cantic, Hom. 3.\n\n[51] Hilary, De Trin. Lib. 7, c. 12.\n\n[52] Jerome, adv. Lucifer.\n\n[53] Concil. Laodic. Can. 9, 10.\n\n[54] Concil. Carthag. 4, Can. 71.\n\n[55] Concil. Constant. 2, act 3.\n\n[56] De Praesc. c. 20.\n\n[57] See in the sixth act of the second Nicene Council the\nquotations from the iconoclast synod of Constantinople.\n\n[58] Adv. haereaes, Lib. 1, c. 3.\n\n[59] Even the Puritan Cartwright observed, \"if it be necessary to\nthe unity of the Church that an archbishop should preside over other\nbishops, why not on the same principle should one archbishop preside\nover the whole Church of God?\" Defence of Whitgift.\n\n[60] Sacred observations, Lib. 5, c. 7, on the hypothetical external\ncommunion of Christians.\n\n[61] See also the testimony of Mosheim, quoted above p. 197, note.\n\n[62] Thus the universal belief of the Fathers from the beginning is\ncharged with _audacity_. It is difficult not to be struck with the\nutter antagonism of feeling which separates Protestants from the\nwhole body of the Fathers. The statements here ascribed, and truly,\nby Vitringa to them, would be viewed in modern English society, as\nthe very insanity of bigotry.\n\n[63] Because to rend Christ's mystical body, and to subvert that\nunity for which He had prayed the Father, was regarded by them as a\ncrime of the deepest dye. In modern England it would be consecrated\nby the glorious principle of \"civil and religious liberty.\"\n\n[64] The unrestricted expression, \"to preside over the Church,\" used\nby Cyprian of Novatian, who claimed to be Peter's successor,\ncontains a clear indication that the fold entrusted to Peter was as\nwide as the Church itself. It is the same Church in the two clauses,\nbut in the former it _must_ be understood universally.\n\n[65] Ep. 69.\n\n[66] Ephes. v. 23-25.\n\n[67] Ephes. iv. 15-17.\n\n[68] John xiv. 16-26; xv. 26; xvi. 7.\n\n[69] 2 Cor. iv. 17.\n\n[70] Matt. v. 14.\n\n[71] Compare Luke xii. 8, 9, with Matt. x. 32; Mark viii. 38; Rom.\nx. 10; and again, Mark xvi. 15, with Matt. xxviii. 19; Acts ii. 41;\nviii. 36; xix. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 13; and Matt. xxvi. 28, with Luke\nxxii. 19; 1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 21; and Ephes. iv. 11, with Acts xx. 28;\nTit. i. 5.\n\n[72] Compare Ephes. iv. 11-16, with 1 Cor. xii. 13-31; and Matt.\nxviii. 18, with John xx. 21; Acts xv. 41; xvi. 4; 2 Cor. x. 6; 1\nTim. v. 20; Tit. i. 13; ii. 15.\n\n[73] Jude 18; 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3.\n\n[74] Augustin. in Euchirid. c. 63.\n\n[75] Aug. In Tract de Symb. c. 11.\n\n[76] Aug. De Baptismo Cont. Donat. Lib. 3, c. 16.\n\n[77] Aug. Cont. Litt. Petiliani, Lib. 1, c. 21-2, Lib. 2, c. 13-23.\nLib. 3, c. 52.\n\n[78] Optat. Lib. 1.\n\n[79] Ambros. de Obitu Satyri fratris, Lib. 1, n. 47.\n\n[80] Idem. de Poenit. Lib. 2, 4.\n\n[81] Lactant. Div. Institut. Lib. 3, c. 30.\n\n[82] Le vrai Systeme de l'Eglise.\n\n[83] Answer to Cardinal Perron.\n\n[84] Defense de la Reforme, p. 200.\n\n[85] Traite de l'Eglise, p. 286.\n\n[86] Bossuet, writings against Jurien.\n\n[87] The brothers Walemburg, Treatise on Necessary and Fundamental\nArticles.\n\n[88] Nicole, de l'Unite de l'Eglise.\n\n[89] See the recognition of this law, Mark xvi. 16; Matt xxviii.\n18-20; Luke xii. 8, 9; Rom. x. 10.\n\n[90] Such the Fathers call Faith, terming it, \"the beginning and\nfoundation,\" \"the greatest mother of virtues,\" \"the principle of\nsalvation,\" \"the prelude of immortality,\" \"the clear eye of Divine\nknowledge,\" \"the foundation of all wisdom.\" See Suicer, art.\npistis.\n\n[91] After having gone through this search for ten long years, it\nmay be allowed to express how great its danger, and how great too\nthe blessedness of those who are not exposed to it. It is worth the\nexperience of half a life to receive the truth, without personal\nenquiry, from a competent authority. Protestantism begins its\nexistence by casting away one of the greatest blessings which man\ncan have.\n\n[92] De Symbolo, Diss. 1, 39, and Hist. Symb. Apostol. cap. 6. 16.\n\n[93] Pacian, Ep. 1, n. 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 18, n. 23.\nEusebius on Isai. xxxii. 18. Chrysostome on Colos. hom. 1, n. 2, on\n1 Cor. hom. 32, n. 1, Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 26.\n\n[94] Augustine on Ps. 41, n. 7; Epist. 49, n. 3-52, n. 1, and\nelsewhere.\n\n[95] Council of Antioch, quoted by Euseb. Hist. Lib. 7, c. 30.\nOrigen on Romans, Lib. 8, n. 1; Cyprian, Epist. 52; Acts of S.\nFructuosus, n. 3, and of S. Pionius. n. 9.\n\n[96] Irenaeus, Lib. 3, c. 17, and Epistle on martyrdom of S.\nPolycarp, n. 19.\n\n[97] Epis. to Smyrneans, n. 8.\n\n[98] Augustine, Ep. 52. n. 1, Serm. 238, n. 3.\n\n[99] As Optatus, Lib. 2, Aug. de Unitate Ecc. c. 2. &c.; cont.\nCresconium, L. 2, c. 63, Contr. Petilian. L. 2, c. 12-55-58-73; on\nPs. 21, 47, 147, and on 1 Ep. John, Tract, 1, 2.\n\n[100] Pacian, Ep. 3, Jerome cont. Luciferianos.\n\n[101] Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 18.\n\n[102] Irenaeus, Lib. 1, c. 10; Lib. 4, c. 19, Tertullian adv. Judaeos,\nc. 7, Bernard in Cantica, serm. 65.\n\n[103] Clement, Stromat. L. 7, Sec. 15-17.\n\n[104] Tertullian de praesc. c. 30.\n\n[105] Alexander, apud Theodoret. H. E. Lib. 1, c. 4.\n\n[106] Coelestinus, homil. in laud. eccles.\n\n[107] Leander, Cont. Origenistas in Actis Synodi V.\n\n[108] Justinianus, epist. ad Mennam Constantinopolitanum.\n\n[109] Council of Nice, in the Creed, and Canon 8.\n\n[110] Sardica in letter to all bishops, quoted by Athanasius, Apol.\n2.\n\n[111] 22nd Canon of Codex Africanus.\n\n[112] The Nestorian profession of faith, in fifth act of Council of\nEphesus.\n\n[113] Pacian, Ep. 1.\n\n[114] Cyril, Catech. 18.\n\n[115] Aug. de vera relig. c .6, de utilit. credendi, c. 7.\n\n[116] Pacian, Ep. 3, \"The Church is a full and solid body, diffused\nalready through the whole world. As a city, I say, whose parts are\nin unity. Not as you Novatians, an insolent particle, or a gathered\nwen, separated from the rest of the body.\"\n\n[117] Such as are grammata koinonika, Euseb. H. E. lib. 7, c. 30.\nepistolai koinonikai, Basil. Ep. 190, or kanonikai, Ep. 224,\nletters of peace commendatory, ecclesiastical, &c.\n\n[118] See especially Chrys. Hom. 30 on 1 Cor.\n\n[119] Irenaeus, Lib. 3, c. 3.\n\n[120] Compare Jerome's often-quoted passage, Ep. 15, to Pope\nDamasus, \"Whoso gathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, whoso\nis not of Christ is of antichrist.\"\n\n[121] For the meaning of \"come together,\" see farther on, c. 40.\n\"God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Doctors, and all\nthe rest of the operation of the Spirit, of which all those are not\npartakers who do not _run together to the Church_, but defraud\nthemselves of life by an evil intention and a very bad conduct. For\nwhere the Church is, there is the Spirit; and where is the Spirit of\nGod, there is the Church and all grace.\"\n\n[122] See S. Cyprian's letters, 69, 55, 45, 70, 73. 40. Consider the\nforce of the words, \"Peter, upon whom the Church had been built by\nthe Lord, speaking one for all, and _answering with the voice of the\nChurch_, says, Lord, to whom shall we go?\" Ep. 55, on which Fenelon\n(de sum. Pontif. auct. c. 12) remarks, \"What wonder, then, if Pope\nHormisdas and other ancient fathers says, \"the Roman, that is, the\nCatholic Church,\" since Peter was wont to answer _with the voice of\nthe Church_? What wonder if the body of the Church speaks by mouth\nof its head?\"\n\n[123] De Pudicitia, c. 21.\n\n[124] This Montanist corruption (into which Ambrose on Ps. 38, n.\n37, and Pacian in his three letters to Sempronian, state that the\nNovatians also fell,) induced some fathers, and especially\nAugustine, (Enarrat. on Ps. 108. n. 1, Tract 118 on John, n. 4, and\nlast Tract n. 7) to teach that the keys were bestowed on Peter so\nfar forth as he represented the person of the Church in right of his\nPrimacy. By which mode of speaking they meant this one thing, that\nthe power of the keys, as being necessary to the Church, and\ninstituted for her good, began indeed in Peter, and was communicated\nto him in a peculiar manner but by no means dropt, or could possibly\ndrop, with him.\n\n[125] Tertull. De Praesc. c. 32.\n\n[126] Pacian, ad Sempronium, Epis. 3, Sec. 11.\n\n[127] Ambrose, de Poenit. Lib. 1, c. 7, n. 33.\n\n[128] Synodical Epistle, among the letters of Ambrose.\n\n[129] Optatus, de Schism. Donat. Lib. 2, c. 2, and Lib. 7, c. 3.\n\n[130] Gregory, de vita sua, Tom. 2, p. 9.\n\n[131] Jerome, adv. Jovin. Lib. 1, n. 14.\n\n[132] Augustine, in Ps. Cont. partem Donati, cont. Epist. Fundam. c.\n4, de utilitate credendi, c. 17, and Epist. 43.\n\n[133] Gelasius, Epis. 14.\n\n[134] Hormisdas, Mansi, Tom. 8, 451, in the conditions on which he\nreadmitted the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern bishops\nto communion.\n\n[135] Agatho, in a letter to the sixth council, read and accepted at\nits fourth sitting.\n\n[136] Maximus, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 11, p. 76.\n\n[137] Leo, Epist. 10, c. 1.\n\n[138] Ep. 358, to Pope Celestine.\n\n[139] The above chapter is translated from Passaglia, Pp. 298-336.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n     THE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER'S\n     PRIMACY.\n\n[1]As the natural end of all proof is to give assurance, every kind\nof it must be considered a mean to persuade and determine the mind.\nNot but that there are different kinds, and that in great variety. If\nwe refer these to their respective topics, some are _internal_ and\n_artificial_, others _external_ and _inartificial_; some belong to\nthe philosopher, others to the theologian, the former having their\nsource in nature, the latter in revelation; another sort, again, rests\non _witnesses_, and another on _documents_. But if we consider\ntheir persuasive force, they may be conveniently ranged under the\ntwo classes of _probable_, and _certain_ or _demonstrative_.\n\nBut if it be asked what sort of proof we have hitherto used, and\ndrawn out to the best of our ability, we must distinguish between\nthe _principal_ and prevailing proof, and this in form is\ninartificial, theological, and drawn from the inspired documents;\nand the proofs _occasionally inserted_ and confirmatory of the\nprincipal: these, it will be evident, are sometimes artificial and\ninternal, such as those drawn from analogy, and the harmonious\ncoherence of doctrines, from the unity and Catholicity of the\nChurch, and the institution of bishops to rule particular flocks;\nand sometimes derived from witnesses, for such we may deem the\nancient Fathers, whose importance and force, as testimonies, no\nprudent mind will reject. To embrace, then, the full extent of our\nproof, it ranges over all forms and modes, is artificial and\ninartificial, and rests not only on documents, but on witnesses. Now\ntwo things follow from this mixed and manifold character of our\nproof, of too great importance to be passed over in silence.\n\nThe first of these is, the standard and criterion of resistance\nwhich our proof presents to opponents. For consisting, as it does,\nof so many elements, confirmed, as it is, by the absolute harmony of\nso many various parts, that only can be a satisfactory answer, which\nmeets at once every particular proof, and the whole sum of it. For\nit would be to small purpose to give another sense, with some\nspeciousness, to one or two points, if the great mass of matter and\nargument remain untouched. The only valid answer would be _to reject\nand deny the Primacy of supreme authority, presenting at the same\ntime a sufficient cause for all those results of which the proof\nconsists_. For so long as the institution of the Primacy is\nnecessary to supply a sufficient cause for these results, so long\nthe force of our proof remains untouched, and the institution of the\nPrimacy unquestionable. We can therefore demand of our opponents\nthis alternative, either to acquiesce in our proof, or, rejecting\nthe Primacy, to find, and when they have found to establish, an\nhypothesis equal to the explanation of all that is contained in our\narguments artificial and inartificial, in our documents and our\nwitnesses.\n\nThe second point is one which all will admit. The proof we have\ngiven is such that _unless_ it be deceptive, the institution of the\nPrimacy is demonstrated to be not only _true_, but also _revealed_,\nnot only _tenable_, but matter of _faith_. For although we have\ninterwoven testimonies and artificial arguments, this was to\nconfirm what was already demonstrated, and to shed fresh light on\nwhat was already clear; but the _proper_ source from which we have\ndrawn our proofs, was the documents of the Holy Scriptures\nthemselves. Now what is thence drawn is [2]revealed, and enters into\nthe number of things which, being revealed, are matter of _faith_.\n\nThese two points are clear, but a third may be somewhat less so.\nMany will ask, what _is_ the force of the proof, its power to\npersuade, and whether it carry complete certitude, or be defective.\nNow to this we shall reply, that the proof which we have presented\nis not only probable, but altogether decisive. It wants nothing to\nproduce the fullest assurance. This is a subject which I have judged\nfit for special and separate investigation, as due both to myself,\nmy readers, and the cause which I am defending. For it is not a\nhappiness of our nature to catch the whole and the pure truth at a\nsingle glance. This requires repeated acts of the mind; we have to\nmake the effort again and again, and only terminate our examination\nwhen we have submitted our supposed discovery to reiterated\nreflection. Thus it is that truth comes out in full light,\nimposition is detected, the line drawn between doubt and certainty,\nand every point located in its due place. This enquiry, then, into\nthe proof itself I consider due not only to myself and my readers,\nbut to a cause, which requires the utmost attention as being of the\nhighest importance, and the source of the deepest dissensions; for\nit is not too much to say that the origin of all those divisions\nwhich we see and lament in the Christian name, may be referred to\nthe reception or the denial of this doctrine concerning the Primacy.\n\nNow we shall best reach the subject by first considering the\ninherent force of the proof _in itself_, and _absolutely_, and then\n_comparatively_ with those arguments to which the most distinguished\nProtestant sects ascribe a full and complete demonstrative power.\n\nI. First, then, as to the force of proof _absolutely_. We must\nreflect that two conditions complete a proof derived from documents;\n_first_, the authenticity of the document; _secondly_, either the\nimmediate and unquestionable evidence of the testimonies quoted from\nit, or their meaning being rendered certain by argument. If these\ntwo conspire, nothing is wanting to produce assurance. Now, as to\nthe documents, whence our proof is derived, no Christian doubts\ntheir authenticity; and as to the testimonies drawn from them,\npart[3] belong to a class of such evidence as to admit of no doubt;\nand part,[4] being equally clear, and marked in themselves, have had\nto be defended from false interpretations. Accordingly, our proof is\nperemptory in both particulars.\n\nMoreover, our proof was not restricted to one or two passages of\nholy Scripture, but extended over a great series, all tending to\nsupport and consolidate the argument. We have set forth, not a naked\ninstitution of the Primacy, but multifold foreshadowings and\npromises of it, its daily operation and notoriety. From its first\nanticipation we went on to its progressively clearer expression, its\npromise, its institution, its exercise, and the everywhere diffused\nknowledge of it in the primitive Church. So far, then, as I see,\nnothing more can, with reason, be asked, to remove all doubt as to\nPeter's prerogative of Primacy; for, when the bestowal of certain\nprivileges can be proved by documents, all question as to their\nexistence is terminated. But here we find in documents, not their\nbestowal merely, but antecedents and consequences, a beginning, a\nprogress, and a manifold explanation, which stand to the Primacy as\nsigns to the thing signified.\n\nAccordingly, the demonstration which we have given of the Primacy,\nconsidered _in itself_, and _absolutely_, needs nothing to challenge\nassent.\n\nFor, suppose it disputed whether Caesar surpassed the other Roman\nSenators in honour and power. Could it be proved by undoubted\nrecords, that he so conducted himself as gradually to smooth his\npath to the supreme power; that he next gained from the senate and\nRoman people, the title of Emperor and Prince; that he exercised\nthese powers at home and abroad, and received universal testimony to\nthe dignity he had acquired; in such case the judgment would be\nunanimous that he was emperor, and head of the Roman Senators. Now,\nsubstitute Peter for Caesar, the Apostles for the Senators; Christ,\nthe Evangelists, Luke and Paul, for the senate and people; and you\nwill see all the proofs enumerated for Caesar, to square exactly with\nPeter. For we learn from Scripture _the steps_ by which he rose to\nthe Primacy, _the time_ when he received it, _how_ he exercised it,\nand the lucid testimonies to it which he received from Christ, the\nEvangelists, the Apostolic Church, and Paul. Accordingly, his\nPrimacy and supreme authority among the Apostles rests on a proof\nwhich gives complete assurance, and challenges assent. It is a\nconsequence deduced, not from a single, but from manifold\ninference; not merely drawn from results, but foreseen in its\ncauses; declared not merely in the words of institution, but in the\nvery acts of its exercise; supported not only by sundry texts, but\nby a cloud of conspiring witnesses; proved by an interpretation, not\nobscure, and far-fetched, but clear and obvious. A thing of such a\nnature it is folly to deny and temerity to doubt.\n\nBut, further, reflect on the other arguments which come in\ncollaterally to support that from the Holy Scriptures. Then it will\nbe found that our proof consists in the harmonious concurrence of\nthese four sources, 1. _the authentic scriptural documents_\ndistinctly setting forth the promises, the bestowal, the exercise,\nand the everywhere diffused knowledge of the Primacy: 2. _witnesses_\nthe most ancient, well nigh coeval with the Apostles, of great\nnumber, renowned for their holiness, or their martyrdom, excellent\nin learning, far removed from each other in situation, faithful\nmaintainers of the Apostolic teaching, who, with one mouth,\nacknowledge the Primacy: 3. _the analogy of doctrines_, for the\nChurch, which we profess to be one, and Catholic, can neither exist,\nnor even be conceived as such, without the Primacy: 4. _the facts of\nChristian history_, which are so entwined with the institution of\nthe Primacy, that they cannot be even contemplated without it. For\nthere are no less than fourteen distinct classes of facts in\nChristian history, all of which bear witness to the Primacy, and\nwhich cannot be studied without coming across that power. Such are,\n1. _the history of heresies_, where, in ancient times alone,\nconsider the acts and statutes of Pope Dionysius, in the causes of\nPaul of Samosata, and Dionysius of Alexandria; of Popes Sylvester\nand Julius, in the cause of Arius; of Pope Damasus in that of\nApollinarius; of Popes Innocent and Zosimus in that of Pelagius; of\nPope Celestine in that of Nestorius; and of Pope Leo in that of\nEutyches; so that Ferrandus[5] of Carthage wrote in the sixth\ncentury, \"If you desire to hear aught of truth, ask in the first\nplace the prelate of the Apostolic See, whose sound doctrine is\nknown by the judgment of truth, and grounded on the weight of\nauthority.\" 2. _The history of schisms_, which have arisen in the\nChurch, when we consider the unquestionable facts about Novatian,\nFortunatus and Felicissimus, the Donatists, and Acacius of\nConstantinople, so that Bede, in our own country, wrote in the\nseventh century, commenting on Matt. xvi. 10, \"All believers in the\nworld understand, that whosoever, in any way separate themselves\nfrom the unity of the faith, or from the society of Peter, such can\nneither be absolved from the bonds of their sins, nor enter the\nthreshold of the heavenly kingdom.\" 3. _The history of the liturgy_,\nas the contests about the paschal time, and what Eusebius, in the\nfifth book of his history, c. 22-5, says about Pope Victor. 4. _The\nhistory_ of the _summoning_, the _holding_, and the _confirming\ngeneral councils_, wherein the Acts of Synods, the letters of the\nsupreme Pontiffs, and the writings of the Fathers, show the entire\ntruth of what is stated by the ancient Greek historians, Socrates\nand Sozomen,[6] that an ecclesiastical Canon had always been in\nforce, \"that the Churches should not pass Canons contrary to the\ndecision of the bishop of Rome,\" which Pope Pelagius,[7] in the\nsixth century thus expressed, \"the right of calling councils is\nentrusted by a special power to the Apostolic See, nor do we read\nthat a general council has been valid, which was not assembled or\nsupported by its authority. This is attested by the authority of\ncanons, corroborated by ecclesiastical history, and confirmed by the\nholy Fathers.\" And Ferrandus says, \"Universal councils, more\nespecially those to which the authority of the Roman Church has been\ngiven, hold the place of second authority after the canonical\nbooks.\"[8] 5. _The history of ecclesiastical laws_, for the\nregulation of discipline, a summary of which, enacted by the\nsuccessors of Peter from Victor I. to Gregory II., may be found in\nZaccaria's Antifebronius, Tom. ii., p. 425, and his Antifebronius\nVindicatus, Diss. vi., c. 1. 6. _The history of judgments_,\nspecially the most remarkable in the Church, of which, if we are to\nbelieve history, we can only repeat what Pope Gelasius wrote at the\nend of the fifth century, to the Bishops of Dardania, \"We must not\nomit that the Apostolic See has frequently, to use our Roman phrase,\nmore majorum, even without any council preceding, had the power to\nabsolve those whom a council had unjustly condemned, or to condemn,\nwithout any council, those who required condemnation:\" and as he\nwrote to the Greek emperor, Anastasius, \"that the authority of the\nApostolic See has in all Christian ages been set over the Church\nuniversal, is established by the series of the canons of the\nFathers, and by manifold tradition.\"[9] 7. _The history of\nreferences_, which were wont to be made to the chair of Peter, in\nthe greater causes of faith, and in those respecting Catholic unity.\nThus, Avitus, bishop of Vienne, A.D. 500, said, \"It is a rule of\nsynodical laws, that, in matters relating to the state of the\nChurch, if any doubt arises, we, as obedient members, recur to the\npriest of the Roman Church, who is the greatest, as to our\nhead.\"[10] To the same effect is the letter of Pope Innocent I., to\nS. Victrice, of Rouen, at the beginning of the fifth century, and\nagain, the African Fathers to Pope Theodore; or again, S. Bernard,\nwriting to Pope Innocent II., against the errors of Abelard, \"All\ndangers and scandals emerging in the kingdom of God, specially those\nwhich concern faith, must be referred to your Apostolate: for I\nesteem it fitting that the injuries done to faith should be repaired\nthere in particular, where faith cannot fail. That is the\nprerogative of this See.\" 8. _The history of appeals_, of which a\nvast number of remarkable instances exist. Take, as the key, the\nwords of Pope Gelasius once more: \"It is the canons themselves which\nhave ordered the appeals of the whole Church to be carried to the\nexamination of this See. But from it they have allowed of no appeal\nin any case; and, therefore, they enjoin that it should judge of the\nwhole Church, but go itself before the judgment of none: nor do they\nallow of appeal from its sentence, but rather require obedience to\nits decrees.\"[11] And Pope Agatho, in the Roman Council, pronouncing\non the appeal of our own S. Wilfrid, of York, the contemporary of\nBede, A.D. 688, declares that \"Wilfrid the bishop, beloved of God,\nknowing himself unjustly deposed from his bishopric, did not\n_contumaciously resist by means of the secular power_, but with\nhumility of mind sought the canonical aid of our founder, blessed\nPeter, prince of the Apostles, and declared in his supplication that\nhe would accept what by our mouth, blessed Peter, our founder, whose\noffice we discharge, should determine.\"[12] 9. _The history of the\necclesiastical hierarchy_,[13] and of the _rights possessed by\ncertain episcopal Sees over others_, of which we may take an\ninstance in the grants of Pope Gregory the Great, and his\nsuccessors, to the See of Canterbury, which alone made it a Primacy.\nFor the bishops of Canterbury had no power whatever over the other\nbishops of this country, save what they derived from S. Peter's See.\nAnd the documents, and original letters conferring these powers\nstill exist, giving the fullest proof that Pope Pius only did in\n1850, what Pope Gregory did in 596. 10. _The history of the\nuniversal propagation of the Christian religion._[14] 11. _The\nhistory of those tokens and pledges_,[15] such as letters of\ncommunion, whereby Catholic unity was exhibited and maintained. 12.\n_The history of Christian archaeology_,[16] inscriptions, paintings,\nand other monuments of this kind. 13. _The history of the emperors_,\nas, for instance, what Ammianus Marcellinus[17] says of Constantius;\nthe letter of the Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo, entreating him to\nconfirm the council of Chalcedon; that of Galla Placidia, the 130th\nnovel of Justinian, and the remarkable constitution of Valentinian\nIII., A.D. 445. \"Since the merit of S. Peter, who is the chief of\nthe episcopal coronet, and the dignity of the Roman city, moreover,\nthe authority of a sacred synod\" (that of Sardica, A.D. 347) \"have\nconfirmed the Primacy of the Apostolic See, let presumption not\nendeavour to attempt anything unlawful, contrary to the authority of\nthat See: for, then, at length, the peace of the Church will\neverywhere be preserved, if the whole (universitas) acknowledge its\nruler.\" And, 14. lastly, _the history of codes_, in which is\ncontained the legislation of Christian kingdoms, wherein we may\nrefer to the capitulars of the Franks, and the laws of the Lombards.\n\nNow from these concordant proofs thus slightly sketched, it follows\nthat the institution of the Primacy belongs to that class of facts\nwhich is most certain, and which is absolutely demonstrated. For\nwould it be possible to find a concurrence of proofs so various in\ncase it had never been instituted? Is it possible to imagine so many\nvarious results of a cause which never existed? So many various\ntokens of reality in a fiction? What are the chances for letters\nthrown at random forming themselves into an eloquent speech? Or a\nbeautiful portrait coming out from a mere assemblage of colours? Or\na whole discourse in an unknown tongue being elegantly rendered by a\nguess? If these be sheer absurdities, although a few letters have\nsometimes tumbled at random into a word, or a single clause been\ndecyphered, though in ignorance of the alphabet, then we may be sure\nthat the Primacy, attested by so vast a variety of convergent\nresults, can no more be untrue, than effects can exist without a\ncause, splendour without light, or vocal harmony without sound.\nAccordingly an institution established by such a union of proof,\ncarries prisoner the assent. It may indeed be disregarded by a\nresolution of the _will_, but can neither be passed by, nor refuted,\nby a judgment of the _reason_.\n\nAnd[18] having on the one hand this vast amount of _positive_\nproof, from sources so various, in its behalf, so that without it\nthe whole Christian history of eighteen centuries, in all its\nmanifold blendings with secular history, becomes unintelligible, a\nsnarl which it is impossible to arrange, when we come on the other\nhand to consider what its opponents allege of _positive_ on their\nown side, we find nothing. They content themselves with objections\nto this or that detached point, with historical difficulties, and\nobscurations of the full proof, such, for instance, as the conduct\nof S. Cyprian in one controversy, the occasional resistance of a\nmetropolitan, the secular instinct of an imperial government\nstirring up eastern bishops to revolt, and fostering an Erastian\nspirit in the Church, the ambition of thoroughly bad men, such as\nAcacius or Photius, and the like. But what we may fairly ask of\nopponents, and what we never find the most distant approach to in\nthem is, if, as they say, S. Peter's Primacy be not legitimate, and\ninstituted by Christ for the government of the Church, what _counter\nsystem_ have they, which they can prove by ancient documents, and\nwhereby they can solve the manifold facts of history? In all their\narguments against the Primacy they are so absolutely _negative_,\nthat the grand result, if they were successful, would be to reduce\nthe Church to a heap of ruins, to show that she, who is entrusted\nwith the authoritative teaching of the world, has no internal\ncoherence either of government or doctrine, in fact, no message from\nGod to deliver, and no power to enforce it when delivered. In the\narguments of Greeks and Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists, and all\nthe Protestant sects, the gates of hell have long ago prevailed\nagainst the Church, and the devil has built up at his ease a city of\nconfusion on the rock which Christ chose for her foundation. If we\nlisten to them, never has victory been more complete than that of\nthe evil one over the Son of God: the promised unity he has\nscattered to the winds: the doctrine of truth he has utterly\ncorrupted: the charity wherewith Christians loved one another he has\nturned into gall and wormwood. That is, the opponents of S. Peter's\nPrimacy are one and all simply _destructives_; they inspire despair,\nand are the pioneers of infidelity, but are utterly powerless to\nbuild up. Ask the Anglican what is the source of spiritual\njurisdiction, and the bond of the episcopate which he affects to\ndefend? _He makes no reply._ All he can say is, it is _not_ S.\nPeter. Ask the Greek, if bishops and patriarch disagree, and come to\nopposite judgments on the faith, or to schisms in communion, which\nparty make the Church? _He has no solution to offer_, save that it\nis _not_ the party which sides with S. Peter's successor. Ask the\npure Protestant, who maintains the sole authority of the written\nword, if you disagree about the meaning of Scripture in points which\nyou admit to touch salvation, who is to determine what is the true\nmeaning of the word of God? _He has nothing to reply_, save that he\nis sure it is _not_ the Pope. Contrast, then, on the one side, a\ncomplete coherent system, fully delineated and set forth in the\nBible, attested by the Fathers, corroborated by analogy, and\nharmonising the history of eighteen hundred years in its infinitely\nnumerous relations, with, on the other side, a mere heap of\nobjections and denials, with shreds of truths held without cohesion,\nwith analogy violated, history thrown into hopeless confusion, and\nto crown the whole, Holy Scripture incessantly appealed to, yet its\nplainest declarations recklessly disregarded, and its most\nconsoling promises utterly evacuated. Choose, upon this, between\n_within_ and _without_.\n\nII. But such being the argument for the Primacy _of itself_ and\n_absolutely_, look at it now in a _comparative_ point of view with\nother doctrines. Let us ask Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists,\nrespectively, to compare it in order with the proofs with which\nthey, each in behalf of his own sect, defend either the authority of\nbishops, and their distinction from presbyters, as instituted by\nChrist, or the real presence of the Lord's body in the Eucharist, or\nthe divine nature of Christ, and His consubstantiality with the\nFather. Can they state, upon a comparison of these, that there are\n_more_ testimonies of Holy Scripture in behalf of these latter\ndoctrines than for the Primacy of Peter? As for the articles of the\nreal presence, and the superiority of bishops, this cannot be\nasserted with any show of truth, since in behalf of both there are\nundoubtedly fewer. Certainly there are a great number for the\ndivinity of Christ, yet not much less are those which the same\nScriptures contain in support of Peter's Primacy. So that if the\nforce of proof is to be judged of by the _number of texts_, that in\nbehalf of the Primacy will either be preferred to the rest, or at\nleast yield to none.\n\nBut I anticipate the answer that it is not the number of texts which\nwill decide the question, but their perspicuity and evidence, which\nconstitute their force. To meet which objection I shall merely set\nthese several parties against each other. What, then, do Lutherans\nthink of the perspicuity of those texts by which Anglicans maintain\nthe superiority of bishops over presbyters? They are unanimous in\nthinking them not merely most obscure, but absolutely foreign to the\npurpose for which they are cited. Just the same is the Calvinist\nopinion of the Lutheran proofs for the real presence, and the\nSocinian view of the texts alleged by Calvinists in behalf of\nChrist's divinity. Both obstinately refuse to admit that their\nopponents urge anything decisive. It would be easy to quote\ninstances of this, if it was not notorious. It is, then, no unfair\ninference that Protestants have no particular reason to boast\ntriumphantly of the perspicuity and evidence of the texts on which\nthey severally rely.\n\nBut who, they retort, cannot see that the cause of the Primacy,\nwhich we defend, is far inferior? For our exposition is opposed not\nby one or two parties, but by them all in a mass, Anglicans,\nLutherans, Calvinists, and _all who are not Catholics_. The addition\nis significant, _all who are not Catholics_, for indeed all these,\nand these alone, are our opponents. Yet their very name creates the\ngravest prejudice against them, and shows them to be unworthy of\nattention. As S. Augustine said, \"The Catholic Church is one, to\nwhich different heresies give various names, they themselves each\npossessing their own name, which they dare not refuse. Whence judges\nunaffected by partiality can form an opinion to whom the name of\nCatholic, which all aim at, ought to be given.\"[19] If, then, the\nname of Catholic is a note of truth, the negation of that name is a\ntest of error and heresy. But no one will imagine that heretics,\nthat is, the enemies of Christ and the Apostles, have a right to be\nfollowed in what concerns the doctrine of Christ, and the Apostolic\ninstitutions. Thus what Tertullian said is to the point, \"Though we\nhad to search still and for ever, yet _where_ are we to search? Is\nit among heretics, where all is foreign and opposed to our own\ntruth, whom we are not allowed to approach?[20] What servant expects\nfood from a stranger, not to say an enemy of his lord? What soldier\ntakes donative or pay from confederate, not to say from hostile\nkings, except he be an open deserter and rebel? Even the woman in\nthe Gospel searched for her piece of silver within her own house.\nEven he who knocked, struck the door of a friend.[21] Even the widow\nsolicited a judge, who was hard indeed, but not her enemy. No one\ncan be built up by the person who destroys him. No one be\nenlightened by one who shuts him up in darkness. Let us search then\nin our own, and from our own, and about our own, and only that which\ncan be questioned without harm to the rule of faith.\"[22]\n\nBut if we look closer into the matter, we shall find that even in\nthe interpretation of our texts Protestants are not so agreed with\neach other as uniformly to oppose us. Some of the greatest names\namongst them, such as Camero, Grotius, Hammond, Leclerc, Dodwell,\nMichaelis, Rosenmueller, and Kuinoel, differ from the rest and agree\nwith us in interpreting, \"upon this rock I will build My Church,\"\nwords of great importance in the controversy about the Primacy. So\nthat we were not wrong in stating that Protestants do not entirely\nagree among each other in their interpretation, nor disagree with\nours.\n\nBut grant that they were one and all opposed to it, it would not\nprove much. For, _first_, it could hardly happen otherwise, since\nthe whole Protestant cause is so contained in this matter of the\nPrimacy, that, were they to confess themselves wrong in it, they\nwould pronounce themselves guilty of the most groundless schism.\nTherefore it is a matter of life and death with them to resist us.\n_Secondly_, as they dissent from us, so do they desert that doctrine\nwhich the whole Christian body solemnly professed and defined before\nthe sixteenth century in ecumenical councils, that of Florence held\nin 1439, the second of Lyons in 1274, and the fourth Lateran in\n1215. We, then, follow antiquity, and they take up novelty. And so\nit follows that while we have Protestants against us, we have the\nearlier Christians for us, whilst Protestants are opposed not only\nto the present race of Catholics, but to those whose children these\nare, and whose doctrines they have preserved. For as to the ancient\ninterpretation of these texts take the following proof, contained in\na letter of Pope Agatho to the Greek emperor Heraclius, read and\napproved in the sixth general council, A.D. 680. \"The true\nconfession of Peter was revealed by the Father from heaven, for\nwhich Peter was pronounced to be blessed by the Lord of all, who\nlikewise by a triple commendation was entrusted with the feeding of\nthe spiritual sheep of the Church by the Redeemer of all Himself; in\nvirtue of whose assistance this his apostolical church hath never\nturned aside from the path of truth to any error whatsoever; whose\nauthority, as of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic\nChurch at all times and the universal councils faithfully embracing,\nhave in all respects followed, and all the venerable Fathers have\nentertained its apostolic doctrine; through which there have shone\nthe most approved lights of the Church; which while the holy\northodox Fathers have venerated and followed, _heretics have pursued\nwith false accusations, and calumnies inspired by hatred. This is\nthe living tradition of Christ's Apostles, which His Church\neverywhere holds._\"[23] We might imagine that Sir Thomas More had\nthese words before his eyes when he answered Luther, \"not only all\nthat learned and holy men have collected to the point moves me to\ngive willing obedience to that See, but especially what we have so\noften witnessed, that not only there never was an enemy to the\nChristian faith who did not at the same time declare war against\nthat See, but also that there never has been one who professed\nhimself an enemy of that See without shortly after declaring himself\nsignally a capital foe and traitor of Christ and our religion.\nAnother thing, too, has great weight with me, that if, in this\nmanner, the faults of individuals are laid to the charge of their\noffice, all authority will collapse, and the people will be without\nruler, law, or order. And if this ever happens, as it seems likely\nto happen in parts of Germany, at length they will learn to their\ncost how much more it is to the interest of society to have even bad\nrulers rather than none.\"[24]\n\nProtestants, then, have many more opponents than we; to which we may\nadd, _thirdly_, that we assert and maintain a doctrine which for\nseveral ages had no opponents worth mentioning, and which received a\ngeneral belief and assent. Protestants, on the contrary, no sooner\nbrought their doctrine to light than they roused the whole Catholic\nChurch against them; that very Church, _fourthly_, from which they\nhad rebelled, in which they had been washed in the laver of\nregeneration, whose motherly care had enrolled them as Christians,\nfrom which they had received the Bible and all other Christian\nblessings, which, before that fatal schism, alone presented the\nappearance of the true Church, and was invested with attributes\nwhich inspired belief and fostered obedience. For such were\nantiquity, the hierarchy, unity, the agreement of its members,\nuniversality; such, again, the splendour of sanctity and learning;\nzeal in the guardianship of primeval tradition, hatred of profane\nnovelties; and, lastly, the renown of those heavenly gifts, which\ncannot fail the true Church of Christ, and were ascribed to no other\nbody.\n\nBut _fifthly_, it would be very apposite to compare the Catholic\nChurch with herself, and contrast her state and condition in the\nnineteenth century with that same state and condition in the fourth,\nthe fifth, and the sixth. Now who, in the fourth century, professed\nthe consubstantiality of the Trinity? Well nigh Catholics alone,\nwhile innumerable sects of heretics opposed this doctrine. War to\nthe knife was waged against it by Praxeans, Noetians, Sabellians,\nPaulianists, Arians, and their worst portion, the Anomaeans,\nMacedonians, and those who then made their appearance, Tritheists.\nAgain, in the fifth and the sixth centuries, who were they who\nretained the true faith in Christ the God-Man, and His dispensation\nin taking flesh? Once more the true faith was hardly found outside\nthe Catholics, while the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and\nDiodorus of Tarsus, Nestorius and the Nestorians, Eutyches, and the\nEutychean sects at daggers drawn with each other, and in fine, the\nMonothelites and their sects, who hated one another and the\nCatholics with equal bitterness, clubbed all their forces together\nto oppose it. Now do any Protestants venture to infer that in the\nfourth and following centuries the cause of the Catholic Church was\nless certain, on account of this mob of hostile sects? I should\nconsider such an insinuation an insult to them. They must\naccordingly allow my parallel inference, that it is fair to pass the\nsame judgment on the cause of the Primacy now for some centuries\ndefended by the Catholics against the Protestants.\n\n_Lastly_, to address specially Lutherans and Anglicans. They are\nwell aware that almost all sects are not more opposed to the\nsupremacy of Peter than to the superiority of bishops, and the\nverity of the Lord's body in the Eucharist. But are they therefore\ndeterred by the number of their enemies, or do they distrust the\ngoodness of their cause, or doubt the perspicuity of those documents\non which they rely for the victory? They can afford to disdain the\ntricks of their opponents, as well as repulse their attacks. They\nmust, accordingly, agree with us that the assertions or denials of\ncontesting parties ought not to be, and cannot be, the test of a\ncause's goodness, and of documentary evidence.\n\nBut, then, by what standard are we to go? I reply, by those criteria\nwhich are not subject to just exception, and which must be approved\nby all who seek the truth, and obey the dictate of reason. Now four\nsuch criteria in chief I think may be assigned, the two former of\nwhich are _immediate_ and _internal_, the third _internal_, but\nsomewhat more remote; the fourth, _external_, but of great weight,\nand not to be overlooked. To speak of the former first; one of these\nis _verbal_, and belongs to the words and phrases of which the text\nconsists; the other _real_, and regards the meaning of the sentence.\nIndeed, no other sources of obscurity or of clearness can be\nimagined than either the _words_ which express the _matter_, or the\n_matter_ intended by the _words_. If both words and matter are\nplain, and perspicuous, the discourse will be clear, and the\nlanguage distinct; but if either the matter exceed the power of\nreason, or the words do not run clear, or both these conspire, the\nevidence of the meaning will be more or less impaired.\n\nI. Now, to begin with _words_, I shall not be severe, but allow to\nAnglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that the texts alleged by each\nof them in behalf of his own cause consist of words which are either\nimmediately perspicuous, or become mediately clear upon definite\nprinciples. But in turn I should ask them repeatedly to consider\nwhether such a perspicuity can be denied to the words of which the\ntexts cited for the Primacy of Peter consist. These words are in\ngeneral and vulgar use, continually repeated in the Bible, but so\nconnected together that their certain meaning is either immediately\nevident, or fixed with very little trouble. But are not most of them\nmetaphorical, such as _rock_, _building_, _keys_, _binding_,\n_loosing_, _lambs_, _sheep_, _feeding_? Undoubtedly some are such,\nyet not that words used in their _proper_ sense are wanting, as when\nPeter is called _the first_, _the greater_, the _superior_; also\nwhen he is charged _to confirm his brethren_; and what we collect\nfrom the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, and the\nevangelists' mode of writing. Not, _secondly_, that it is not\nevident, from the connection of the discourse, what fixed and\nestablished meaning must be given to those metaphorical expressions.\nNot, thirdly, that the meaning of those formulas is not shown by the\nexercise of the powers conferred in them. Not, fourthly, that there\nis any inability, if you remove the metaphor, to express in _proper_\nwords what the metaphor shadows out. Not, fifthly, as if the literal\nand immediate sense were therefore wanting; for it is very plain\nthat the metaphorical[25] sense likewise is literal and immediate.\nAnd sixthly, not that _metaphorical_ can be considered equivalent to\n_obscure_, for obscurity is most opposed to the very genius of\nmetaphor, and such a canon would destroy the perspicuity of human\nlanguage. For there is no language, ancient or modern, rude or\npolished, semitic, chamitic, or japhetic, whose _metaphorical_ is\nnot much more copious than its _proper_ vocabulary.\n\nMetaphor, then, and obscurity are very far removed from each other,\nand there is nothing to prevent a metaphorical expression bearing\nthe plainest sense. For such the sense will be, whenever what is\ncalled the _foundation_ of the metaphor is clear, and the series of\nthe discourse indicates _the point of likeness_, and usage of speech\nunfolds _the force_ of the metaphor. Now all these conditions, which\nensure perspicuity in the metaphor, are found in interpreting the\nmetaphors which contain the singular prerogatives of Peter. For as\nit is perfectly plain whence the metaphors of _foundation_,\n_building_, _keys_, _binding_, _loosing_, _sheep_, _lambs_,\n_shepherd_, are drawn, so the context defines the point of\nsimilitude, and usage of speech does not allow ignorance of the\nforce of such metaphors. And thus the texts on Peter's Primacy have\na verbal perspicuity which will bear a favourable comparison with\nthose texts, on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists rely. For\nindeed all the difficulties, in the invention of which Protestants\nhave shown their ingenuity, are introduced, put upon the words, not\ndrawn from them. So on the contrary, the haters of the Primacy\nevidently wince at their clearness.\n\n2. _Verbal_ perspicuity is followed by _real_, or that which concerns\nthe _subject matter_. And this, I assert, is far inferior, far more\nslender, in the above named Protestant controversies, than in this\nof the Catholics. Indeed, both the controversies, on the real\npresence and on the divinity of Christ, have a super-intelligible\nobject, so far exceeding the natural power of reason, as to admit\nof the mind's conceiving it by analogy, but not by a _distinct_ and\n _proper_ knowledge. For this is the nature of mysteries, whence it\nfollows in them that neither single words have distinct notions,\nnor a whole proposition distinct sense. Whereas in the controversy\nabout the Primacy, there is nothing which is not commensurate with\nreason, and which has not the advantage of proper and distinct\nnotions. For, of revealed truths, some being _rational_, some\n_beyond_ reason, and some _above_ reason, the proper character of\nthose which are called _beyond_ reason is, that, _if_ revealed, they\nare cognizable by reason. Now to such an order of truths the\ninstitution of the Primacy belongs. Thus its _real_ evidence, that\nnamely which concerns its _subject matter_, is much superior to that\nwhich the others admit of. But should we grant as much to the\ncontroversy in which Anglicans defend the superiority of bishops\nover presbyters? Grant this, yet still it remains that in this\nspecies of _real_ evidence the cause of the Primacy is far superior\nto that of the real presence, or that of the divinity of Christ.\nBut, in truth, the Anglican doctrine on bishops may be considered\nfrom two points of view, either as severed from the Catholic dogma\non Peter's Primacy, or as in connexion and coherence with it. From\nthe latter point of view I should admit it to be so agreeable to\nreason, that this power calls for it, and rests in it, when once\nilluminated by faith, so as to know, that is, the purpose of Christ\nthat each particular Church should present the aspect of an united\nfamily. But sever this superiority of bishops over presbyters from\nthe dogma of the Primacy, and inveigh as keenly against Peter's\nsupremacy as you defend their presidency, which is what Anglicans\ndo, and then I could only conclude that this doctrine is plainly\ncontrary to reason instead of agreeing with it.\n\nFor whence do Anglicans deduce its agreement with reason? Hammond,\nPearson, Beveridge, Bingham, and their other greater theologians,\ntell us that it follows very plainly, because we know that Christ\ncarefully provided for the unity of particular Churches, which, they\nsay, it seems impossible to obtain without the superior power of\nbishops. It is a good inference; but did Christ show less care for\nthe unity of the whole Church than for that of particular Churches?\nWho can seriously maintain this? For what is the unity recommended\nby Christ and so earnestly urged by the Apostles, save that of the\nwhole Church? And when we acknowledge in the creed _one_ Church, do\nwe mean a particular or the universal Church? We mean that which we\nalso acknowledge to be Catholic, and therefore the unity is that of\nthe Catholic Church. And therefore it was Christ's intention, and\nHis certain will, that not only particular Churches, but the\nuniversal body of the Church, should possess the test and the dower\nof unity. And this Anglican notion, which denies of the universal\nChurch, what it affirms of particular Churches, may suit very well\nan island, holding itself aloof from the rest of the world, but it\nis quite incompatible with the radical idea of the kingdom of\nChrist.\n\nMoreover, if it was necessary for the production and maintenance of\nunity in particular Churches to set bishops over them, with\nauthority superior to that of presbyters; if reason demands that it\nbeing Christ's will for particular Churches to live in unity, He\nshould likewise have instituted the power which distinguishes\nbishops from presbyters; can we suppose either that it was not\nnecessary for the production and maintenance of unity in the\nCatholic Church, to commit its government to an universal superior,\nor that reason does not _equally_ require, that Christ, who enjoined\nthe Catholic Church to maintain unity, should have instituted the\nuniversal Pastor? Nay, as the necessity is not equal on the two\nsides, but so much stronger on the side of unity in the _Catholic_\nChurch, as it is more difficult to hold together in one an\ninnumerable than a limited number, men scattered over the globe than\nmen within a narrow region, nations differing in genius, habits, and\nlaws, than those who resemble each other in these; so reason, which\nfor particular Churches requires their respective bishops, _much\nmore_ requires the institution of a _universal_ superior, lest the\nend should appear to have been devised without the means, and the\ndivine work of Christ be deficient in wisdom. What, then, are\nAnglicans about in dividing these two doctrines, and contending for\nthe institution of bishops, while they obstinately deny the\ninstitution of the Primacy? They strip of its authority the very\ntruth which they defend, and by severing doctrines which derive\ntheir consistency from their cohesion, put weapons in the hands of\npresbyterians to assault and even overthrow the very dogma from\nwhich they take their name of episcopalians. Accordingly the\nevidence derived from the _subject matter_ is much clearer in those\ntexts which are alleged for Peter's Primacy, than in those by which\nthe superiority of bishops over presbyters, the real presence, and\nthe divine person of Christ, are proved.\n\nNow the force of demonstration derived from documents corresponds to\nthe sum of _verbal_ and _real_ evidence in the texts, being greater\nor less as this is stronger or weaker. In other words, the force of\ndemonstration belongs to that class of evidence which mathematicians\ncall _direct_. But both these sorts of evidence exist in the same,\nor even in a fuller degree, in those texts which concern the\nPrimacy, and set forth its divine institution. Accordingly the force\nof demonstration for the Primacy is equal or superior to that\nbelonging to the arguments which prove the superiority of bishops,\nthe real presence, and Christ's divine person. Yet these arguments\nhave such force, that the articles which they prove cannot, in the\nopinion of Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, be questioned\nwithout incurring the deepest guilt of heresy. We have, then, the\nsame or even a stronger reason to affirm that the Primacy of Peter,\nresting on the same, or even a stronger, evidence, as _revealed_,\ncannot be denied without heresy.\n\nAnd this is a corollary which I would entreat Anglicans, Lutherans,\nand Calvinists, carefully to consider, and then say whether they are\nconsistent; for then I feel assured they would become discontented\nwith themselves, by reflecting that, in the choice of the articles\nwhich they hold, they are not following the clearness of revelation,\nbut party spirit and factious prejudices. What satisfactory answer\ncan they ever return to the Catholic who asks why they, who on equal\nor less evidence defend the superiority of bishops, deny the Primacy\nwhich rests on similar or greater proof? Or why they attack the\nPrimacy, while they defend the real presence, or the divinity of\nChrist, which are supported by no more evident arguments? And how\nwill they satisfy their own conscience, should this thought ever\ncross them, \"Why do I at one time obey, at another time resist, the\nsame evidence of revelation?\" That same faith with which they\nseverally believe the divine appointment of bishops, the real\npresence, and the consubstantiality of Christ, compels them, if\nthey would maintain consistency, and not repel conviction, to\nconfess the Primacy of Peter.\n\nAnd this argument might be carried much further, if they would\nreflect how great is the brilliancy of evidence in behalf of the\nPrimacy, compared with sundry other capital Christian doctrines,\nsome or all of which they hold without question: such are the\nconsubstantiality of the Trinity, the unity of Christ's Person, the\npropagation of original sin, the eternity of punishment,\nregeneration in baptism, and gratuitous justification. They will\nfind, on reflection, that they hold these doctrines not because they\nare proved by stronger scriptural evidence than the Primacy, for\nquite the reverse is the truth, nor because they are encompassed\nwith less obscurity in their own character, for the subject matter\nof the Primacy is clear and distinct in comparison with them all,\nbut because the doctrines do not oppose the particular tradition\nwhich they have received, and so their minds are not set against\nthem. Let them once come to compare the whole evidence for the\nPrimacy, scriptural, traditional, analogical, and historical, which\nlast alone comprehends the fourteen heads above enumerated, with the\nsame evidence in behalf of any or all of those, and they cannot but\nadmit its great superiority.\n\n3. But we must proceed to the _third_ criterion, which increases not\na little the evidence from revelation for the Primacy. For Catholics\nand Protestants are agreed in considering _analogy_ as one of the\nbest helps in interpretation, and in assigning to it the force of a\nreal parallelism, a proceeding which rests on the necessity of the\nScripture presenting one whole and harmonious body of doctrine in\nits several parts. And in order not to deprive this help of its\nefficacy, both parties give two conditions for its exercise, the\nfirst, _that no sense be put upon passages of Scripture contrary to\nanalogy_; the second, _that no violence be used to the language of\nScripture to conform it with analogy, which would be imposing on\nholy writ the sense wanted from it_. These two faults carefully\navoided, analogy is of great service, and throws much light upon\ninterpretation.\n\nBut, now, is there such a sum of doctrine, so remarkable, and so\ndiffused through all the books of the New Testament, that the texts\nexpressing the gifts and prerogatives of Peter, can be tried by the\ntouchstone of this analogy? Such, indeed, there is, very remarkable,\nand threefold in character. The first point is found in the\ntexts[26] which regard the divine institution of bishops: the other\ntwo in those which show the unity,[27] and the Catholicity[28] of\nthe Church. For what can stand in closer connection with these\narticles of doctrine, than the appointment of a supreme ruler to\ndischarge over the universal Church the office which every bishop\nexercises over his own particular Church, and his own portion of the\nflock? What, again, can be more opposed to them, than the\nsupposition that provision was made, by the institution of bishops,\nfor _the parts_, but none, by the institution of a supreme pastor,\nfor _the whole body_, which is to be one and Catholic? Therefore,\nthat exposition of the texts concerning Peter, which exhibits him as\nruler of the Church universal, and as made to be the visible cause\nof that same Catholic unity, so admirably agrees with analogy, that\nit must be considered unquestionable, unless texts contradictory to\nit can be produced. But so far is it from the case that texts\n_considered in themselves_ contradict it, that, on the contrary,\nthey _immediately_ express it _of themselves_, and can be distorted\nfrom it only by violating all the laws of interpretation. Accordingly,\nthat view of the texts about Peter, which establishes his Primacy,\nis wonderfully confirmed by analogy, and by its harmony with what\nthe Scriptures tell us of the Church, as instituted by Christ.\n\n4. And nothing will be wanting to give full assurance to this\nconfirmation, if we add the _fourth or external_ criterion, that\nderived from consent of witnesses. I am not going to urge here the\ndivine force and infallible authority of Christian tradition: I\nshall merely allege what no person of discretion can deny or\nquestion. The first point is, that in the actual controversy the\ntestimony of the most ancient witnesses cannot be disregarded: and\nthe second, that it carries the very strongest prejudice in favour\nof whichever interpretation it supports.\n\nNow here we have to do first, with the interpretation of a series of\ndogmatic texts; and, secondly, with a point of doctrine, which,\nbeing of the utmost moment, could not be unknown to any one. But are\nthese matters on which ancient witnesses, such as the Christian\nFathers, and ecclesiastical writers, can be safely past by unheard?\nIf it were a matter of geography, chronology, or archaeology, one\nmight allow it, though with regret: but this is out of the question,\nin a matter of dogmatic texts, and those relating to a most\nimportant doctrine. For notorious is the zeal with which the ancient\nFathers laboured to preserve and interpret the dogmatic texts of\nScripture. We know their care to prevent the introduction of new and\nfalse interpretations, and new and false doctrines thence arising.\nAnd we know that, together with the Scriptures, they received from\nthe Apostolic teaching the kindred power of interpreting them. For,\nas Origen remarked, \"Since there are many who think that they\nbelieve what is of Christ, and some of them believe what is\ndifferent from those before them, yet, since the preaching of the\nChurch is preserved, as handed down by the order of succession from\nthe Apostles, and to the present day abiding in the Church, that\nverity alone is to be believed, which in nothing is discordant from\nthe ecclesiastical and Apostolical tradition.\"[29]\n\nMoreover, can it seem safe to enter upon a track most divergent from\nthat which the Apostles marked out, and the Christian people\nconstantly followed? S. Paul[30] taught us to listen to witnesses,\nand Christendom, whether assembled in council, or everywhere\ndiffused, was content to depend on them. Most clear is what is said\non this point about the Fathers at Nicea[31] and Ephesus,[32] and no\nless so the words of Leontius[33] of Byzantium, John Cassian,[34]\nTheodoret,[35] Augustine,[36] Jerome,[37] Epiphanius,[38] Basil,[39]\nOrigen,[40] Tertullian,[41] Clement[42] of Alexandria, and the\noldest of all, Irenaeus,[43] who says, \"The true knowledge is\nthe doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the Church\nin the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ,\naccording to the succession of bishops, by which they handed down\nthe Church, which is in every place, which hath reached even to us,\nbeing guarded without fiction, _with a most full interpretation of\nthe Scriptures_, admitting neither addition nor subtraction, and the\nreading without falsification, and legitimate and diligent\nexposition according to the Scriptures, without danger, and without\nblasphemy, and the chief gift of charity, which is more precious\nthan knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, more eminent than all\ngraces.\" For, as he says elsewhere, \"We ought to learn the truth,\nwhere the gifts of the Lord are placed; among whom is that\nsuccession of the Church, which is from the Apostles, sound and\nirreproachable conversation, and discourse unadulterated and\nincorrupt. For these maintain that faith of ours in one God, who\nmade all things: these increase that love towards the Son of God,\nwho has made for our sake so great dispositions: _these explain to\nus the Scriptures without peril_.\"\n\nAnd, besides, where is the Protestant who does not praise the Hebrew\nillustrations of Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Meuschen? or who does\nnot at least make much of the commentaries of Aben Ezra, Kimchi,\nJarchi, and others, in the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures?\nThey all see the advantage of approaching such sources of\ninformation, and using them for their own purpose. But are we to\nrefuse to the Fathers, and ancient doctors of the Church the\ndeference which we allow to Rabbins and Thalmudists? This is at\nleast a reason for hearing the testimony of the Fathers.\n\nAnd if it be concordant, constant, and universal, it most\npowerfully recommends that scriptural interpretation, which agrees\nwith it. In this, all Catholics without exception, and the most\njudicious and learned Protestants, are agreed. In good truth, it\nwould be incredible that an interpretation could be false, which was\nadopted unanimously by the Fathers of every age and country. And it\nought to be as incredible to find any one so conceited, as not to be\ngreatly moved by the witness and consent of Christian antiquity.\n\nOne point of enquiry remains, whether the Fathers have given their\nopinion, and that unanimously, on Peter and the texts, which relate\nto him. But their words[44] inserted in the foregoing pages entirely\nterminate this controversy, and show that they were all of the mind\nexpressed by Gregory the Great, in these words, which, it is well to\nremember, were directed to the supreme civil authority of those\ndays, for he tells the emperor:\n\n\"To all who know the Gospel, it is manifest that the charge of the\nwhole Church was entrusted by the voice of the Lord to the holy\nApostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said,\n'Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' To him is said, 'Behold,\nSatan hath desired to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee,\nPeter, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, one day, in turn,\nconfirm thy brethren.' To him is said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon\nthis rock I will build My Church,' &c. Lo, he hath received the keys\nof the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is given\nto him, the care and the chiefship of the whole Church is committed\nto him.\"[45]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The following chapter is translated from Passaglia, Pp. 339-360.\n\n[2] This is not said as _limiting_ revelation to such points, but to\nexhibit the scope of the present work, which uses testimony merely\nas a human, though very important, support of the cause.\n\n[3] The texts relating to the primacy, the Evangelists' mode of\nwriting, that of S. Luke in the first twelve chapters of the Acts,\nand that of S. Paul.\n\n[4] The Apostles' contest about \"the greater,\" the distinction\nbetween the founder, and the visible head of the Church, and for\nfalse interpretations, the primacy of mere precedency, the\nperversion of John xxi. 15-20, the assertion of Apostolic equality,\nand Gal. i 18-20.\n\n[5] Interroga igitur, si quid veritatis cupis audire, principaliter\nsedis Apostolicae antistitem, cujus sana doctrina constat judicio\nveritatis, et fulcitur munimine auctoritatis. Ferrandus in Epist. ad\nSeverum.\n\n[6] Socrates, Hist. L. 2, c. 8-17. Sozomen, hist. L. 3, c. 10.\n\n[7] In fragm. epist. apud Baluzium, Miscell. Lib. 5, p. 467.\n\n[8] Ferrandus in litteris ad Pelagium.\n\n[9] Mansi. Tom. 8, 54, 34.\n\n[10] Avitus, Epist. 36.\n\n[11] Gelasius, Epist. 4, ad Faustum. Mansi. 8, 17.\n\n[12] Mansi. Tom. xi. 184.\n\n[13] See Peter Ballerini, de potestate ecclesiastica, cap. 1, Sec. 1-6.\n\n[14] See Mamachi, origines et antiquitates Christianae, Tom 2.\n\n[15] See Muzzarelli, de auctoritate Rom. Pontificis in Conciliis\ngeneralibus, c. v. Sec. 9.\n\n[16] See Mamachi, as above, Tom. v part. 1, c. 2.\n\n[17] Amm. Marcellinus, Lib. 15, c. 7.\n\n[18] The following paragraph, down to \"within and without,\" I have\nintroduced here. It is not in F. Passaglia.\n\n[19] Aug. de utilitate credendi, c. 7, n. 19.\n\n[20] Tit. iii. 10.\n\n[21] Luke xv. 9; xi. 5; xviii. 2.\n\n[22] Tertullian, de Praesc. c. 21.\n\n[23] Mansi, concilia, Tom. 11, 239.\n\n[24] Responsis ad Lutheram, c. x.\n\n[25] Sense, says John, is the connection or mutual relation of\nnotions intended by the author in his words, or, according to\nothers, which is the same thing, the conception of the mind which\nthe author has expressed in words, and wishes to raise in his\nreaders. This sense, whether it springs from the proper or whether\nfrom the improper and metaphorical meaning of words, or from\nallegorical language, is immediate, grammatical, and literal.\n\n[26] Acts xiv. 22; xx. 28; 1 Tim. v. 19-22; 2 Tim. iv. 2-5; Tit. i.\n5; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3.\n\n[27] Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 18; John x. 16; Eph. v. 25; 1 Cor. xii;\nJohn xvii. 20-26.\n\n[28] Luke xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8; ix. 15; Coloss. i. 8.; 1 Cor. i. 23;\nix. 20; Rom. x. 18.\n\n[29] Origen. preface kezi azchon, n. 2.\n\n[30] 2 Tim. ii. 2.\n\n[31] See Athanas. de decritis Nic. Synodi, and also Hist. tripartit.\nLib. 2, 2-3.\n\n[32] See Vincent of Lerins. Commonit. c. 32, 3.\n\n[33] Leontius, Contr. Nestorium. Lib. 1.\n\n[34] Cassian, De Incarn. Lib. 1.\n\n[35] Theodoret, in the three dialogues.\n\n[36] Augustine, cont. Cresconium, 1, c. 32-3.\n\n[37] Jerome, Ep. 126, and dialog. adv. Luciferianos.\n\n[38] Epiphanius. baeres. 61, 75, 78.\n\n[39] Basil, cont. Eunomium, Lib. 1; de Spiritu S. c. 29.\n\n[40] Origen in Matt. Tract. 29.\n\n[41] Tertullian, throughout the book De Prescriptionibus.\n\n[42] Clement, Stromatum, Lib. 7.\n\n[43] Irenaeus, Lib. 4, c. 63 and 45.\n\n[44] It may be allowable also to refer to the fifth section of the\nwork mentioned in the preface, \"The See of S. Peter,\" &c.\n\n[45] S. Greg. Ep. Lib. 5, 20.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nA.\n\n_Abraham_, parallel between, and Peter, 17-25, 206, 213-4\n\n_Acts_, division of, 114\n  state the accomplishment of Christ's promises, 114, 116\n  history of the mystical body, as the Gospels of the Head, 115\n  elucidate the institution of the Primacy by showing its\n    execution, 116 and following.\n\n_Africa_, Church of, its terms addressing Pope Theodore, 110, 254.\n\n_Agatho_, Pope, A.D., 678-682, referred to, 254\n  states his Primacy in the case of S. Wilfrid, 254\n  to the Emperor Heraclius and the 6th Council 262.\n\n_Alexander_, of Alexandria, referred to, 238.\n\n_Ambrose_, St., interprets the name of Peter, 10\n  terms Peter \"the Rock of the Church,\" 15\n  \"the Apostle in whom is the Church's support,\" 15\n  affirms and describes his Primacy, 60\n  declares, \"where Peter is, there is the Church,\" 62\n  interprets John xxi. 15-17, of Peter's Primacy, 79\n  says, \"the rights of venerable communion flow from St. Peter's chair\n    as from a fountain head,\" 216\n  describes schism as rendering Christ's passion of no effect, 231\n  and as the unforgiven sin, 231\n  mentions a Novatian error of restricting the keys to Peter\n    personally, 241, n.\n  assigns the origin of unity to Peter, 242.\n\n_Ambrosiaster_,\n  makes Paul's visit an acknowledgment of Peter's Primacy, 164\n  ranges James and John under Peter, as Barnabas under Paul, 167\n  sees in Paul's censure of Peter a proof of Peter's Primacy, 171.\n\n_Ammianus Marcellinus_, referred to, 255.\n\n_Analogy_, between universal and particular churches and the\n  Primate and all bishops, 217\n  of the body, house, kingdom, city, and fold, with the Church, 2-5, 217\n  its force as a proof for the Primacy. 251\n  as a criterion of interpretation, 272.\n\n_Anglicanism_, the peculiar inconsistency of, 222-5.\n\n_Anglicans_, _Lutherans_, and _Calvinists_,\n  comparative proof for their doctrines and for the Primacy, 259, 274.\n\n_Apostles_, their relation to Peter, 28, 70, 75-7, 97-9, 102, 104, 108\n  their commission as given in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 68\n  exercise of their powers, 69, 149\n  how they _sent_ Peter and John, 137\n  are teachers and judges in controversy, 149\n  the spirit of truth promised to them and to their successors, 184-189\n  inequality in the college of, 200\n  twelve proofs of it, 204-9.\n\n_Aquileia_, Fathers of, ascribe the origin of unity to Peter, 242.\n\n_Archimandrites of Syria_,\n  call Pope Hormisdas das \"Patriarch of the whole world,\" 216.\n\n_Arnobius_, calls Peter, the Bishop of Bishops, 146, 216.\n\n_Athanasius St._, states the object of the Incarnation, 27, 180\n  referred to, on behalf of the principle of tradition, 275.\n\n_Augustine St._, terms Peter\n  \"the rock which the proud gates of hell prevail not against,\" 15\n  \"the figure of the Church,\" 61\n  \"made another self by Christ, and one with Himself,\" 110\n  states the object of the Incarnation, 27, 179\n  explains the banquet in John, ch. xxi, 72\n  says the order in which the Apostles were called is uncertain, 88\n  mentions Peter's holy humility in being censured by Paul, 176\n  says there is no remission of sins outside the Church, 231\n  that those who are out of the Church have not charity, 231\n  terms schism a horrible crime and sacrilege, 231\n  distinguishes the Church as Catholic, 236\n  referred to as explaining the term Catholic, 237, 238\n  and quoted, 260\n  why he teaches that the keys were bestowed on Peter\n    as representing the person of the Church, 241, n. 124\n  referred to, 242\n  and on tradition, 295.\n\n_Avitus, St._, attests the Popes Primacy, 253.\n\n\nB.\n\n_Ballerini_, Peter, his works referred to, 255.\n\n_Baronius_, explains St. Peter being sent to the circumcision, 167\n  remarks on the distortion of Paul's censure against Peter, 172.\n\n_Basil St._ calls Peter underlying the building of the Church, 15\n  interprets John, xxi. 15-17, as a grant of all pastoral authority to\n    the Church in the person of Peter her shepherd, 81\n  referred to, on principle of tradition, 275.\n\n_Bede St._, interprets, \"Arise, Peter, kill and eat,\" 140\n  condemns all separation from the society of Peter, 252.\n\n_Bernard St._\n  appeals to Pope Innocent II, as holding the Primacy of faith, 60, 254\n  calls the Pope universal Bishop, 216\n  referred to, as explaining the term Catholic, 237\n  speaks of the solicitude of all churches resting on the\n    Apostolic See 244.\n\n_Bhoskein_, its meaning, contrasted with _poimahinein_, 103 note.\n\n_Bishops_, divine institution, of texts for, 273, n. 26\n  proof for, compared with that for the Primacy, 268, 270.\n\n_Bossuet_,\n  explains the relation between Peter and the Apostles, 75, 78, 103\n  his writings against Jurien referred to, 233.\n\n\nC.\n\n_Coelestinus_, referred to, 238.\n\n_Calvinists_, their proofs for the divinity of Christ compared with\n  those of Catholics for the Primacy, 259.\n\n_Canons_, the 22nd of the Apostolic, quoted, 136.\n\n_Cartwright_, the Puritan, observes the inconsistency of\n  Anglicanism, 225, n. 59.\n\n_Casaubon_, referred to, 232.\n\n_Cassian John_,\n  states the Primacy of St. Peter as continuing in the Church, 111\n  referred to 275.\n\n_Catholicity_, texts on the Church's referred to, 220, 273, n. 28\n  in what it consists, material and formal parts, 236\n  the formal part as negative and as affirmative, 237-241.\n\n_Cesar_, Julius, parallel between proof for his having been emperor,\n  and for Peter's Primacy, 250.\n\n_Christ_, at His passion commends the Church as His \"finished work\"\n    to God the Father, 1\n  stands in two relations to the Church while on earth, as Founder\n    and as Ruler, 6, 43\n  selects from His disciples first twelve and then one 7, 89\n  explains the name of Peter, 12\n  communicates to Peter the gift of being the Foundation, 24\n  educates him for the office of chief ruler, 29\n  associates him in a peculiar manner with Himself, 35\n  designates a chief ruler in His Church, 38, 43\n  and that one to be Peter, 48\n  makes a further disposition of power after His resurrection, 65\n  makes Peter the one Shepherd over his fold, 72, 83\n  fulfils His promises to the Twelve, 68\n    and to Peter, 70\n  foretels Peter's crucifixion, 82\n  paraphrase of His promises to Peter in Matt. xvi, 17-20, 95\n  the mystical Head of the Church, 157\n  the incarnate Word the principle of Unity and Headship in\n    the Church, 178-182\n  His headship does not dispense with a visible hierarchy, 185\n  and cannot be expressed by the unity of a college, 193\n  bestows all spiritual gift, 186, 188.\n\n_Chrysostome_, St., interprets the name Peter, 9, 27\n  terms Peter \"the support of the faith,\" 15\n  \"the mouth-piece of the Apostles and teacher of the world,\" 61, 119\n  the Teacher, 143, 145\n  the Father, 152\n  the greater and elder, 163\n  interprets \"the keys\" to mean power over all things in heaven, 14\n  interprets, \"give it to them for me and for thee,\" 36, 37\n  interprets John xxi, 15-17, as the charge of the whole\n    Church given to Peter, 79, 80\n  witnesses to St. Peter's Primacy, 86, 93, 124, 126, 127\n  describes the subject of the Acts, 114\n  says that in Christ the race God and man is become one, 115\n  describes Peter as the first on every occasion, 121\n  says the Acts are those of St. Peter and St. Paul, 121\n  interprets \"confirm thy brethren\" of St. Peter's supreme authority. 124\n  makes St. John subordinate to St. Peter, 128\n  interprets Acts x, 47, 141\n  likens Peter to the commander of an army, 147\n  says that he anticipates St. Paul's doctrine to the Romans, 148\n  makes St. Paul prefer Peter to himself, 161\n  and to the other Apostles, 162\n  considers St. Paul's visit to him a proof of his Primacy, 164\n  explains Gal. ii. 7-9, 166\n  speaks of the dignity of St. Peter's person, 171\n  denies it to have been St. Peter who censured by St. Paul, 174\n  remarks on St. Paul's prudence in the manner of giving this\n    censure, 177\n  his remark on the Incarnation, 180\n  describes the unity of the Church all over the world, 218\n  distinguishes the Church as Catholic, 236\n  referred to on necessity of communion between the Church's\n    members, 239.\n\n_Church_, establishment of,\n  the \"finished work\" of God the Word incarnate, 1, 4\n  unity and visibility part of its primary idea, 3\n  and a visible headship, 5\n  unchangeable, like her Lord, 44\n  had one ruler from the beginning, 45\n  unity or, fourfold, 182\n  of mystical influx, 182\n  of charity, 183\n  of faith, 183-189\n  of visible headship, 190-196\n  its identity, 220\n  its unity, and texts proving it, 220\n  its Catholicity, 236\n    these three viewed as reasons for the Primacy, 236-241\n  means the whole society of believers, 223\n  texts which so define it, 223, n. 46\n  as set forth in Scripture, 230.\n\n_Claude_, the Calvinist, referred to, 232.\n\n_Clement_ of Alexandria referred to\n  as defining the Church, 223\n  on the term Catholic, 237\n  on the principle of tradition, 275.\n\n_Clement_, the Pseudo, his epistle St. James quoted, 137.\n\n_Confirming_, meaning of the term in Luke xxii. 32, 53.\n\n_Cornelius_, conversion of, 138.\n\n_Council_ of Nicea, referred to, 238, 275.\n\n  ---- of Sardica, referred to, 238.\n\n  ---- of Ephesus, referred to, 238.\n\n  ---- of Chalcedon, terms Peter, \"the rock and foundation of the\n       Catholic Church, and the basis of the orthodox faith,\" 16.\n\n  ---- third of Carthage, referred to, 224, 238.\n\n  ---- second of Constantinople, referred to, 224.\n\n  ---- of Laodicea, referred to, 224.\n\n  ---- second Nicene, referred to, 224.\n\n_Creed_, how it contains St. Peter's Primacy, 243.\n\n_Criteria_ of interpretation, four chief ones, 265\n  verbal, 266\n  real, 267\n  analogical, 271\n  consent of witnesses, 274.\n\n_Cyprian_ St.,\n  terms Peter the Rock of the Church that was to be built, 15\n  quotes the confessors out of Novatian's schism, 45\n  says that perfidy cannot approach the Roman faith, 55\n  says that the Church is built on Peter, 62, 175\n  says that the Apostles, as such, are equal, 69\n  but adds the Primacy of St. Peter, 81\n  solution of his phrase, \"the episcopate is one, of which apart is\n    held by each without division of the whole,\" 100\n  how his statements on the unity of the Catholic episcopate cohere\n    with the Primacy, 240\n  makes St. Peter's See the fountain in the Church, 110\n  says the Church is in the bishop, 135\n  compares the unity in the Church to that of the Holy Trinity, 196\n  defines a particular church as a people united to its priest,\n    and a flock adhering to its pastor, 218\n  describes the one Church and its prerogatives, 228\n  distinguishes it by the name Catholic, 236.\n\n_Cyril_, St., of Alexandria, says the Church is founded on Peter, 9\n  describes the presence of the Holy Spirit in Christians, 115\n  remarks on the Incarnation, 180.\n\n_Cyril_, St., of Jerusalem, affirms St. Peter's Primacy, 61\n  calls the Church Catholic, 236\n  explains the term, 237.\n\n\nD.\n\n_Dante_, his words on fortune, 199.\n\n_Dionysius_, the so-called Areopagite, states that the office of the\n  Holy Spirit is the deification of man, 115.\n\n\nE.\n\n_Ephrem_, of Antioch, on the unity produced by the Incarnation, 181.\n\n_Ephrem_, St. Syrus, calls Peter the candle and tongue of the\n  disciples and the voice of preachers, 61.\n\n_Epiphanius_, St. terms Peter the immovable rock of the Church, 15\n  and says that the charge of bringing the Gentiles into the Church\n    is laid on him, 141\n  referred to, on tradition. 275.\n\n_Eucherius_, St., of Lyons, calls Peter the Pastor of pastors, 216.\n\n_Eusebius_, states that St. John visited the Churches of Asia, 146\n  calls the Church by the name of Catholic, 236\n  referred to, 252.\n\n_Euthalius_, his summary of the Acts, 120.\n\n_Evidence_, moral, how far intended to be convincing, 89.\n\n\nF.\n\n_Faith_, how called by the Fathers, 234 note.\n\n_Fathers_, the Greek, on Gal. ii. 11\n  unanimously set forth St. Peter's Primacy, 174-5.\n\n_Ferrandus_, refers enquirers to the Apostolic See, 252\n  states the authority of Councils confirmed by it, 253.\n\n_First_, force of the term, 87.\n\n_Fructuosus_, St., the church in his Acts called Catholic, 236.\n\n\nG.\n\n_Gelasius_, Pope, A.D., 492-6, referred to, 242\n  states the power of the Apostolic See, 253, 254.\n\n_Gnostics_ and Marcionites, distort Paul's censure of Peter, 171.\n\n_Gregory_, Thaumaturgus, St. his remark on the Incarnation, 179.\n\n_Gregory_, Nazianzene, St., terms Peter the rock of the Church, 15\n  remarks on the Incarnation, 180\n  calls the Church the tunic without seam, &c., 218,\n  referred to, 242.\n\n_Gregory_, of Nyssa, St., his remark on the unity produced by\n  the Incarnation, 181.\n\n_Gregory_, the Great, St. A.D., 590-603,\n  remarks Peter's humility in defending himself, 143\n  founds the Primacy on the three great texts, 277.\n\n_Gregory_ II, Pope, A.D., 715-731, describes the reverence felt to\n  Peter in the eighth century, 113.\n\n\nH.\n\n_Heresy_, why it has lost its foulness in the minds of Protestants, 234.\n\n_Hierarchy_, the visible, why constituted, 185-190\n  a head of it necessary, 190-6.\n\n_Hilary_, of Poitiers, St. terms Peter the rock of the Church, 15\n  his remarks on the effect of the Incarnation, 180\n  speaks of the unity produced by the Incarnation and the Eucharist, 181\n  sets forth the Church's unity, 220 note\n  referred to as defining the Church, 223.\n\n_Hippolytus_, St., his remark on the fruit of the Incarnation, 179.\n\n_History_, Christian, fourteen distinct classes of facts in it\n  attest the Primacy, 251-6.\n\n_Hormisdas_, Pope, A.D. 514-523\n  referred to, 242.\n\n\nI.\n\n_Ignatius_, St., uses the word Catholic of the Church, 236.\n\n_Incarnation_, the order and gifts of,\n  lost sight of by those without the Church, 27\n  the object of, 27, 178-181.\n\n_Innocent_ I., Pope, A.D., 401-417\n  makes the Apostolic See the fountain in the Church, 110\n  his letters to S. Victrice, 254.\n\n_Irenaeus_, St., his remarks on the Incarnation, 179\n  referred to as defining the Church, 223\n  describes the Church's unity, 224\n  and terms it Catholic, 236\n  and explains the term, 237\n  sets forth tradition and the chiefship of the Roman Church, 239\n  states the principle of tradition as guarding the faith, 276.\n\n_Isidore_, St., declares that whoever does not obey Peter is a\n  schismatic, 113.\n\n\nJ.\n\n_James_, St., the martyrdom of, how mentioned by S. Luke, 151.\n\n_Jerome_, St., puts the safety of the Church in the bishop, 45\n  makes the Primacy to be instituted against schism, 78\n  says, it is not a church which has no priest, 135\n  ascribes the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to St. Peter, 150\n  and makes St. Paul's visit to Peter a token of his\n  Primacy, 165, 171\n  gives the reasons of those who denied it to be St. Peter who was\n    censured, 173\n  describes the necessity of adhering to Peter's See, 218, 239, note 120\n  referred to as defining the Church, 223\n  distinguishes it as Catholic, 236\n  referred to, 242\n  referred to on principle of tradition, 275.\n\n_John_, St., his sphere distinguished from that of Peter, 91\n  how often mentioned in the New Testament. 93\n  with his brother called Boanerges, 8, note, 86\n  makes himself subordinate to Peter, 128, 135, 137.\n\n_Judah_, among his brethren,\n  a type of Peter among the Apostles, 206, 214-5.\n\n_Julian_, the apostate, distorts Paul's censure of Peter, 172.\n\n_Jurisdiction_, spiritual, derived from the person of Christ to\n    St. Peter, 99, 107, 109\n  creation of, precedes the formation of the Church, 105, 107.\n\n_Jurien_, referred to, 232.\n\n_Justinian_, the Emperor, referred to, 238.\n\n\nK.\n\n_King_, on the Creed, referred to, 236.\n\n\nL.\n\n_Lactantius_, describes necessity of belonging to the Church, 231.\n\n_Leander_, referred to, 238.\n\n_Leo St._, Pope 440-461\n  paraphrases the name of Peter, 11\n  states his Primacy and association with Christ, 14\n  explains why our Lord prays specially for Peter, 50\n  says that Peter, rules all by immediate commission, 80, 168\n  that Christ gave to the rest through Peter, 100\n  that he assumed Peter into the participation of His indivisible\n    unity, 110\n  remarks on the unity produced by the Incarnation, 180\n  describes the unity of the Catholic Episcopate as knitted up\n    in the See of St. Peter, 242.\n\n_Leontius_, referred to, 275.\n\n_Luke_, St., his purpose in writing the Acts, 114\n  part which he assigns to Peter, in general, 117-122\n  in particulars, 122-153\n  slightly mentions the other Apostles, 120\n  exhibits Peter's miracles as John does those of Christ, 131\n  makes him the main figure in the Apostolic college, 133.\n\n_Lutherans_, their proofs for the real presence compared with those\n  of Catholics for the Primacy, 259.\n\n\nM.\n\n_Mamachi_, his works referred to, 255.\n\n_Maximus_, St., of Turin,\n  says that Christ gave to Peter His own title, the Rock, 15\n  sets forth Peter's Primacy, 112.\n\n_Maximus_, martyr, referred to, 242.\n\n_Marius Victorinus_, makes Paul's visit an acknowledgment of\n  Peter's Primacy, 164.\n\n_Mastrezat_, referred to, 232.\n\n_Metaphor_, tests of clearness in, 267.\n\n_More_, Sir Thomas, his statement to Luther of reasons for maintaining\n  the Primacy, 263.\n\n_Mosheim_, his admission that the early Fathers set forth a unity which\n  terminates in the Papal See, as the hand does in the fingers, 197-8, note.\n\n_Muzzarelli_, his works referred to, 255.\n\n\nN.\n\n_Names_, classes of, given in Scripture, 16.\n\n_Nicole_, referred to, 232.\n\n\nO.\n\n_Oecumenius_, on the fruit of the Incarnation, 179.\n\n_Optatus_, St., calls St. Peter's the single chair in which unity\n    was to be observed by all, 110\n  calls schism the greatest of evils, 231\n  referred to, as explaining the term Catholic, 237\n  ascribes the origin and maintenance of unity to Peter, 242.\n\n_Origen_, says that Peter is so called from Christ the Rock, 10\n  calls Peter the great foundation of the Church, 15\n  describes the great honour given by Christ to Peter in the matter\n    of the didrachmna, 36\n  makes Peter the first, as Judas the last, of the Apostles, 89\n  referred to, as defining the Church, 223\n  distinguishes the Church as Catholic, 236\n  states the principle of tradition, 275\n  referred to, on same, 275.\n\n\nP.\n\n_Pacian_, St., calls the Church Catholic, 236\n  explains the term, 237, 238\n  describes the Church's unity, 239, note\n  ascribes the origin of unity to Peter, 242.\n\n_Paul_, St., distinguishes St. Peter among the Apostles, 67\n  why so much said of him in the Acts, 121\n  his visitatorial power contrasted with St. Peter's, 146\n  his epistles incidentally confirm St. Peter's Primacy, 160\n  recognises St. Peter's Primacy, 161\n  by going to visit him, 162-165\n  and in his second visit, 166-169\n  what is involved in his censure of St. Peter, 169-171\n  its real amount, 177\n  force of his terming the Church \"one body,\" 193\n  how emphatic he is in setting forth visible unity, 197.\n\n_Pelagius_ II., Pope, 578-590\n  states privileges of the Apostolic See, 253.\n\n_Petavius_, shows that spiritual jurisdiction springs from the direct\n  gift of Christ, 107.\n\n_Peter_, St., first mention of him in the Gospel, 8\n  meaning of his name, 9\n  a special title of our Lord, 9\n  name first promised, 8\n  conferred, 11\n  explained and promises attached, 12, 97-99\n  titles of, betokening his association with Christ, 15\n  parallel between, and Abraham, 17-25, 206, 213-4\n  his name explained by St. Chrysostome, 27\n  his relation to the Apostles, 28, 98-9, 102, 104, 108\n  his instruction in the theology and economy, 30\n  witness of the transfiguration, 30\n  of the Lord's prayer in His agony, 32\n  of raising the daughter of Jairus, 33\n  associated with Christ in paying of the didrachma, 34\n  designated to be chief ruler of the Church, 48\n  charged to confirm his brethren, 49-63\n  is distinguished in having the resurrection proved to him, 66\n  all our Lord's promises fulfilled to him, 70, and following\n  mentioned by the Evangelists differently from the other Apostles., 84\n  named first in every catalogue, 86\n  his sphere distinguished from that of John, 91\n  his predominance in the sacred history, 92\n  how often mentioned in the Gospels, 93\n  and in the Acts, 118\n  the type, the origin, and the efficient cause of unity, 100, 108\n  looked up to, as a God upon earth, by the West, 113\n  prominence given to him in the Acts 116-122\n  directs the election of a new Apostle, 122\n  defends the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, 125\n  speaks for them the third and fourth time, 128\n  proves his supreme authority by special miracles, 129\n  cures Oeneas and raises Dorcas, 132\n  heals with his shadow, 133\n  receives the Samaritans into the Church, 133-7\n  and the Gentiles, 138-42\n  exercises supreme judicial power, 144\n  visits all churches, 145\n  is the first to pronounce decision in the council of Jerusalem, 147-151\n  his imprisonment and that of St. James and St. Paul, 151\n  summary of his conduct in the Acts, 153-6\n  his visible headship quite other than the headship of mystical\n    influx, 157\n  set with James and John parallel to Paul with Barnabas and Titus, 166\n  the head, centre, fountain, root, and principle of unity, 195\n  is in the episcopate what God the Father is in the divine monarchy, 195\n  his office in the Church acknowledged by friend and foe, 198\n  typified in Judith, 206, 214-5.\n\n_Peter_, St. Chrysologus,\n  says of Peter that he founds the Church by his firmness, 15\n  advises Eutyches to obey the Pope, 61.\n\n_Philip_, St., perhaps the first-called Apostle, 88\n\n_Pionius_, St., his acts call the Church Catholic, 236.\n\n_Polycarp_, St., the epistle on his death calls the Church Catholic, 236.\n\n_Porphyry_, distorts Paul's censure of Peter, 171.\n\n_Primacy_, the nature of, defined in the three palmary texts, 104-110\n  shown to consist in superiority of jurisdiction, 209-212\n  compared to the law of gravitation, 109, 209\n  institution and exercise of, compared, 155\n  the controversy on, reduced to one point, 205\n  summary of, as set forth in the Acts, 153\n  and generally, 200-203\n  the end and purpose of, 212\n  to which end three classes of reasons guide us,\n    i. the typical, 213\n    ii. the analogical, 217\n    iii. the real, 219\n  bound up in the visibility and unity of the Church, 235\n  what is required of those who deny it, 247\n  its denial the origin of all actual divisions among Christians, 248\n  its proof as considered _absolutely_, 249\n  _comparatively_ with that for the divine institution of bishops, the\n    real presence, and the divinity of Christ, 259-274\n  multiplicity of proof for it, 251-6\n  the opposition of Greeks, Anglicans, and Protestants to it, merely\n    negative, 257\n  parallel between the opposition to it by sects now, and that to the\n    doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation in the fourth, fifth,\n    and sixth centuries, 264.\n\n_Primacy_ and _Apostolate_,\n  their relation to each other, 78, 98-9, 102, 104.\n\n_Proclus_, Patriarch of Constantinople,\n  calls Peter first prelate of the Apostles, 216.\n\n_Proofs_, the different sort of, and their whole sum, to be considered, 8\n  different sorts of, and the principal here used, 246\n  multiplicity of, for the Primacy, 247\n  as considered _absolutely_, 249\n  _comparatively_, 259\n  concurrence of four great proofs for the Primacy, 250.\n\n_Prudentius_, calls Peter the first disciple of God, 61.\n\n\nR.\n\n_Reformers_, distort Paul's censure of Peter, 172\n  opposition between them and the Fathers as to Peter's Primacy, 176\n  as to Church principles 227, note\n  denied the visibility of the Church, 222, note.\n\n\nS.\n\n_Sacraments_ and _Symbols_ lead from the visible to the invisible, 192.\n\n_Sense_, in writing, definition of, 266, note.\n\n_Socrates_ and _Sozomen_, their canon respecting the bishop of Rome, 252.\n\n_Stephen_, bishop of Dora, describes Peter's Primacy, 56, 83.\n\n_Stephen_, bishop of Larissa,\n  makes all the Churches of the world to rest in Peter's confession, 62.\n\n_Symmachus_, Pope A.D. 498-514\n  likens the unity of the Apostolic See to that of the Trinity, 196.\n\n\nT.\n\n_Tertullian_,\n  why our Lord gave Peter a name drawn from figures of Himself, 11\n  says the Church is built on Peter, 15\n  expresses Peter's supreme power, and distinguishes his sphere from\n    that of John, 91\n  ascribes the decision in the council of Jerusalem to St. Peter, 150, 164\n  referred to, as defining the Church, 223\n  and as explaining the term Catholic, 237, 238\n  sets forth Church unity, 224\n  denies that Peter's doctrine was censured, 175\n  calls the Catholic Church _near to Peter_, 241\n  says the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, 241\n  his rule not to search for the truth among heretics, 261\n  referred to, on the principle of tradition, 275.\n\n_Theodore_, Abbot of the Stadium at Constantinople, addresses Pope\n    Pascal I. as Peter, and beseeches him to exert his Primacy, 56\n  calls Pope Leo III. father of fathers, &c., 216.\n\n_Theodoret_, says _stone_ a title of our Lord, 10\n  terms Peter the most solid rock, 15\n  ascribes the decision in the Council of\n  Jerusalem to St. Peter, 151\n  recognises Peter's Primacy, 161 and 163.\n\n_Theophylact_, says that Peter confirms not only the Apostles, but\n    all the faithful to the end of the world, 52\n  interprets John xxi. 15-17, of supreme power over the Church given\n    to Peter, 80.\n\n_Thomas_, St., of Canterbury, sees in Paul's visit to Peter a proof\n  of his Primacy, 165.\n\n\nU.\n\n_Unity_,\n  that of the Father and the Son the archetype of the Church's unity, 195\n  fourfold in the Church, of mystical influx, charity, faith,\n    visible headship, 181-196\n  texts on the Church's unity, referred to 220, 273, n. 27\n  Protestant notions of the Church's unity, 222\n  that of Anglicans, 222\n  that of distinguishing between internal and external unity, 225\n  that of agreement in fundamentals, 232.\n\n\nV.\n\n_Valentinian_ III., his constitution on the Primacy quoted, 255.\n\n_Vincent_ of Lerins, referred to, on principle of tradition, 275.\n\n_Vitringa_, sets forth a Protestant notion of unity, 225-8.\n\n_Voss_, on the Creed, referred to, 236.\n\n\nW.\n\n_Walemburg_, the brothers, referred to, 233.\n\n\nZ.\n\n_Zaccharia_, his works, referred to, 253.\n\n_Zeno_, St., quoted, 15.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF TEXTS.\n\nTHE NUMBER INDICATES THE PAGE.\n\n\nGENESIS.\n                               PAGE\n  v. 29                         17\n  x. 25                         16\n  xii. 1                        18\n  -- 4                          18\n  xvii. 5                       18\n  -- 15                         17\n  -- 19                         16\n  xviii. 17                     21\n  xxii. 1                       19\n  -- 10                         19\n  xxv. 25                       16\n  -- 26                         16\n  -- 30                         16\n  xxvii. 36                     16\n  xxx. 18                       16\n  xxxii. 28                     17\n  xl. 51-2                      16\n  xlix. 10                     215\n\n\nEXODUS.\n\n  ii. 10                        16\n\n\nNUMBERS.\n\n  ii. 3-9                      215\n  x. 14                        215\n  xii. 2                       156\n  xiii. 17                      17\n  xvi. 3                       155\n\n\nJUDGES.\n\n  i. 1-3                       215\n  xx. 18                       215\n\n\n1 PARALIP.\n\n  xxvii. 33                     87\n\n\n2 PARALIP.\n\n  xxvi. 20                      87\n\n\nNEHEMIAH.\n\n  xii. 45                       87\n\n\nPSALMS.\n\n  ii. 9                         75\n  xlvii. 2                       3\n  lxix. 26                     123\n  lxxxii. 6                     25\n  cviii. 8                     123\n  cxvii. 22                      9\n  cxxxi. 13, 14                  4\n\n\nWISDOM.\n\n  viii. 1                      136\n\n\nISAIAH.\n\n  vii. 3                        16\n  ix. 6                        103\n  xxviii. 16                  9, 24\n  xl. 9-11                      72\n\n\nEZECHIEL.\n\n  xxiv. 33                      72\n\n\nDANIEL.\n\n  ii. 35                         9\n  ix. 26                         5\n\n\nOSEA.\n\n  i. 4-6-9                      16\n\n\nMICAH.\n\n  v. 2                       42, 72\n\n\nZACHARIAH.\n\n  iii. 9                         9\n\n\nMALACHI.\n\n  l. 11                        138\n\n\n1. MACC.\n\n  ii. 2-4                       16\n\n\nMATTHEW.\n\n  i. 1                          23\n  ii. 6                         42\n  iii. 1                        17\n  v. 14                       3, 230\n  x. 1                       11, 65\n  -- 2                       87, 89\n  -- 5                         134\n  -- 7                         130\n  xii. 3                     84, 90\n  xv. 24                       134\n  -- 30                        133\n  xvi. 13-19                    12\n  -- 15                      19, 93\n  -- 16                 19, 64, 93, 94, 112\n  -- 17-20                      95\n  -- 18          2, 94, 98, 103, 139, 163, 219, 221\n  -- 19                     102, 103\n  xvii. 1                       87\n  -- 23                         34\n  -- 24                      34, 90\n  -- 27                      35, 90\n  xviii. 1                     100\n  -- 2                          38\n  -- 17                        221\n  -- 18                    65, 102, 221\n  -- 21                         92\n  xix. 23                       93\n  -- 27                         93\n  -- 28                        215\n  xx. 20                       100\n  -- 27                         87\n  xxiii. 8                      44\n  -- 9                          26\n  xxvi. 36                      34\n  -- 40                         90\n  -- 69                         85\n  xxviii. 18                 68, 102\n  -- 19                         74\n  -- 19, 20                   3, 221\n\n\nMARK.\n\n  i. 16                         70\n  -- 16, 17                  18, 28\n  -- 18                         18\n  -- 36                       85, 90\n  ii. 25                     84, 90\n  iii. 11                       84\n  -- 13                       5, 65\n  -- 14                         11\n  -- 17                         16\n  -- 16-19                      86\n  iv. 38                        71\n  v. 35                         33\n  -- 37                         87\n  xiii. 3                       87\n  xiv. 33                       87\n  xvi. 6                        66\n  -- 7                          85\n  -- 10                      84, 90\n  -- 15                  68, 74, 102, 138\n  -- 15-17                     130\n\n\nLUKE.\n\n  iv. 40, 41                   133\n  v. 3                          71\n  -- 10                         18\n  vi. 4                         84\n  -- 12, 13                     65\n  -- 14                         11\n  -- 14-17                      86\n  viii. 24                      71\n  -- 45                      85, 90\n  -- 51                         88\n  ix. 32                     85, 90\n  xi. 5                        261\n  xii. 41, 42                   93\n  xv. 9                        261\n  -- 22                         87\n  xviii. 2                     261\n  -- 34                         38\n  xx. 20-23                     40\n  xxii. 8                       88\n  -- 22                         57\n  -- 24                        100\n  -- 24-30              39, 41, 57, 58, 59\n  -- 26           6, 141, 193, 194, 206, 210, 219, 221\n  -- 29                        215\n  -- 32       21, 49, 51, 54, 55, 101, 104, 141, 219, 221\n  xxiv. 29                   68, 102\n\n\nJOHN.\n\n  i. 14                        178\n  -- 35-42                       8\n  -- 42                         18\n  -- 43                      89, 94\n  -- 44                         88\n  iv. 23                       138\n  v. 5-9                       131\n  vi. 21                        71\n  -- 67, 68                     93\n  x. 11-14-16                   72\n  -- 11-16                       4\n  -- 16                     104, 139\n  -- 34                         25\n  xi. 16                        92\n  -- 52                        191\n  xiii. 6                       92\n  -- 13                         43\n  --  34-36                    183\n  xiv. 8                        92\n  -- 12                         26\n  -- 16                      26, 188\n  -- 16-18                     183\n  -- 16, 26                 184, 230\n  -- 20                        182\n  -- 26                        184\n  xv. 1-2, 5-7                182\n  -- 9, 15                      26\n  -- 12, 13, 17                183\n  -- 22-24                     129\n  -- 26                        221\n  -- 27                        126\n  xvi. 7, 13-15                184\n  -- 13                         43\n  xvii.                          1\n  -- 11, 21                    195\n  -- 12, 13              57, 65, 190, 194\n  -- 17                        221\n  -- 21                   129, 180, 221\n  xx. 21                    122, 139\n  -- 21-23                     102\n  -- 23                         26\n  xxi. 1-14                     71\n  -- 2                          88\n  -- 15               19, 73, 104, 139, 219, 221\n  -- 16, 22                 157, 158\n  -- 18                         82\n  -- 21-22                      91\n\n\nACTS.\n\n  i. 4-8                   69, 102, 221\n  -- 8                         126\n  -- 15                        119\n  -- 15, 16, 20, 21, 22        123\n  ii. 13                       119\n  -- 14                         85\n  -- 13-16                     125\n  -- 14, 27                    119\n  -- 32                        126\n  -- 36                        126\n  -- 37                         85\n  -- 37, 38                    119\n  -- 37, 38, 40, 41            127\n  -- 44                        129\n  iii. 2-8                     131\n  -- 4                         119\n  -- 11, 12                    119\n  iv. 3                         85\n  -- 4                         128\n  -- 7, 8                      128\n  -- 32                        129\n  v. 2                         145\n  -- 8, 3, 9                   144\n  -- 12-14                     133\n  -- 15-16                     133\n  -- 29                      85, 119\n  viii. 14                     137\n  -- 14-22                     135\n  ix. 32                    138, 168\n  -- 31-32                     145\n  -- 39-41                     132\n  x. 1-6                       138\n  x. 10                         21\n  -- 10-16                     139\n  -- 19                        141\n  -- 28                        140\n  -- 33, 43-47                 141\n  xi. 1-4                      142\n  -- 3, 17, 18                 173\n  -- 18                        156\n  xii. 1-5                     152\n  xv. 6-11                   69, 147\n  -- 7                          21\n  -- 12                        148\n  -- 28                        149\n  -- 36                        146\n  xvi. 4                     69, 149\n  xvii. 28                     115\n  xx. 28                     69, 74, 75\n\n\nROMANS.\n\n  i. 11                         54\n  -- 25                        221\n  v. 5                         183\n  viii. 15                      26\n  -- 17                         26\n  ix. 4-5                      167\n  xii. 5                       178\n  xv. 8                        167\n  -- 9                         168\n  xvi. 7                       161\n  -- 25                         51\n\n\n1 CORINTHIANS.\n\n  i. 7                          51\n  -- 12                     160, 161\n  iii. 11                       25\n  -- 22                     160, 161\n  v. 1-5                        69\n  ix. 5                     160, 161\n  x. 4                         112\n  -- 17                        192\n  -- 18                        214\n  xii. 7-13                    186\n  -- 11                     185, 188\n  -- 12                     191, 194\n  -- 13                        192\n  -- 27                        115\n  xiii. 12                      26\n  xiv. 33                      221\n  xv. 1-9                       67\n  -- 5                         160\n\n\n2 CORINTHIANS.\n\n  i. 21                         51\n  iv. 17                       230\n  viii. 23                     161\n  x. 6                          70\n\n\nGALATIANS.\n\n  i. 16-19                     162\n  -- 18                     171, 174\n  ii. 1-2                   165, 171\n  -- 7-9                    166, 168\n  -- 8-9                       168\n  -- 11-14                     169\n  iii. 7                        22\n  -- 16                         23\n  v. 19, 20                    221\n  vi. 16                       214\n\n\nEPHESIANS.\n\n  i. 9, 22                     178\n  -- 10                         29\n  -- 22                     157, 197\n  ii. 20                         9\n  -- 21                         24\n  iii. 5                       137\n  -- 6                          51\n  -- 10                        198\n  iv. 4                   194, 197, 221\n  -- 7-16                      186\n  -- 8, 11                     197\n  -- 11                 59, 105, 188, 193\n  -- 12                     187, 193\n  -- 12-13                     106\n  -- 13                     185, 187\n  -- 14                        187\n  -- 15                     157, 230\n  -- 25                        181\n  v. 23                   191, 197, 230\n  -- 23, 27                    157\n  -- 27                        221\n  -- 30, 32                      4\n\nCOLOSSIANS.\n\n  i. 17                        104\n  -- 18                     157, 194\n  ii. 6                         51\n  -- 9                         188\n\n\n2 THESSALONIANS.\n\n  ii. 16                        51\n\n\n1 TIMOTHY.\n\n  i. 15                         87\n  iii. 15                     4, 221\n\n\n2 TIMOTHY.\n\n  ii. 2                        275\n\n\nTITUS.\n\n  i. 5                         146\n  ii. 11                       221\n  -- 14                        221\n  iii. 10                      261\n\n\nHEBREWS.\n\n  i. 3                         104\n  xiii. 8                       44\n  -- 20                        104\n\n\n1 PETER.\n\n  ii. 25                       221\n  v. 3                         153\n  -- 10                  51, 53, 74, 75\n\n\n2 PETER.\n\n  i. 4                         197\n  -- 14                         31\n  iii. 2, 3                    230\n  -- 16                        171\n\n\nJAMES.\n\n  i. 17                        204\n\n\n1 JOHN.\n\n  i. 1                           6\n  v. 6, 7                       32\n\n\nJUDE.\n\n  18                           230\n\n\nAPOCALYPSE.\n\n  ii. 27                        76\n  iii. 2                      53, 54\n  -- 7                       13, 103\n  vii. 9                       140\n  xvii. 14                     103\n  xix. 15                       76\n  xxii. 16                      13\n\nLONDON:\nRICHARDSON AND SON, 172, FLEET STREET;\n9, CAPEL ST., DUBLIN; AND DERBY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\n\nArchaic spelling has been retained.\nPunctuation errors corrected without comment.\nFootnote markers in original book are inconsistent. Some come before\n the reference cited, some after, some in the middle.\noe ligature not in latin-1 character set, replaced with oe\nApparent typesetting errors corrected as noted below:\nPg 18 begun changed to began (in the last days He began)\nPg 43 ensample changed to example (given you an example)","title":"St. Peter, His Name and His Office, as Set Forth in Holy Scripture","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":97747}