https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=AJGMqFT2vb0C&redir_esc=y
CONTENTS .
PART I.
SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY.
CHAPTER I.-Nature of the Primacy.......
Organization of the Church by Christ-Necessity of a Central Power-Presumptive Evidence-Motives of Luther-Henry VIII.-Photius-Prejudices against the Papacy-Federal System-Abuses.
CHAPTER II.-Promise of the Primacy..
Custom of our Lord-Change of Name-Concessionof Barrow- Promise- Personal Faith-Admission of the First Converts-Christ the Rock-Difference of Gender-Bloomfield's Admission-Gerard-Thompson-Christ the Foundation-St. Leo the Great Figure of the Keys-Rebuke to Peter-Rivalry of theApostles-Prayer for Simon.
CHAPTER III.-The Fathers' Exposition of the Promise............
Authority of the Fathers-Tertullian-Origen-Mystical Fancies-St. Cyprian-Peter Represents the Church-On him the Church is Built-St. James of Nisibis-St. Cyril of Jerusalem-St. Basil the Great-St. Gregory of Nazianzum-St. Chrysostom-Peter is placed over the entire World-St. Epiphanius- St. Cyril ofAlexandria-St. Hilary of Poictiers-Faith of Peter-Arian Heresy -St. Optatus-St. Ambrose-Power of Forgiveness-Equality of Paul to Peter -St. Jerom- Occasion of Schism Removed-On that Rock the Church is Built -St. Augustin-Hesitation-The Church through Peter receives the Keys-St. Leo the Great-Various Interpretations.
CHAPTER IV.-Institution of the Primacy...........
Manifestation of our Lord-Feed Lambs and Sheep-Union of Jews and Gentiles One Fold, one Shepherd-Barrow's Avowal-St. Francisde Sales- Perpetuity of the Power-Headship of Peter reconciled with that of Christ- Wisdom of Christ-Bossuet.
CHAPTER V.-Exposition of the Commission
Origen-Cyprian-Unity of the Church-Barrow's Admission-St. Cyril of Jerusalem-St. Chrysostom-St. Ambrose-St. Augustin-St. Leo-St. Gregory the Great-St. Bernard.
CHAPTER VI.-Exercise of the Primacy............
Call of Matthias-Remark of Chrysostom- Council of Jerusalem-Result of Peter's Address-Tertullian-St. Jerom-Theodoret-Chrysostom-Model of Councils-Bossuet-Potter-To send sometimes implies superiority-Conde-scension of Peter-St. Gregory the Great-Cephas at Antioch-Visit of Paul to Peter-The Jews committed to the charge of Peter, the Gentiles to Paul-Address of Peter to his Fellow-Bishops.
CHAPTER VII.-Peter Bishop of Rome.......
Admission of Cave-Babylon-Clement-Ignatius-Papias-Irenæus-Dionysius of Corinth-Cajus-Origen-Cyprian-Eusebius-Theodoret-Palmer's Admission-Difficulty of arranging Chronology-Both Apostles Founders of the Roman Church-Apostleship compatible with Episcopacy-Silence of St. Paul -Palmer's Admission .
CHAPTER VIII.-Roman Church ........
Transmission of the Power of Peter-St. Ignatius M. addresses the Church that Presides-Celebrated Passage of St. Irenæus-Palmer's Admission-Tertullian-St. Cyprian-Root and Matrix-Dr. Hopkins-Authority of Roman Clergy-The Emperor Aurelian's Reference to Roman Bishops-St. Augustin -St. Jerom-Bishops everywhere equal in order-Bishops of Province of Arles-Dignity of Imperial City-Concessions of Emperors-Decree of Valentinian-Concession of Palmer.
CHAPTER IX.-Centre of Unity.
1. Communion with See of Rome......
Remark of Hallam-St. Cyprian-To communicate with the Roman Bishop is to communicate with the Catholic Church-Union of Spirit without identity in Faith is chimerical-Episcopate in solidum-St. Ambrose-St. Optatus- Evasion of Palmer-St. Augustin-Roman Catholic.
22. Interruptions of Communion.....
Meletius-St. Jerom-Liberality of the Holy See Inconsistency of Palmer -Testimony of John, Bishop of Constantinople-St. Cyprian on Unity.
CHAPTER X.-Ancient Examples of Papal Authority.
1. Disturbances at Corinth.. 108
Letter of Clement.
2. Paschal Controversy......
Difference of Discipline-Polycarp and Anicetus-Measures of Victor.
109
3. Montanism. 111
Tertullian-Bishop of Bishops-Faber's Admission-Peter's Church.
4. Controversy Concerning Baptism....... 113
African Decree-Pope Stephen-Asiatic Usage-Vincent of Lerins-Papal
Authority-St. Cyprian-St. Jerom-St. Augustin.
5. Donatism. 119
Cecilius of Carthage-Decree of Constantine-Sentence of Melchiades-
Council of Arles .
CHAPTER XI.-Guardianship of Faith.
1. Constancy of the Holy See..........
Theophylact-Innocent III.-Early Heresies.
22. Chief Mysteries .......
Divinity of Christ-Dionysius of Alexandria accused-Arianism-Liberius Vindicated-Testimony of Sozomen-Heresy of Apollinaris-Edict of Theodosius-St. Basil-The East as well as the West receives the Decrees of Rome- Nestorius-St. Cyril-Decree of Celestine-Council of Ephesus-Eutyches- Flavian writes to the Pope-Letter of Valentinian-Council of Chalcedon-
Acknowledgment of Palmer-Blessed Virgin.
3. Grace........
African Councils-Innocent I.-Further Examination superfluous-Zosimus
-St. Prosper-St. Vincent of Lerins-Paulinus of Milan-Nestorius-St. Leo.
24. Testimonies of Fathers....
St. Jerom-St. Leo-Acknowledgment of Casaubon.
25. Vindication ofHonorius...
Anathema-Letters of Honorius-Agatho-St. Bernard-Bishops of Tar-
ragona.
CHAPTER XII.-Governing Power.
§ 1. Exercise ofAuthority........
St. Celestine-St. Cyprian-Decree of Siricius-Innocent I.-Zosimus-St. Leo-Just Declaration of Bossuet-Dispensing Power-Boniface I.-Consultations.
123
124
137
143
145
149
CONTENTS . 9
2. Universal Patriarch......
John the Faster- Council of Chalcedon-St. Gregory the Great-Byzantium -Acknowledgment of the Eastern Church-Acts of Gregory-Serenus of Marseilles admonished-Patriarchs address Gregory with reverence-Decree of Phocas.
CHAPTER XIII.-The Hierarchy.
1. Patriarchal System..........
Extent of Western Patriarchate-Origin of Patriarchal Jurisdiction-Sixth Canon of Nice-Version of Ruffinus-Suburbicarian Churches-Boniface I.- Council of Chalcedon-St. Leo.
2. Western Patriarchate......
Innocent I.-Pallium-Primates-Guizot-Clinch .
23. Apostolic Vicars........
Barrow's Avowal-First Instance of Apostolic Vicar for Illyricum-Pontifical Instructions-St. Leo the Great-Modern Vicars Apostolic-Bishops not mere Delegates.
4. Papal Relation to Patriarchs ....
Patriarchal Power-Dependence on the Pontiff-Juvenal of Jerusalem- Bishop of Constantinople-Embassyto Rome-St. Basil.
CHAPTER XIV.-Deposition of Bishops.
Occasional Encroachments-Ancient Reservation to the Holy See-Potter's
Testimony-Deposition of Marcian ofArles, solicited by St. Cyprian-Roman
Council- Imperial Edict- Mosheim and Maclaine- Zosimus - Celestine-
Council of Chalcedon-Ephesus-Bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constan-
tinople Deposed-Anthimus Deposed byAgapitus-Primate of Byzacium.
CHAPTER XV.-Appeals.
1. Ancient Examples........
Marcion goes to Rome-Basilides-Cyprian's Judgment-Privatus of Lam-
besita-Cyprian complains of wanton appeals as calculated to defeat justice-
Appeal ofAthanasius-Letter of Julius-Customto write first to Rome-Mar-
cellus of Ancyra-Passage of Socrates-Council of Sardica-St. Basil an Illus-
trious Witness-Appeal of Chrysostom.
PAGE
156
161
164
167
170
175
183
22. African Controversy... 195
Council of Carthage-Appeal of Apiarius-Sardican Canons-Misnomer-
Appeals of Bishops-Letter to the Pope-Appeal of Celestius-African In-
stances of Appeal.
23. Promiscuous Examples ......... 201
Chelidonius-Flavian-American Editor of Mosheim-Theodoret John Ta-
laja-Enumeration of Appeals by Barrow-Pope Gelasius.
CHAPTER XVI.-The Church of England.
1. Britons . 205
Introduction of Christianity-British Bishops in Councils of Arles and Sar-
dica-St. Germanus Legate of Celestine to the Britons-Bishops of Cyprus-
Autocephalous Character-Forgery of Address of Abbot Dinoth-Fuller's
Quaint Acknowledgment Gregory gives Anthority over British Bishops.
22. Anglo- Saxon Church .
Canterbury Founded by Augustin.
23. Paschal Controversy ...
209
210
Britons and Irish follow Old Cycle-King Oswiu decides in favor of the
Roman usage.
24. Anglo-Saxon Hierarchy ......
Plan Traced by Gregory-Changes made by Vitalian and Agatho-Lichfield
raised to Metropolitical Dignity by Adrian-Pallium-Several English Metro-
politans go to Rome : some are consecrated by the Pope-Papal Legates.
25. Acknowledgment of the Primacy..........
Bede Alcuin-Anglo- Saxon Pontifical-Councils-Deposition ofBishops-
Appeal
of Wilfrid
.
211
213
10 CONTENTS .
26. Modern Church of England.
Measures of Henry VIII.-Futile Attempts of Palmer-Female Supremacy.
CHAPTER XVII.-Papal Prerogatives ....
1
False Decretals-Presidency of the Universal Church-St. Leo-Right to
Judge in Controversies of Faith-Definitions ex cathedra-Assembly of 1682-
Plenitude of Power-New Organization of French Hierarchy-Hypothetical
Argument of Bellarmine-Acknowledgment of Voltaire-Relations of Pope to
Councils-Not necessary to define extent of prerogative- Observation of
Palmer.
CHAPTER XVIII.-Unbroken Succession of the Bishops of Rome .
Invitation of Augustin- Schism of Novatian- Cornelius Bishop of the
Catholic Church-St. Cyprian-Felix Intruded-Schisms-Imperial Interfer-
ence-Great Schism-Absence from Rome-Simoniacal Elections-Interreg-
nums-Fable of Pope Joan-Elizabeth of England-St. Augustin's Appeal.
CHAPTER XIX.-Papal Election.
1. Imperial Interposition...........
Interference of Odoacer, King of Italy-Eastern Emperor-Popes Conse-
crated without the Imperial Assent-Western Emperors-Oath required by
Otho I.-Amount of Deference to Emperors-St. Gregory VII.-Esclusiva.
22. Mode of Election.....
Office not to be bequeathed-Popular Influence-St. Celestine-Council of
Laodicea- Conclave.
CHAPTER XX.-Ceremonies .
1. Ceremonies after Election.......
Adoration-Kissing of the foot, Ancient Oriental Rite-Chair of State.
22. Ceremonies of Coronation....
Burning of Bunch of Flax-Pallium-Gospel in Latin and Greek-Tiara-
Cap of Liberty-Address of Council of Baltimore.
PAGE
217
221
232
241
244
246
250
PART II.
SECULAR RELATIONS.
CHAPTER I.-Patrimony of St. Peter........
No Earthly Possessions, or Dominion given by Christ-Wealth of the Ro-
man Church-Donation of Constantine-Humane Treatment of Tenants-
French Princes-Title of Patrician-Acts of Sovereignty-Heroism of Leo IV.
-Relation of Pope and Emperor to the Romans-Gibbon's account of the ori-
ginof the Papal Dominion-Anticipations of Dr. Jarvis.
CHAPTER II.-Authority over Princes.
21. In Matters of Faith and Morals......
Pontiff superior to all members of the Church-Gelasius explains the rela-
tions of the two powers-Means employed against Princes.
22. In Secular Concerns........
No Civil Power now claimed-Creation of Emperor by Leo IIL-British
Critic-Remarkable avowal of Voltaire.
CHAPTER III.-Peace Tribunal...
Council of Rheims-Louis the Fat-Princes sought the Pope's Mediation-
St. Anselm-Genoese and Pisans reconciled-Pope's Power implored by both
parties-Federal Union-Decree of Lateran-War Sometimes Necessary-
Truce of God-Improvement in the Laws of War.
255
270
275
283
CONTENTS . 11
CHAPTER IV.-Deposing Power.
1. Origin of the Power.....
PAGE
293
Abdication of Wamba-Council of Savonieres-Saxons complain to Alexan-
der II.-Threats of Gregory VII.--Henry IV., seeks his influence to suppress
Revolt-Crimes of Henry-Compact-Declaration of Independence-Effects
of Excommunication-Views of Gregory.
22. Subsequent Instances... 299
Alexander III. sanctions the Lombard League-Frederick II. deposed in
Council of Lyons-Act of the Pope- Impeachment of the President.
23. Never formally defined. 302
Bull of Boniface VIII.-Definition-Excellence of Sacred Power-Canon of
Lateran-Acknowledgment of Monarchs.
24. Deposition of Elizabeth ... 304
Object of the Sentence-Armada-Conduct of English Catholics.
25. Disclaimers ... 306
French Clergy in 1682-Cardinal Antonelli-Bull of Pius VII.
CHAPTER V.-Papal Sanction ...
Transfer of French Crown-Settlement of Succession-Sanction of Treaties
-Invasion of Ireland-Grants to Teutonic Knights-Bull of Alexander VI.-
Baluffi, Wheaton, Prescott.
CHAPTER VI.-Papal Polity.........
308
316..
Christianity the Supreme Law-Remarks of Arnold-Church and State-Mr.
Allies-Ecclesiastical Immunities. St. Anselm-St. Thomas of Canterbury-
Principles of Government-Liberty-Tuscan League-Elective Principle.
CHAPTER VII.-Crusades......
Efforts of Sylvester II.-Gregory VI.-State of the Eastern Christians-
Peter the Hermit-Councils of Piacenza, Clermont-Discourse of Urban II.-
League between Greek Emperor and the Crusaders-Defensive Wars-St. Ber-
nard-Indulgences-Alms-Results of the Crusades.
CHAPTER VIII.-Coercion.
21. Pagans and Jews...
Liberty of Conscience vindicated by Tertullian-Ethelbert-Council of To-
ledo-Innocent IV.-Facts regarding the Jews-Rome their Asylum.
22. Sectaries ...
Conduct of Constantine-Right of Property-Imperial Laws-Anti-social
Principles Outrages of Circumcellions-Council of Carthage.
23. Crusades against Manicheans....
Canons of Toulouse and Lateran-Excesses of Sectaries-Assassination of
Legate-Instructions of Gregory IX.-Testimony of Voltaire.
CHAPTER IX. Inquisition .
327
342
345
348
1. Ancient Tribunal. 353
Council of Verona- Quæsitores fidei sent by Innocent III.-Spirit of Inqui-
sitors-St. Peter de Castelnau-Civil sanction.
2. Spanish Inquisition ......... 356
Ferdinand of Spain-Object-Treasonable designs of Moors-Royal tribunal
-Opposition of Popes to its establishment in Naples and Milan.
23. Mode of Proceeding... 358
Secrecy-Requisites for arrest-Mode of trial-Torture seldom used : long
abandoned- Searching process-Exaggerations of Llorente.
24. Roman Inquisition.....
Congregation of Cardinals-Temporal attributions-Archives seized by the
French-Heresy regarded as a crime against society.
362
12 CONTENTS .
PART III.
LITERARY AND MORAL INFLUENCE.
CHAPTER I.-Personal attainments .......
Gregory the Great misrepresented-Testimony ofAgatho-Rome the source
of letters to the West-Nicholas Breakspere.
CHAPTER II, Measures to promote learning.
1. Libraries ...
Popes collectors of books-Vatican library-Nicholas V.
2. Schools..
PAGE
367
372
373
Schools in England-Literary accomplishments of ladies-Decrees of Roman
Councils-Universities.
CHAPTER III.-Mediæval Studies.......
Divinity-St. Thomas Aquinas-Aristotle-Modern Spirit-Canon law-
Oriental languages.
CHAPTER IV.-Revival of Letters...
Dante-Petrarch crowned in the Roman capitol-Poets-Historians-Elo-
quence-Belles Lettres-Tuscan genius-Testimony of Voltaire-Reformation
prejudicial to literature-Greek studies-Ippolita Sforza.
CHAPTER V.-Science .
1. Medicine.
Salerno-Montpelier-Anatomy-State Physicians-Professorship of Medi-
cine-Natural History-Minerals-Botany.
22. Astronomy......
Virgil, the Irish missionary-Antipodes-Correction of the calendar by Gre-
gory XIII .-Meridians-Earth's motion around the sun-Copernicus-Galileo
-Decree of Roman Inquisition-Cassini-Benedict XIV.
CHAPTER VI.-The Arts ....
Rome renders the arts tributary to religion-Temples and statues-Paint-
ings-St. Peter's-Landscapes-Miniatures-Engraving on diamonds.
CHAPTER VII.-Art of Printing.
21. Encouragement of Printers.........
Printers at Rome in 1467-Activity of the Roman Press.
22. Restrictions on the Press.......
376
381388
390
395
... 399
Decree of Alexander VI-Leo X.-Committee appointed by Council of
Trent List of prohibited books-Freedom of the Press.
CHAPTER VIII.-Moral Influence.
21. Civilization
Struggle of the Popes against Feudalism-Civilization of the Heathen-Mis-
sionaries of Germany-Monastic Institutions-Devotion to the Virgin.
2. Personal Virtues ..........
Charity of Roman Bishops-The Martyr Lawrence-Fortitude-Martyrs-
Pius VL-Pius VII.-Humility-Celestine V.
23. Recognised Sanctity.........
CHAPTER IX.-Charges against the Popes.
Formosus-Stephen-Weight of Luitprand's testimony-Boniface VIII.-
Conduct before receiving orders-Leo X. and Innocent X. vindicated-Alexan-
der VL-Character of Pontiffs as Sovereigns. Sixtus IV.-Nepotism.
Catalogue of the Popes
CHAPTER I.
Nature of the Primacy.
THE first question which presents itself to the mind in reference to the
important subject of the Church, is, whether Christ our Lord formed the
multitude of His followers into a society, and appointed officers to govern
them. There are many at the present day, who confidently answer in the
negative, contending that He left it entirely optional with believers in His
doctrine, to associate under whatsoever form they pleased for the further-
ance of the great objects of His divine mission.* It may appear strange,
that this canbe maintainedby any who admit the Scriptures, which testify,
so clearly, the appointment by Christ of teachers and rulers, with a per-
petual commission: but it is scarcely so surprising as that some should
hold that Christ did organize His Church, and yet denythe main principle
ofher organization, which is unity, by the government of one man, as the
Scriptures no less clearly attest. The fact that Christ appeared on earth
as Supreme Teacher, invested with all power and authority, should prepare
us for a state of Christian society, in which ONE should hold His place,
exercising, by delegation, those powers which He inherently possessed.
That such a social form is best adapted to the great ends of revelation,
reason itself must convince us, since in order to diffuse and preserve the
revealed doctrines, it must be of the highest importance to have a chief
depositary and supreme guardian, from whose chair of instruction the voice
oftruth may issue to the farthest extremities of the earth. The union of
believers canbest be promoted by a central authority divinely established
and protected; and the perpetuity of the Church, which without unity is
impossible, can thus be secured. In every form of civil government, how-
ever limited may be its sphere of action, unity is necessarily sought by
means of a supreme magistrate, with such limitations of his power as the
genius of the people may require. The existence of such an officer in the
Church is the more necessary, inasmuch as she is composed of an endless
variety of nations, who could not unite in one society, unless by means of a general head.* She has been often styled " a masterpiece of human
policy," because she is so constituted as to resist the many assaults made
on her from without, and to be uninjured by the conflict of internal ele-
ments. Her strength and power must be ascribed to her unity, which
conservative and vital principle of her organization she owes to her Divine
Founder. In leaving her a visible head to govern in His Name, He left
her the pledge of His own perpetual presence, in virtue ofwhich she repels
every attack, and remains secure of victory over all her foes. No greater
evidence of His divinity is needed to confound the unbeliever, than the
fact that He so framed His Church as to ensure her perpetual duration,
whilst every human institution, howsoever wisely planned and powerfully
sustained, after temporary prosperity, more or less rapidlydissolves. Apart
from positive evidence, we may infer the divine institution of the primacy,
from the fact that it effectually tends to unite the followers of Christ in an
unbroken and invincible phalanx. That which makes the Church one,
and renders her superior to all the efforts of her enemies, is surely not a
device of human policy,but the institution of Divine Wisdom.
Iwould not, however, confine the investigation of the primacy to ab-
stract reasoning. It is a matter of fact, and therefore to be established
by positive evidence. The New Testament, as far as it is a record of the
institutions of Christ, and of their practical development, presents histo-
rical proof to all who regard it as a purelyhuman composition, and divine
testimony to such as recognise its inspiration. In an inquiry like the
present, the obvious meaning of the words, as gathered from the context,
and illustrated by parallel passages, may be fairly urged in proof; and
where discrepancy of sentiment exists in regard to the interpretation, the
unbiassed judgment of the ancient Christian writers may be justly ap-
pealed to. The monuments of antiquity, which attest the actual govern-
ment of the Church in the early ages, should be examined, in order to
ascertain what was believed and acknowledged to be the authority left by
Christ for that purpose : since the ancient general and constant persuasion
of all Christians, on amatter of public polity, and daily practice, must be
held sacred, according to the celebrated axiom of Vincent of Lerins, which
is consonant with common sense : Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab
omnibus.
Whosoever assails the actual government of the Church must be pre-
pared to prove that it is essentially different from the original design, as
delineated by its Divine Founder. † The presumption is in favor of that which is established, because it is reasonable to suppose that its claims
had been thoroughly examined before they were acknowledged. If the
opponent himself had previously recognised the authority, he is still more
evidently bound to show cause, why he now seeks to discard it, his argu-
ments being unworthy of attention until all suspicion of improper mo-
tives is removed. Luther, after loud protestations of unreserved submis-
sion, rose in revolt against the Papal power,when his resentment had been
provoked by the condemnation of his errors. Henry VIII. shook off the
Papal yoke, when it galled him; the Pontiff refusing to minister to his
passions, by divorcing his lawful queen, that he might take an adulteress
to his bed. Long before the appearance of the apostate monk, or of the
licentious despot, Photius, in the ninth century, assailed the Roman
primacy; but only after the Pontiff had resisted his usurpation of the patri-
archal chair, to the injury of the rightful occupant, Ignatius. The motives
of these opponents of Rome were unquestionably suspicious. Hence the
arguments, by which they attempted to disprove the divine origin of the
primacy, were to be received with caution and distrust. It should be pre-
sumed that an authority which existed in the ninth, as well as in the six-
teenth century, and which was opposed by men under the influence of pas-
sion, was still more ancient, nay, coeval with Christianity itself. If, as
we go back to the earliest times, we meet instances of its exercise in every
age, the presumption is strong that it existed then, substantially the same
as when it was afterward assailed byambitious, restless, or licentious men.
In the scarcity of ancient documents, and in the obscurity in which the
persecutions of the early ages necessarily involved the constitution and
internal administration of the Church, it is unreasonable to expect the
same degree of evidence of the exercise of power by her officers, as in
later times, of which fuller records are possessed, and in which her action
was less controlled. "So long as the Church," observes Mr. Allies, “ was
engaged in a fierce and unrelenting conflict with the Paganism and despot-
ism of the empire, she could hardly exhibit to the world her complete
outward organization."* It is reasonable to infer that her government
was in substance the same previously, as in the fifth and fourth ages, unless
there be conclusive evidence to the contrary. Those who deny the primacy
to be an original principle of Church organization, in vain object the in-
sufficiency of the proofs of its operation in the early ages. In order to
meet the abundant evidence of its powerful activity at a subsequent period,
they should show the time in which it was first established, the means used
for its introduction, and explain how it happened that it met with no opposition, or that such opposition was unsuccessful.
Some of the Pontifical acts which I shall have occasion to enumerate, might be referred to mere patriarchal jurisdiction; but the attentive reader ill perceive, that they all presuppose the divine institution of the primacy, and the authority of the Bishop of Rome as derived from St. Peter.
The proofs here furnished cannot then be eluded,merely by saying, that many of them are explicable on the patriarchal theory: for we must examine whether the Pontiffs rested their claims on this ground, or on the divine commission; and whether the bishops submitted to them on principles of ecclesiastical economy, or in obedience to adivine mandate, which they believed to be delivered in the Gospel. To invent a theory, is not sufficient; we must inquire into a fact, whether the powerexercised by the Bishop of Rome throughout the Western patriarchate, as well as in the East, was professedly grounded on the commission given to the apostle, whose chair he occupied. If continual reference be made to this commission in all the documents which have come down from those times, it is in vain to say that the same acts might have been performed in virtue of conventional arrangements, since they actually proceeded from a higher source.
The attempt is vainly made to distinguish the primacy from the supre-
macy, and by the admission of the former to elude the evidences by which
the claims of the Roman Pontiff are supported. Primacy of jurisdiction
implies supremacy, since it is a real governing power, extending over the
whole Church, as appears from the definition of the Council of Florence :
"We define that the holy Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff holds the
primacy throughout the entire world, and that the said Roman Pontiff is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, and is the true
vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and father and teacher
of all Christians; and that to him, in the person of blessed Peter, full
power was given by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule and govern the
Universal Church, as is also contained inthe acts of ecumenical councils
and in the sacred canons ." *
Those who live under republican institutions are naturally prejudiced
against an authority which resembles a monarchy, inasmuch as one man,
as vicegerent of Christ, governs the Universal Church. I will not in-
sist here on the fact that he is an elective ruler, chosen from the body
of cardinals, whose office is not hereditary, but the reward of distin-
guished merit; neither will I dwell on the limitations of pontifical power
arising from the nature of the doctrines and laws of Christ, of which His
earthly representative cannot change an iota; still less will I plead the
practical limitations which may arise from canonical enactments, national
usages, and established precedents. A power in things spiritual which
affects conscience alone, cannot be arbitrary and despotic,being an ema-
nation from the power of Christ, anddependent for its successful exercise on
the voluntary submission of those whom it regards. It is necessary, how-
ever, to approach the examination of this subject with a mind prepared to embrace the authority which Christ has established, without regard to
our political prejudices, or national predilections. We are not allowed to
model His Church according to our views ; we must accept her as she was
framed by Him, who has done all things well, and whose providence,
watches over His institutions, that they may be channels of grace and
blessing to mankind. I shall not attempt to present any qualified view
ofpontifical power calculated to win popular favor, or hesitate to admit the
rather invidious terms by which it is commonly designated. Let the con-
stitution of the Church be styled monarchical; provided it be well under-
stood that Christ is the sovereign, whose mild authority must be reflected
in the government of His earthly representative. Let her aristocratic
character be admitted; but with the just observation, that in her, birth or
wealth gives no title of nobility, since her princes are chosen indiscrimi-
nately from all classes, wherever virtue finds votaries. Even Voltaire
remarks, that " the Roman Church has always enjoyed the advantage of
rewarding merit with honors which are elsewhere given to birth."* It
would be easy to show what elements of democracy are contained within
her: but a divine institution needs not be supported by an appeal to
popular prejudice. To borrow the words of James Bernard Clinch, a
learned member of the Irish bar in the early part of this century :
"Whatever be the authority which exists in the Christian system, that
authority, in its application, must be as different from the execution of
worldly force as it is superior in its origin. To seek for parallels
between the genuine idea of Christian polity, and the several species of
human organization of force, I consider to be extreme absurdity. To
defend the government of the Church as a pure monarchic, or as an aristo-
cratic, or as a republican system, or as resulting from any temperament
of these three forms, must necessarily lead into error ; and so far, must
estrange the mind from the whole of the salutary and everlasting purposes
of the Gospel, which, except in the Catholic Church, are not known, or
cannot be realized. If it were lawful to circumscribe the Christian state
by any general name, it might more aptly be called a federal system, be-
cause its essential compact is unity. There is no monarchy in the Chris-
tian Church but that of Christ; there is no aristocracy; there is no power
of the commons. There are ministries and offices distinct, and there are
subjects amenable to these offices. But the highest magistrate of spiritual
things can only be the next representative of Christ for Christians; and
Christ has declared that He came not to have servitude performed unto
Himself, but to perform it, and to lay down His life as a ransom for multitudes.
y whatsoever appellation we may designate the constitution of the
Church, our attachment to our country and its institutions will not be
affected by it, since there is an immense difference between things human
and divine. As we must not suffer our political predilections to prejudice
us against the form of government which Christ our Lord has established
in his Church, so we need not seek to assimilate eivil to ecclesiastical
polity. It has been well observed by Ranke, that "this religious system
has no inherent or necessary affinity to one form of government more than
to another."* " The Christian religion," says Count de St. Priest, "which
has existed for near two thousand years, is not indissolubly attached to
any political form. Under the shadow of absolute thrones or of limited
monarchies-on the borders of the republican lake of William Tell-in
America, which is still more republican, it flourishes as an imperishable
plant, nourished by the juices of earth, and refreshed by the waters of
heaven. It is not a local, but auniversal religion."† So far back as the
fifth century, ST. AUGUSTIN declared the support which the Church lends
to every lawful authority: " This heavenly society," he says, " does not
hesitate to obey the laws of the temporal powers which regulate the things
appertaining to our mortal life. Whilst sojourning on earth, the
Church gathers her citizens from all nations, and forms her pilgrim host of
men of every tongue. She cares not for the diversity of laws and usages
which are directed to the attainment or maintenance of peace : she annuls
or destroys none of them, but, on the contrary, she adopts and observes
them; since although they differ in various nations, they are all directed
to one and the same end, namely, public order and tranquillity; provided
they do not clash with religion, which teaches us to worship the one su-
preme and true God."‡
The alleged or real abuses of papal power form nojust ground of objec-
tion to its admission, since every divine institution is liable to be abused
by human frailty. The inquirer after truth should not allow his mind to
be pre-occupied with frightful images of excesses committed by popes,
either in their public administration or in their private conduct: he should
first of all examine, whether their authority is from Christ. On calm in-
vestigation, he will find that the grossest exaggerations have been indulged
in by their traducers,whilst the benefits which theybestowed on the Chris-
tianworld have been kept out of view. The contributions, which under
the name of Peter's pence, or on any other score, were made for the sup-
port of the pontifical government, have been designated extortions, with-
out any regard to their justice and necessity; whilst the unbounded charities
of the popes, and their immense expenditures for the general interests of
Christendom, are forgotten. The civil commotions and wars, which some times followed the exercise ofpapal power, are represented as its necessary re-
sults ; whilst the enormity of the evils, which the pontiffs sought to remedy,
is lost sight of, and the criminality of the immediate actors who provoked
this severity is apparently unnoticed. In investigating the fact, whether
Christ has left in His stead a ruler of His Church on earth, we should con-
fine ourselves to scripturaltestimonies, and to the monuments of Christian
antiquity. Let these be consulted, and there can be no doubt that the
result will be entire conviction of the divine institution of the primacy.
The importance of the investigation is deeply felt at this day by the many
estimable individuals, who, with anxious minds, are struggling to disen-
thral themselves from error and schism. Mr. Allies rightly said: The
whole question now "turns upon the papal supremacy, as at present
claimed, being of divine right or not. If it be, then have we nothing else
to do, on peril of our salvation, but submit ourselves to the authority of
Rome."*
CHAPTER II.
Promise of the Primacy.
OUR Divine Redeemer was wont to prepare men for His chief institutions by aprevious declaration of His intentions. Before He made a formal promise to bestow the power of governing His Church, He changed the name of the disciple, who was to exercise it; and He subsequently declared the import of the name, and the authority of the office. When Simon was presented to him by his brother Andrew, He called him CEPHAS,* a Syrochaldaic term, equivalent to the Greek Πετρος, that is, Peter, which signifies Rock. Andrew " brought him to Jesus, and Jesus looking upon him, said : Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas: which is interpreted Peter."†
It does not appear that our Lord at that time declared the reason why He so called him : which, however, He afterwards most emphatically signified. Although Andrew had the happiness of discovering Christ before him, Peter soon enjoyed a marked precedency, so as to be designated THE FIRST by the evangelist St. Matthew, in the enumeration of the apostles. " Now the names of the twelve apostles are these : THE FIRST Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother."‡
Then follow the names of the others, with their commission to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not by mere accident that Peter is here placed first, since he occupies the same place in all the lists given by the sacred writers : which is the more remarkable inasmuch as the order of the names of the other apostles varies, with the exception of Judas, who, on account ofhis perfidy,is always placed last. St. Matthew, moreover, expressly designates him the first : ὁ πρωτος, which plainly marks him as leader and chief.
We cannot suppose that Peter is put first on account of the excellence of his personal qualities, when we remember his weakness in the hour of temptation. Whilst our Lord was on earth, He alone was head of His Church, and Peter, although he was leader, had not authority over his brethren.
At that time his precedency was rather of order, or rank, than of jurisdiction and government; but it was wisely so ordained, that he might be thus prepared for the high office to which he was to be elevated. In this sense the observation of Barrow may be admitted : " Constantly in all the catalogues of the apostles, St. Peter's name is set in the front; and when actions are reported in which he was concerned jointly with others, he is usually mentioned first, which seemeth not done without careful design, or special reason. Upon such grounds it may be reasonable to allow St. Peter a primacy of order."* I cannot, however, agree with him, that this primacy was " such a one as the ringleader hath in a dance !" Neither can Iadmit that primatial authority was not afterwards conferred on him; since this is affirmed, not on the mere ground of this order of names, which, however, furnishes no slight presumptive evidence, but on strong and positive testimonies of Scripture.
In the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, we learn that " Jesus came into the confines of Cesarea Philippi: and He asked His disciples saying : Who do men saythat the Son of Man is ? And they said : Some John the Baptist, and others Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Our Lord's interrogation was not an idle inquiry, proceeding from curiosity to ascertain the current opinions of men, for Jesus "knew all men," and "He needed not that any man should give testimony of man : for He knew what was in man."† He asks, in order to afford an opportunity to Simon to state the various human conjectures, that were prevalent concerning His person, and to declare aloud his own faith.
On the question being put as to the belief of the apostles themselves, concerning him, Peter answered without hesitation : " Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." This explicit declaration of the divinity of Jesus, was followed by a confirmation, on His part, of the name previously given to Simon, and by the exposition of its mysterious meaning, and of the high office with which it was connected : " Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ; and the gates ofhell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shallbe bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."‡
Never was the language of Christ more clear and emphatic. Simon confessed Him to be the Son of God, not in the general sense of this appellation, as given to every just man, for this would have called forth no extraordinary praise, but as the natural and true Son of His Eternal Father, by a communication to Him of the Divine Nature, by an ineffable generation. Jesus declares Simon blessed for this profession of faith in His divinity, since mortal man could not have suggested it, butGodalone. Thus endowed by the Father with divine faith in the incarnate Son of God, Simon becomes a fit instrument in His hands for the
building of His Church, a secure foundation whereon it may rest. His
name is confirmed : " I say to thee, that thou art Peter." As Jacob was called Israel, because in the mysterious conflict he prevailed over the angel
of God; as Abram was called Abraham, because chosen to be the father
of a countless multitude;-so Simon is called Cephas, or Peter, because
made, by divine grace, a ROCK of faith. Nor is the firmness of his faith a
mere personal endowment; he is to become the foundation-stone of the
Church of Christ : " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
Church :" that is : THOU ART A ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL
BUILD MY CHURCH.* The strength of this rock-its immovable firmness
-is declared by the impregnable character of the Church which is to be
built on it : " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Because
Christ builds on a rock, the powers of darkness cannot overcome His
Church. He is thewise man, who chooses a solid foundation for His build-
ing. "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they
beat upon that house,and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock."†
The strength of the building is ascribed to the solidity of the foundation.
Christ in choosing Simon for the foundation of His Church, gives him
strength and firmness, by which the building itself is made secure. Peter
becomes the support of the Church, which, like a strong fortress, is in vain
assailed by adverse powers. Such is the import of the name given by
Christ to Simon; such is the close and necessary relation of Peter to the
Church.
Some who seek to elude the obvious force of the language of our Saviour,
contend that Peter is called a rock for the firmness of his personal faith, and
is spoken of as the foundation of the Church, because he was the first to pro-
fess the divinity of Christ, and because allwho thenceforward acknowledged
the same truth, were added to and built on him as a foundation. This,
however, by no means corresponds with the words of our Redeemer. Peter
is called a rock, not as a professor of the faith, but to reward its profession.
Because he has made this divinely inspired profession, Christ declares that
he is a rock, on which He will build His Church. It is fair to give to a
figurative expression the force which its use by the same writer, or speaker,
authorizes. Our Lord having used the similitude of a house built on a
rock, to illustrate the wisdom of the man who builds his hopes of salvation
on the practice of the divine lessons, as on a solid foundation, we must
regard the rock as the image of the solidity and strength of the founda-
tion, rather than as expressive of a mere commencement. The unfailing
support of the building is the idea which the rock suggests.
This observation equally shows the futility of the attempt to explain
this figure as employed merely to mark the instrumentality of Peter in
admitting Jews and Gentiles to the Church, by proclaiming the resurrection to the assembled multitude on the day of Pentecost, and exhorting
them to receive baptism, and by ordering Cornelius and his family to be
baptized.* The figure obviously represents strength, immobility, and con-
sequent support afforded to the building. Peter, as a rock of strength, is
placed by the Divine Architect in the foundation, in order that the Church
may stand for ever, despite of the storms of persecution and temptation,
and of all the assaults of the infernal powers.
Many, with a triumphant air, affirm that the rock on which Christ pro-
mised to build His Church, is no other than Christ Himself, the rock of
ages : but they plainly violate all rules of just interpretation. Since
Cephas signifies rock, and Christ says to Simon : " Thou art Cephas, and
upon THIS ROCK I will build My Church;" the relative leaves no room
for ambiguity. Besides, there would be a confusion of metaphors and
ideas, if Christ should, in the same breath, speak of Himself as builder
and foundation. Both figures may be applied to Him separately, under
different points of view; but it would be incongruous, not to say absurd,
to apply both at one and the same time. God is frequently called a rock,
on account of his insuperable and everlasting power; Christ is styled the
rock of ages, because He is at all times the strength and refuge of all who
flee to Him. He is the spiritual rock, from which the waters of salvation
issue, and of which the material rock of the desert was a type. Thus St.
Paul, speaking of the Israelites, says, that " they all drank of the spiritual
rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ;"† but it is absurd to
infer hence that the rock spoken of by Christ, when He said, " upon this
rock I will build My Church," is Christ Himself !‡
The attempt to explain " this rock" of Christ is by no means counte-
nanced by the difference of gender of the words in the text : σὺ εἶ Πέτρος,
καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτη τῆ πέτρα. Peter is called Πέτρος, because the Greeks never
apply a feminine noun to a man, except in derision:§ the rock is called
πέτρα, because this term more properly designates a rock, although the other term is equivalent. The relative plainly identifies the subject, and
excludes all distinction, as the language inwhich our Saviour spoke has
the same word in both places.* Bloomfield, an Anglican commentator, ob-
serves that every modern expositor of note has abandoned the distinction
between Peter and rock as untenable.† Bishop Marsh, quoted by him,
says, that " it would be a desperate undertaking to prove that Christ meant
any other person than Peter." John George Rosenmuller, a German inter-
preter, coincides in this critical judgment: " The rock," says he, " is neither
the confession of Peter, nor Christ, pointing out Himself by His finger, or
by a shake of the head,(which interpretations the context does not admit,)
but Peter himself. The Lord, speaking in Syriac, used no diversity of
name, but in both places said Cephas, as the French word pierre is said
both of a proper and appellative noun. He pointed out Peter, therefore,
either by his finger, or nod; for that gesture suited His purpose, to ex-
plain the reason of giving him this name. So it is said of Abraham :
Thy name shall be Abraham, because I have made thee father of many
nations;' of Jacob : ' Israel shall be thy name, for thou actest as a prince
with angels and men.' So Christ says : 'Thou art called by Me Peter,
because thou wilt be as a rock.' And He promises that He will build
His Church on Peter. Allusion is made to the custom prevailing in
Palestine, of building houses that are exposed to floods and whirlwinds,
on a rocky soil, that they may be able to resist the violence of waters and
winds. Matt. vii. 24, 25. Therefore whosoever thinks of building a
durable house, should above all look around for a rock, or firm ground :
the rock is the first thing whence the work is to be begun.''§
In " Gerard's Institutes ofBiblical Criticism" is contained the following just observation-Canon 511 : " The most obvious and natural sense is to
be set aside only when it is absolutely contradictory to something plainly
taught in Scripture." He then remarks, that " the opposite way has been
takenby all sects;" and quoting the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of St.
Matthew, observes : " Building on Peter is explained, by some, as con-
trary to the faith that Christ is the only foundation, (1 Cor. iii. 2,) and as
favoring the succession of Peter and his successors; but the connection
shows that PETER IS HERE PLAINLY MEANT." This avowal
loses nothing of its importance from the attempt to confine it to Peter to
the exclusion of his successors, in conformity with the prejudices and in-
terests of Protestantism .
Mr. Thompson, of Glasgow, in his Monatessaron, on this text, gives
three interpretations. He thinks the two first unfounded, and thus quotes
the third: " The third opinion is, that both the words πετρος and πετρα are
here used as appellations of the apostle; and, consequently, Peter was the
rock on which Christ said His Church should be built. To this the con-
nection and scope of the passage agree. There seems to be something
forced in every other construction, and an inaptitude in the language and
figure of the text in every attempt to construct the words otherwise. Pro-
testants have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have, therefore, used all the
HARDIHOOD of LAWLESS CRITICISM in their attempts to reason
away the Catholic interpretation."* This perversion of Scripture, to suit
party purposes, is deeply to be deplored. Those who have made the hu-
miliating acknowledgments which I have placed under the eyes of the
reader, have not failed to torture the text after their own fashion, to
eschew the consequences of their involuntary concessions.
The apostle, addressing the Corinthians whom he had brought to the
knowledge of Christian faith says : "You are God's building. According
to the grace of God that is given me, as a wise architect, I have laid the
foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed
how he buildeth thereupon. For no man can lay another foundation, but
that which is laid-which is Christ Jesus."† These words are often al-
leged to show that Christ Himself is the fundamental rock on which the
Church is built: but the meaning of the apostle manifestly is, that Christ
-His doctrine and law-His atonement and grace-are the only founda-
tion onwhich our hopes for salvation can rest; nor is there salvation in
any other; for " there is no other name under heaven given to men where-
by we must be saved. " This does not exclude the relation of Peter to
the Church as established by Christ Himself, since he is the rock placed
by the hands of the Divine Architect, from Whom his strength is wholly
derived. It would indeed be impious to call Peter the foundation, inde-
pendently of Christ; his office being merely ministerial and instrumental.
The faithful are said to be "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himselfbeing the chief corner-stone."* Thus
it is clear, that the apostles and prophets may be represented under
the image of the foundation, without any disparagement to the authority
of Christ, since the preaching of the apostles and the predictions of the
prophets lead men to Him. They are ministers, agents, heralds of the
Great King. So may the term be applied to Peter in a special sense, as
being His chief minister and representative, without detracting from His
sovereignty. Bloomfield avows that the expression as applied to Peter is
easily reconcilable with the application of it to Christ, "since the two ex-
pressions are employed in two very different senses."† ST. LEO THE
GREAT, who filled the chair of St. Peter in the middle of the fifth century,
beautifully exhibits the harmony of the sacred texts, whilst he paraphrases
the address of Christ to Peter : "As my Father has manifested Mydivinity
to thee, I make known to thee thy excellency: for thou art PETER, that
is, as I am the inviolable rock, the corner-stone, who make both one, the
foundation other than which no one can lay-nevertheless, thou also art a
ROCK, because thou art strengthened by My power, so that those things
which belong to Me by nature, are common to thee with Me by participa-
tion."
The figure of the keys of the kingdom, which our Lord adds, confirms
and develops the idea of power and authority contained in the preceding
metaphor: " I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
The keys are the known symbol of authority. Of Eliacim, who was to be
substituted to Sobna in the high-priesthood, it is said: "I will lay the
key of the house of David upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and
none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."§ The key was
hung on the shoulder, in token of power, on which account it is said of
Christ, "the government is upon his shoulder."|| Potter, Protestant
archbishop of Canterbury, says : " Our Lord received from God the keys
ofheaven; and by virtue of this grant, had power to remit sins on earth :
the same keys, with the power which accompanied them, were first pro-
mised to Peter, as the foreman of the apostolic college." Since our Lord
communicated to Peter the keys which He Himself received from the Fa-
ther, supreme power was clearly delegated by Him, as may be gathered
from the same writer. "Our blessed Lord, as the king of this household,
who has the supreme power to admit and exclude whomsoever He pleaseth, is said to have the keys of David. The supreme power of the keys, that
is, the authority of admitting and excluding, belongs to Christ, the King ;
but the same is exercised by His apostles and their successors, whom He
has appointed to govern the Church, as His stewards, or vicegerents."*
The force of the symbol is here admitted, although an attempt is vainly
made to render common to all the apostles the power which was distinctly
given to Peter alone : " I will give TO THEE the keys of the kingdom of
heaven." In the New Testament the kingdom ofheaven generally denotes
the Church of Christ, which is heavenly in its origin, principles and tend-
ency. To give the keys of this kingdom is to communicate supreme
power-to make Peter His special vicegerent. To loose and to bind is the
exercise of that power, but the keys signify a pre-eminent power of bind-
ing and loosing. The remission of sins or their retention may be effected
in virtue of it, whilst other acts likewise are included in this broad com-
mission. To resolve the difficulties of the law, and decide religious con-
troversies, to enact laws binding the members of the Church, and to dis-
pense from their observance, to inflict censures on the refractory, and release
the penitent from their bonds, may all be signified by these terms. A
similar power of binding and loosing was afterwards promised to all the
apostles ; but, not without special design, it was promised to Peter first,
and alone, that his high authority might be manifested.
These sublime promises are not weakened by the rebuke given on the
same occasion, to Peter, for opposing the divine counsels. Our Lord
charged His disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ; and in order to
check their exultation, He disclosed to them His approaching death : but
Peter could not bear the thought of the sufferings of his Divine Master :
" Lord, (he said,) be it far from Thee : this shall not be unto Thee. But
He, turning, said to Peter : Go after me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto
me : because thou dost not relish the things that are of God, but the
things that are of men." † By this severe reproof, our Lord would teach
us, that the humiliating mystery of His sufferings must be adored with the
same faith wherewith His glory is believed. Simon was blessed in the
divinely inspired faith by which he acknowledged Christ to be the Son of
God; but he became a Satan, that is, according to the literal force of the
term, an adversary, when he opposed the divine counsel for the redemp-
tion of mankind, by the sufferings and death of his Lord. The promise
made to him was not recalled, although his earthly views were corrected
and reproved. The enemies of the primacy have, however, availed them-
selves of the popular acceptation of the term Satan, to obscure the eulogy
previously pronounced, and the promise made to Peter. Severe as the re-
proof undoubtedly is, it does not suppose any sin on the part of the apostle,
but ahumanerror of judgment, proceeding from the ardor of his affection,
and his lively faith in the divinity of Christ.
In the solemn circumstance of the approaching passion of Christ, the
apostles did not cease to indulge the petty rivalry and jealousy, which,
during their attendance on Him, they had often manifested. He had had
occasion more than once to rebuke them for their disputes about supe-
riority, and yet they were still contending which ofthem was the greatest.
The many marks of His special favor to Peter, the position of leader which
this apostle uniformly occupied, and the promise made to him especially,
seemed to leave no room for doubting; but the tender love shown to John,
and the kindness and affection exhibited to all, led them to question,
whether the actual headship of Peter, or the promised office, rendered him
absolutely greater than his brethren. Christ had, on a former occasion,
brought forward a child to insinuate humility, and stimulate the apostles
to its exercise, by the hope of heavenly exaltation;* in this instance He
contrasts the spirit which should animate them, with the domineering
pride of earthly princes, and offers Himself as the model which they should
copy. " The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that have
power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so : but he who is the
greatest among you, let him be as the least: and he that is the leader, as
he that serveth ? For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he
that serveth ? Is not he that sitteth at table ? but I am in the midst of
you as he that serveth."† He will not have them act in the lordly spirit
of the rulers of this world, or content themselves with flattering titles.
Plainly recognising the difference of rank among them, He wishes the
greatest to sustain his dignity by the humility of his deportment, even as
He had condescended to act as their servant. He then proceeds to intimate
the high dignity of all, but marks in express terms the special duty and
prerogative of Peter : " You are they who have continued with Me in My
temptations : And I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a
kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table, and may sit upon
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Thus, in return for their
fidelity and attachment He bestows on them a kingdom, even as His Fa-
that had made Him King. His kingdom is not, indeed, ofthis world, but
of an order far more sublime, according to which the apostles are made
priests and kings to their God, partaking of the mysterious banquet, and
sitting on thrones of judgment. These honors are common to all: to
Peter peculiar privileges are promised. Satan sought to overthrow their
thrones and altars, to sift them, even as the wheat is winnowed, and to cast
them away as chaff to the wind. In the impenetrable but just counsels
of the Deity, he is suffered to accomplish his wishes in some degree : but
Christ interposes with His Father to rescue the throne of Peter, and
through him to secure all from ruin. " And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat :
but I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEET THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT : AND THOU,
BEING ONCE CONVERTED, CONFIRM THY BRETHREN." § He had just
spoken of the kingdom and thrones of the apostles : He now discloses the
dark designs of hell against them : and addressing Peter especially, em-
phatically assures him, that He had prayed for him in particular, that his
faith might not fail. Against him the powers of hell shall not prevail,
since they cannot prevail against the Church founded on him. The prayer
of Christ is specially offered up for him, as the head of his brethren, whom
He charges him to confirm in that faith which cannot fail.
The subsequent fall of Peter is often objected as a proof that he was
not the head of the Church; which is true of that time, since although
the promise of Christ had been made, and His prayer offered up, the office
of chief pastor had not yet been instituted. It was only after His resur-
rection that our Lord, being about to withdraw His visible presence, gave
to Peter the charge of His lambs and sheep. The weakness of one chosen
for so high an office must teach us, not to regard in the ministers of Christ,
especially in His Vicar, their individual qualities, but the divine authority
which they exercise, that our trust may be not inman, but in God. Divine
mercy pardoned Peter the base denial of his Master: divine goodness raised
him to thehighest dignity: divine power was employed to endow him, a frail
and sinful man, with an immovable firmness in faith, that, like a rock, he
might support the everlasting fabric of the Church.
CHAPTER III .
The Fathers' Exposition of the Promise.
THE ancient writers of the Church, who are styled FATHERS, are de-
servedly regarded with 'veneration for their piety, learning, and zeal.
From an early period of the revolutionary career of Luther, he professed
an utter disregard for their opinions; in which he was followed by almost
all the sectaries of the sixteenth and succeeding centuries: but " the
Church of England" as the English Establishment is styled, professed a
high veneration for them, notwithstanding the efforts of Middleton and
others to lessen their authority. At the present day they are looked up to
with increased reverence, especially by those who participate in the senti-
ments of Dr. Pusey, whilst they are necessarily depreciated by such Protest-
ants as wish to retain an appearance of consistency. In the Catholic
Church, the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, in favor of a doctrine, is
conclusive evidence of divine tradition; and their concordant exposition
of a text of Scripture is a certain guide to its true meaning: but their in-
dividual opinions, however worthy of respectful consideration, impose no
restraint on our judgment, unless the Church by adopting them add the
seal of her authority. In interpreting the Scripture they frequently turned
aside from the literal meaning, especially where this was obvious, and had
recourse to moral applications, or allegorical expositions, exercising con.
siderable ingenuity in applying the divine words to matters of daily prac-
tice, or endeavoring to discover, under the surface of the letter, some re-
ference or allusion to the great mysteries which are elsewhere explicitly
propounded. This however, should give greater weight to their testimony,
when they professedly declare the literal meaning of the sacred text, es-
pecially in matters which were exemplified in the government and public
usage of the Church. Consequently, their interpretation of the promise
recorded in Matthew, cannot fail to arrest the earnest attention of the
reader.
TERTULLIAN, a priest of the Church of Carthage, at the close of the
second century, is classed among the Fathers, although by his fall into the
errors of Montanus in the latter part of his career, he forfeited the glory
which he had acquired by his celebrated plea with the heathen magistrates
for the Christians, and by his immortal work on " Prescriptions against
Heretics." Whilst refuting the absurd pretension of the Gnostics, who
were not ashamed to boast of knowledge superior to that of the apostles, he indignantly asks : " WAS ANY THING CONCEALED FROM PETER, WHO
WAS STYLED THE ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH WAS TO BE BUILT, WHO
RECEIVED THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, AND THE POWER OF
LOOSING AND BINDING IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH ? " * He justly
judged that Peter,being constituted by Christ the fundamental rock and
the ruler of the Church, must have been endowed with the most compre-
hensive knowledge of divine things. His exposition is the more forcible,
as it is not urged with any effort; but given as the obvious meaning,
which even his adversaries could not question.
After his fall, the African doctor continued to acknowledge Peter to be
the rock on which the Church was built; but as the Montanists denied
that the Church could pardon the more enormous sins, he endeavored to
explain the power of binding and loosing, as signifying adisciplinary ex-
ercise of authority in external government, or of a judicial decision,† or
in some other way, so as to elude the proof drawn from it, of the author-
ity to impart forgiveness to the most heinous sinners, on due manifestation
of repentance. Feeling the insecurity of his position on these points, he
boldly maintained that the power-whatever it might be was promised
to Peter personally-and that it did not embrace his successors, or the
Church founded by him, much less the Universal Church. It is not ne-
cessary to expose the false and frivolous character of these various exposi-
tions, which were devised for the support of the severe principles of his
sect, especially since they cannot be consistently advocated by those who,
with Pearson and Pusey, admit the continuance in the Church of the
power of forgiveness; or indeed by any who will not blindly adopt fanci-
ful interpretations. The calm judgment of Tertullian, whilst he remained
united with the Church, must not be set aside on account of subsequent
aberrations.
Early in the third century, ORIGEN, a man of sublime genius and vast
erudition, taught with great success in the famous school of Alexandria;
but having givenloose reins to his imagination, he hazarded many con-
jectural expositions of Scripture, which drew on him suspicion and cen-
His allegorical interpretations carry with them no weight; but
whenhe explains the letter of the text, or testifies a fact, he is to be list-
ened to with attention, especially if he be found to harmonize with the
other fathers. Many of his writings have perished; from one of which
Eusebius, who wrote but a century after his time, has preserved a precious
extract. The historian being desirous to prove by the testimony of the
celebrated catechist, the authenticity of the first epistle of St. Peter, re-
cites his words, which imply a commentary on the promise. " PETER,"
he says, " ON WHOM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS BUILT, against which the
gates of hell shall not prevail, left one epistle which is generally admitted." * This incidental interpretation is the more forcible, as it must be
deemed the unstudied expression of the conviction of the writer.
The liberty which Origen elsewhere takes of applying the promise to
every believer in Christ, cannot lessen the force of this exposition, which
is manifestly literal, and used to distinguish Peter from all others; but
his reasoning to prove that each of the faithful is insuperable whilst he
clings to Christ, may be fairly applied to establish the unfailing character
of the authority of Peter : " FOR NEITHER AGAINST THE ROCK ON WHICH
CHRIST BUILT HIS CHURCH, NOR AGAINST THE CHURCH, SHALL THE
GATES OF HELL PREVAIL. "† Heretics in every variety of form assail the
truth of Christ as taught in the Church, and endeavor to overthrow her,
but invain : " Every author of a perverse sentiment is a builder of a gate
of hell; but many and numberless as are the gates of hell, no gate of hell
shall prevail against the rock, or the Church which Christ builds upon the
rock. " Origen, throughout, insists on the immovable nature of the rock,
as well as of the Church, so as inseparably to connect them. His appli-
cation of the text to every just man is evidently by the way of accommo-
dation; since he even denies that it can be applied to each act of episco-
pal authority, unless the bishop be a Peter, namely, firm inthe conscien-
tious exercise of the power with which he is clothed. In its literal accept-
ation, it must be restricted to Peter himself, on whom the Church was
built, and to his successors in office.
ST. CYPRIAN, who filled the see of Carthage in the middle of the third
century, is justly classed among the most illustrious of the fathers. In
his letter to those who had fallen in persecution, he rebukes some of them
who had presumed to address him, as if they were the Church, and em-
ploys for this purpose, the words of the promise, in order to show that
without the bishop there can be no Church. " Our Lord," he says,
"whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, establishing the
honor of the bishop, and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel,
and says to Peter : ' I say to thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I
will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;
and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatso-
ever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven ; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven.'
Thence, through the series of times and successions, the order of bishops
and the system of the Church flow on; so that the Church is established
upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is governed by the same
prelates. Since, then, this is the case, I am surprised that some, with
audacious temerity, have ventured to write to me in the name of the Church, whilst the Church consists of the bishop, clergy, and of all the
hearers." * Cyprian considers Peter in this circumstance as the repre-
sentative of the Church, through whom she speaks and declares her faith.
Hewas not bishop at the time when our Lord addressed him, but he was
destined to be such, as the nature of the episcopal relation was insinuated
by the figure of the foundation, as well as by the terms of the promise.
In Peter, Bishop of the whole Church, the relation of each bishop to his
flock was exemplified. In this sense the remark of Mr. Allies may be
admitted. " It is evident," he says, " that if the see of Peter, so often
referred to by St. Cyprian, means the local see of Rome, it also means the
see of every bishop who holds that office : whereof Peter is the great
type, example and source." † Cyprian, taking the sacred text in its ob-
vious meaning, pointed to the principle of unity established in Peter, the
representative of the whole episcopate, and so applied it to the local bishop.
It is altogether inconsistent with its manifest import to exclude its direct
application to Peter. Hence he employs this text to show that the pre-
varicators, who were separated by their apostasy from himself, could not
call themselves the Church, which name belongs only to the bishop,
clergy and faithful. This reasoning implies that Peter is as essential to
the Church at large, as each local bishop is to his flock; so that it is ab-
surd to apply the term to an acephalous body, from which he is excluded.
Frequent reference to the same text occurs throughout the writings of
Cyprian. Addressing Cornelius, Bishop of Rome,he adverts to the reply
of Peter, to the question put by our Lord, on occasion of promising to
giveHis flesh to eat : " Will you also leave Me?" and remarks, " PETER,
ON WHOM THE CHURCH HAD BEEN BUILT BY THE LORD, speaking one
for all, and answering in the name of the Church, says, Lord, to whom
shall we go ?" In his letter to Florentius, he says : " Peter, ON WHOM
THE CHURCH WAS TO BE BUILT, speaks there in the name of the Church."§
Everywhere Cyprian speaks of Peter as the rock on which the Church is
built, the representative of episcopal power, the organ of the Church, and
the living personification of the principle of unity. In attempting to
support his error, that the remission of sins could not be effected by bap-
tism administered by heretics, Cyprian observes, that the power of forgiv-
ing sinwas only granted to the prelates of the Church; " for to Peter, in
the first place, ON WHOM THE LORD FOUNDED THE CHURCH, AND WHENCE
HE INSTITUTED AND SHOWED THE ORIGIN OF UNITY, He gave this
power, that whatsoever He had loosed on earth, should be loosed also in
heaven. And after His resurrection, He speaks likewise to the apostles,
saying: 'As the Father hath sent Me, " &c.|| Although he draws a
wrong inference from the premises, in opposition to the decree of the successor of Peter, this, far from weakening, strengthens considerably his
testimony to the power, as promised first to Peter especially, that the
unity of the episcopate and Church might be maintained.
Cautioning the faithful against the false indulgence of schismatical
priests, who hastily proffered communion to apostates, contrary to the en-
actments made by the African bishops, he says : " THERE IS ONE GOD
AND ONE CHRIST, AND ONE CHURCH, AND ONE CHAIR, FOUNDED BY THE
VOICE OF THE LORD UPON PETER. That any other altar be erected, or a
new priesthood established, besides that one altar and one priesthood, is
impossible. Whosoever gathers elsewhere, scatters. Whatever is devised
by human frenzy, in violation of the divine ordinance, is adulterous, im-
pious, sacrilegious."*
The name of ST. JAMES, Bishop of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, is not so
well known among us as that of the great bishop of Carthage; but it is
illustrious in the annals of the Church of Syria, which venerates him as
one of her greatest doctors. He proved the strength of his faith by his
fearless confession in the persecution of Maximin, and he was one of the
fathers who bore testimony to the divinity of Christ in the great Council
of Nice. We have but a small remnant of his works, in which, however,
this passage is found : " Simon, who was called the rock on account of
his faith, was justly styled rock." †
ST. CYRIL, raised to the see of Jerusalem in the year 340, shed a bright
lustre of learning and sanctity around him, which is still reflected in his
most precious writings. His discourses delivered to catechumens, and to
neophytes, contain numerous passages expressive of the meaning of the
texts regarding Peter; which, as we may infer from the incidental charac-
ter of the exposition, were thus generally understood. Speaking of the
confession of the divinity of Christ by Peter, and of the keys bestowed in
recompense of it, he plainly recognises the high privileges and station of
this apostle : " All of them," he says, " remaining silent, for the doctrine
wasbeyond the reach of man, Peter, THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES AND
THE SUPREME HERALD OF THE CHURCH, not following his own inven-
tions, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but enlightened in his mind by
the Father, says to Him : ' Thou art Christ,' not simply this, but the
' Son of the living God. " The high prerogatives of Peter are affirmed
by Cyril in his comparison of the apostles with the prophets. "Be not
ashamed of thy apostles," he says to each Christian; " they are not in-
ferior to Moses, nor second to the prophets, but they are as good as the
good, and better than the good for Elias was taken up into heaven, but
Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, since he heard : ' whatso-
ever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven. " He relates the wonderful overthrow of Simon Magus at Rome by Peter, to
render which credible, he dwells on the extraordinary powers with which
the apostle was clothed : " Let it not appear wonderful," he cries, " how-
ever wonderful it be in itself, for PETER WAS HE WHO CARRIED AROUND
THE KEYS OF HEAVEN." * Again he says elsewhere : " In the same
power of the Holy Ghost, Peter, also THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES, AND
THE KEY-BEARER OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, cured Æneas, a palsied
man, in the name of Christ, at Lydda, now called Diospolis."† Explain-
ing the article of the creed : " I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,"
he says: " She is also styled a Church, or convocation, on account of the
calling and assembling of all in her. The Psalmist says : " I will confess
to Thee in the great Church; I will praise Thee in the numerous people.'
Before they sang in the Psalms : ' In the churches bless ye the Lord God
from the fountains ofIsrael :' but after the Jews fell from grace, in con-
sequence of the snares laid for the Saviour, He instituted another society,
formed of the Gentiles, our holy Christian Church; of which He said to
Peter : ' On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. " These testimonies to the high prerogatives of
Peter, and his relation to the Church, show the ancient faith and tradition
of the see of Jerusalem on these important points, as well as the received
exposition of the sacred text.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT, Archbishop of Cesarea, is another illustrious
witness of the faith of the Eastern churches in the fourth century, as
handed down from the beginning. He calls Peter THE BLESSED ONE,
WHO WAS PREFERRED TO THE OTHER DISCIPLES, who alone received a
testimony above all the others, and who was pronounced blessed, rather
than all the others, and TO WHOM THE KEYS OF THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM
WERE INTRUSTED." He says that " on account of the excellence of his
faith, he received on himself the building of the Church :"|| that is, he
was made the foundation on which the Church rests secure. These pas-
sages clearly show that he acknowledged Peter to be the foundation of the
Church, and its ruler, intrusted by Christ with governing authority.
Similar is the language ofhis brother, ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, who says :
"The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles, is revered, and
together with him the other members of the Church are glorified ; but
the Church of God is solidly established on him; for according to the
prerogative granted him by God, he is the firm and most solid rock, on
which the Saviour built His Church. " L
ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM, the friend of Basil, says : " Do you see
that among the disciples of Christ, all of whom were sublime and worthy
of their election, ONE IS CALLED A ROCK, AND IS INTRUSTED WITH THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH ; another is loved more, and rests on the
breast of Jesus ; and the others,bear patiently the preference ?"* He
calls him " the support of the Church,"† " the most honored of the dis-
ciples."‡
ST. CHRYSOSTOM, who is celebrated for his literal exposition of the
Sacred Scriptures, abounds in passages declaratory of the prerogatives of
Peter. In reference to the question put by our Saviour to the apostles,
whom believed they Him to be, he asks, " How does Peter act, THE MOUTH
OF ALL THE APOSTLES, THE SUMMIT OF THE WHOLE COLLEGE ? All were
interrogated; he alone answers. What then does Christ say : ' Thou art
Simon, the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas; for since thou hast
proclaimed My Father, I also mention him who begot thee.' But since
he had said, ' Thou art the Son of God,' in order to show that He was the
Son of God as he was son of Jona, namely, of the same substance with
His Father, He added, and I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build My Church;' that is, upon the faith which thou
hast confessed." § The Church is said to be built on the faith which Peter
professed in the divinity of Christ, because this mystery is the foundation
of the whole Christian system. As Chrysostom, in the exposition of this
text, had specially in view the Arians, whose heresy was so widely spread,
he insists particularly on this truth as fundamental and essential. He
does not, however, regard this faith as a mere abstraction; but he con-
siders it as professed by Peter, on whom, he repeatedly affirms, that the
Church is built; so that when he says, that the Church is built on the
faith which Peter confessed, he plainly means, on Peter confessing this
faith. Accordingly, he proceeds to explain the prediction of our Lord as
pointing to a numberless multitude of believers, who, under the pastoral
government of Peter, profess the same mystery. " Here He manifestly
foretold that the multitude of believers would be great, and He elevates
the thoughts of Peter, and MAKES HIM THE PASTOR. 'And the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.' If they shall not prevail against it,-
much less shall they prevail against Me..... Then He adds another
prerogative : ' And to thee Iwill give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'
What means,-' I will give to THEE ?" As the Father has given to thee
the knowledge of Me, so I will give to thee. AndHe did not say : Iwill
ask the Father to give thee : but, though the power was great, and the
greatness of the gift ineffable, nevertheless, He says, ' I will give thee.'
What, I pray, dost Thou give ? ' The keys,' He says, 'of the kingdom
ofheaven, that whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also
in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed
also in heaven.' How then is it not belonging to Him who says-' I will
give to thee,' to grant also to sit on the right hand, and on the left ? You perceive how He leads Peter to a sublime idea of Himself, and re-
veals, and shows Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises.
For what God alone can grant, namely, the power to remit sins, and that
the Church should remain immovable amidst the swelling surges, and that
a fisherman should be stronger than any rock, whilst the whole worldwars
against him, He promises that He will grant. Thus the Father also said
to Jeremiah : ' I have made thee a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass.'
But the Father set him over one nation : HE PLACED THIS MAN OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD.* Wherefore, I would willingly ask those who say that the dignity of the Son is less than that of the Father, which gifts appear to them greater, those which the Father, or those which the Son granted to Peter ? The Father made to him the revelation of His Son; but the Son spread everywhere throughout the world the revelation both of the Father and of the Son; and to a mortal man gave the power of all things in heaven, giving him the keys. He spread the Church throughout the entire world, and showed that it is stronger than the firmament : ' for heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.' How is He inferior, who granted all these things-who accomplished these things ? I do not speak thus, as if I would separate the works of the Father from those of the Son : ' for all things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing : but I speak with a view to silence the shameless tongues of those who utter such things. See in all these things, how great is His power. ' I say to thee, thou art Peter; I will build My Church; I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.''"† Thus Chrysostom proved that Christ is truly God, equal to the Father, because He gave to Peter powers which God alone could grant, and rendered the Church of which he is pastor, impregnable and indefectible.
In answer to an objection against the divinity of Christ, taken from His having prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, Chrysostom observes, that as His passion was approaching, it was fit that He should manifest His human nature by the humility of prayer; but he points to the promise of the keys as made without any previous prayer, which shows that He had all things at His disposal. "As He is going to suffer, He speaks humbly, to show that He was man, for He, who built the Church on the confession of Peter, and so strengthened her that no danger, nor death itself, can vanquish her,-He who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and intrusted him with so great power, without at all needing to pray for this purpose, how much less should He need it in this circumstance ? For He did not say, I have prayed, but He spoke with authority: I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH ON THEE, AND GIVE TO THEE THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. "‡
In his panegyric on the martyr Ignatius, who was Bishop of Antioch, where Peter had resided for a time, Chrysostom dwells on the great honor thus bestowed by God on that city: " for He set over it PETER, THE DOCTOR OF THE WHOLE WORLD, TO WHOM HE GAVE THE KEYS OF HEAVEN, TO WHOSE WILL AND POWER HE INTRUSTED ALL THINGS." *
Panegyrizing both the apostles Peter and Paul, he thus carefully distinguishes the high prerogatives of Peter :-" Peter the leader of the apostles, Peter the commencement of the orthodox faith,-the great and illustrious priest of the Church,-the necessary counsellor of Christians, the depositary of supernal powers,-the apostle honored by the Lord. What shall we say of Peter ? the delightful spectacle of the Church; the splendor of the entire world, the most chaste dove, the teacher of the apostles, the ardent apostle, fervent in spirit, angel and man, full of grace, the firm rock of faith, the mature wisdom of the Church, who, on account of his purity, from the mouth of the Lord heard himself styled blessed, and son of the dove : who received from the Lord Himself the keys of the kingdom of heaven. REJOICE, O PETER, ROCK OF FAITH !"† This is, indeed, the language of panegyric: but it would have been utterly unwarrantable, if Peter were not in fact the necessary counsellor of Christians, the teacher of the apostles, the rock of faith. It is not only when expressly engaged in panegyric, that Chrysostom thus speaks of Peter. They are his favorite expressions, which everywhere occur in his writings : " Peter," says he, "is the foundation of the Church,-the fisherman who cast his net into the sea, and caught in it the whole world. He left his ship, and undertook the government of the Church; he was called the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven.§ He was the chief who occupied the first place, and to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were intrusted."|| He was "the pillar of the Church, the foundation of faith, the head of the apostolic choir." " TO HIM THE LORD GAVE THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH. " **
ST. EPIPHANIUS, bishop of Salamina, in the island of Cyprus, a contemporary of Chrysostom, calls Peter " the first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built."††
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA observes of our Lord : " He was pleased to call him Peter, by an apt similitude, as the one on whom He was about to found the Church." *
ST. HILARY filled the see of Poictiers in Gaul, in the middle of the fourth century. In his treatise On the Trinity, he thus distinguishes the teachers, from whom he derived the knowledge of this mystery : "Matthew, from a publican chosen to be an apostle ; John, through the familiarity of the Lord, made worthy of a revelation ofheavenly mysteries, and after his confession of the mystery, BLESSED SIMON, LYING BENEATH THE FABRIC OF THE CHURCH,† AND RECEIVING THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and all the others preaching by the Holy Spirit." Although wholly intent on establishing the divinity of Christ, Hilary strongly declares the distinguishing attributes of Peter, who supports the Church, as a foundation-stone sustains the building, and who has received the keys of the kingdom, as the symbol of spiritual sovereignty. He elsewhere addresses all the apostles as having received the keys, because all received the power of binding and loosing; but when distinguishing Peter from Matthew, John, and Paul, he puts the keys as his peculiar characteristic.
Allmay be said to have received them, as far as they are symbols of apostolic power, but to Peter only they were given expressly by Christ, as the proper token of delegated sovereignty.
When speaking of the confession made by Peter, Hilary shows that it was extolled by our Saviour, as divinely revealed, because it was an acknowledgment that He is the true and eternal Son of God the Father:
" For praise," says he, " was given to Peter, not on account of the confession of the honor,but on account of his acknowledgment of the mystery, becausehe confessed not merely Christ, but Christ the Son of God. The Father saying, ' This is My Son,' revealed to Peter, that he might say, Thou art the Son of God.' On this rock of confession, || therefore, the Church is built. This faith is the foundation of the Church : through this faith the gates of hell are powerless against her. This faith has the keys of the heavenly kingdom. What this faith binds or looses on earth, is bound and loosed in heaven. This faith is the gift of the Father's revelation; not falsely to assert that Christ is a creature, drawn forth from nothing, but to confess Him to be the Son of God, according to His natural property. Oh ! impious frenzy of wretched folly, that does not understand the martyr of blessed old age and faith, the martyr Peter, for whom He prayed to the Father, that his faith might not fail in temptation-who, having twice repeated the profession of the love which God demanded of him, sighed, on being a third time interrogated, as if his love were doubtful and uncertain; thereby also meriting to hear thrice from the Lord, after being purified of his weaknesses by this threefold trial : ' Feed My sheep :'-who, whilst all the other apostles remained silent, understanding, in a manner beyond human infirmity, from the revelation of the Father, that He was the Son of God, merited pre-eminent glory by the confession of his faith ! To what necessity of interpreting his words are we now brought ! He confessed Christ to be the Son of God : but you, (Arian,) the lying priesthood of a new apostleship, urge me to believe that Christ is a creature brought forth from nothing. What violence you offer to His glorious words ! He confessed the Son of God: for this he is blessed.
This is the revelation of the Father, this is the foundation of the Church, this is the security for eternity. Hence he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven-hence his judgments on earth are ratified in heaven. He learned by revelation the mysteryhidden from ages-he spoke the faith -he declared the nature-he confessed the Son ofGod. Whoever, on the contrary, affirming Him to be a creature, denies this, should first deny the apostleship of Peter, his faith, blessedness, priesthood, martyrdom; and then let him understand that he is estranged from Christ,because Peter, confessing Him to be the Son, merited these things. Let there be a different faith, if there be different keys of heaven. Let there be a different faith, if there is to be another Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Let there be another faith, if there is to be another apostleship, binding and loosing in heaven what it binds and looses on earth. Let there be another faith, if Christ shall be proclaimed to be a different Son of God from what He is. But if this faith only that confessed Christ to be the Son of God, merited in Peter the glory of all beatitudes, that which declares Him to be a creature from nothing, must necessarily be not the Church, nor of Christ, since it has not obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and is contrary to the apostolic faith and power."*
..
From these quotations the reader has a full and correct view of the sentiments of Hilary. His object is to show that the Arian heresy had no part or share in the power of the keys, or the privileges granted to Peter, because it had not the faith which obtained for Peter these privileges.
There is not the least effort to establish a distinction between Peter and the confession of faith which he made : but the Arians are confounded, by being told, that, as they deny Christ to be the Son of the living God, theyhave not the power of the keys, and are not inheritors of the promises made to the Church. Peter, then, confessing the divinity of Christ, is the foundation : his is the apostleship, the acts of which are confirmed in heaven: the Church connected with him is that against which the gates of hell cannot prevail : there can be no other faith, no other power, no other Church. In the circumstances in which St. Hilary and other fathers spoke, during the prevalence ofArianism, and at a time when no controversy was agitated concerning the prerogatives of Peter and his successors, it was natural for them to employ the text against the formidable heresy which they were engaged in refuting. As Peter had made a glorious confession of the divinity of Christ, and had received his name and privileges in reward of it, they rightly insisted that on this confession the whole fabric of Christianity rests; so that to deny the eternal generation of Christ is to overthrow all revealed religion, and make void all the counsels of God for the salvation of men. The reasoning of Hilary perfectly harmonizes with the obvious exposition of the text, since the confession was the act of Peter under divine illumination; and to say that the Church was founded on the confession of the divinity of Christ made by Peter, is equivalent to declaring that it was founded on Peter, in consequence of his having confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God.
In applying the text to the controversy of the day, the fathers did not, evenby the remotest implication, deny its direct force for establishing the prerogatives of Peter; which, on the contrary, on so many occasions, they most unequivocally asserted.
Inhis commentary on the glorious confession of Peter, Hilary observes:
"The confession of Peter obtained a suitable reward,because he discerned the Son of God in the man.* Blessed is he, who was praised for observing and seeing beyond what human eyes could see; not beholding what was of flesh and blood, but discerning the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and who was judged worthy to be the first to recognise in Christ His divine nature. O ! THOU FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, HAPPY IN THE NEW APPELLATION WHICH THOU RECEIVEST ! O ! ROCK, WORTHY OF THAT BUILDING WHICH IS TO DESTROY THE INFERNAL POWERS, AND THE GATES OF HELL, AND ALL THE BARS OF DEATH ! O ! HAPPY GATE-KEEPER OF HEAVEN, TO WHOSE DISCRETION THE KEYS OF THE ETERNAL PORCH ARE DELIVERED, AND WHOSE JUDGMENT ON EARTH IS AN AUTHORITATIVE ANTICIPATION OF HEAVENLY JUDGMENT, so that those things which are bound or loosed on earth, obtaininheaven the same order and determination."† Any effort to illustrate this passage would be superfluous .
After this illustrious doctor of the Church of Gaul, the order of time presents to us OPTATUS, bishop of Milevis, in Africa, who was among the most learned, eloquent and saintlyprelates in the decline of the fourth century. Of him St. Augustin says, that if the Church depended on the virtue of her ministers, his life might serve as a proof of her authority.
He wrote against the Donatists,whom he held to be inexcusable for assuming the name of Church, while they remained separated from that see, which, in the person of Peter, received the keys : " Christ," he remarks, " in the Canticle of Canticles, intimates that His dove is one, that she is a chosen spouse, an enclosed garden, and a sealed fountain; so that all heretics neither have THE KEYS, WHICH PETER ALONE RECEIVED, nor the ring with which the fountain is sealed : and the garden, in which God plants the shrubs, belongs to none of them. What can you say to these things, you who secretly cherish and shamelessly defend schism, taking to yourselves the name of the Church ?"* To how many deluded men in our day might not this reproach be addressed !
Let us hear the eloquent bishop of Milan, whose lucid exposition of Catholic truth dissipated the prejudices and errors ofAugustin, and prepared his heart for the triumph of divine grace over pride and passion.
In his commentary on the fortieth Psalm, AMBROSE says : "This is that Peter to whom Christ said : ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.' THEREFORE WHERE PETER IS, THERE IS THE CHURCH, there death is not, but life eternal : and therefore He added: 'and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' Blessed Peter, against whom the gate of hell did not prevail, and the gate of heaven was not closed ! on the contrary, he destroyed the porches of hell, and laid open those of heaven : therefore, while on earth, he opened heaven, and closed hell."†
Speaking of the question put by our Redeemer to His disciples as to the opinions prevailing among men concerning Him, he observes the silence of Peter in this circumstance; but calls our attention to his promptitude in answering the interrogation as to their own belief. " This, therefore, is Peter, who answered rather than the other apostles, yea, for the others, and he is therefore styled the foundation, because he not only fulfilled his duty individually, but acted in behalf of all. Him Christ eulogized: to him the Father made a revelation : for he, who speaks of the true generation of the Father, learned it not from flesh, butfrom the Father. Faith, therefore, is the foundation of the Church : for it was not said of the flesh of Peter, but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: but the confession overcame hell. And this confession does not exclude one heresy only: for since the Church, like a good ship, is lashed oftentimes by many waves, the foundation of the Church ought to prevail against all heresies. The daywouldclosebefore Ishould have enumerated the names of the heretics and different sects : but against all of them that faith is available, that Christ is the Son of God, eternally proceeding from the Father, born in time of the Virgin."§ WhenAmbrose says, that faith is the foundation of the Church, he evidently speaks of faith in the divinity of Christ as professed by Peter, that is, of Peter professing the faith. He is, therefore, styled the foundation, in reward of his promptitude to confess Christ, before the others, and in their name. The confession which he made was, indeed, the expression of his individual faith, but it was made by him in reply to a question that regarded all ; nor did he give it in as peculiar to himself. St. Ambrose insists that the Church was not built on the flesh of Peter, but on his faith; because it was no mere natural quality, but his faith in the divinity of Christ, that gained for him this prerogative; and this faith is ever to prove the bulwark of the Church against the endless varieties of heresy. He insists on this for the same reason as Hilary and Chrysostom, in order the more effectually to combatArianism. In his work on faith, he observes : " That you may know that what He asks as man, He ordains by His divine power, you have in the Gospel what He said to Peter : ' I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail.' And when Peter said before: 'Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,' He answered : ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' Could He not, therefore, strengthen the faith of him to whom, of His own authority, He gave a kingdom, and WHOM, IN CALLING A ROCK, HE MADE THE STRENGTH OF THE CHURCH ? Consider when it is that He prays-when it is that He commands. He prays when He is about to suffer; He commands when He is believed to be the Son of God."* Peter, then, is the rock of strength on which the Church rests: he has received a kingdom from Christ. St. Augustin testifies that in a hymn composed by St. Ambrose, which was in general use, Peter was styled the rock of the Church .†
It is manifest that St. Ambrose interpreted the texts in question precisely as we interpret them, and recognised in Peter special powers and prerogatives not granted to the other apostles of Christ. He was the rock, the foundation,-the strength and support of the Church, sustaining all the parts of the vast fabric, holding them together in unity, and imparting to them strength and durability. He received a kingdom from Christ, that heavenly kingdom whose keys were intrusted to him.
Elsewhere Ambrose says : " Christ is a rock : ' for they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.' He did not deny the favor of this appellation even to His disciple, that he may also be Peter, because from the rock he derives the solidity of constancy, and the firmness of faith." Thus far he retains the literal meaning of the text, and often and strongly inculcates it. He then takes occasion from it for exhortation, and passes to a mystical interpretation, similar to one found in Origen. " Peter," he elsewhere says, " is therefore styled a rock for his devotion, and the Lord is styled a rock for His power, as the apostle says : ' they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' He justly deserves the communication of the name, who is made worthy to partake of the work, for Peter in the same house laid the foundation. Peter plants, the Lord gives an increase, the Lord waters."*
The last verse of the thirty-eighth Psalm reads thus, in our Vulgate translation: "Oh forgive me, that I may be refreshed, before I go hence and be no more."† On these words St. Ambrose writes : " Forgive me, that is, forgive me here where I have sinned. Unless Thou forgivest me here, I shall not be able to find there the repose consequent on forgiveness : for what remains bound on earth, shall remain bound in heaven; what is loosed on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Therefore, the Lord gave to His apostles what previously was reserved to His own judgment, a discretionary power to remit sins, lest what should be speedily loosed remain bound for a long time. Finally, hear what He says : ' I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' To thee, He says, I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest loose and bind.
Novatian did not hear this, but the Church of God heard it : therefore, he is in his fallen state ; we are in the way of forgiveness : he is in a state ofimpenitence; we, of grace. What is said to Peter, is said to the apostles. We do not usurp the power, but we obey the command, lest, when the Lord shall afterward come, and find those bound who should have been loosed, he be indignant against the dispenser who kept the servants bound, whom the Lord had ordered to be loosed."§ In this beautiful vindication of the power of forgiveness, as exercised by the Catholic Church, there is nothing that militates against the distinction which Christ made in the powers of the apostles. Ambrose quotes the words addressed to Peter, to prove that the Church founded on Peter has the power of forgiving sins : and observes that this power was not confined to Peter, Christ having spoken in like manner to all the apostles. He does not say that He spoke precisely the same words, or gave to each one the same power to be exercised independently; much less does He treat here of the governing power of the Church, as represented by the keys of the heavenly kingdom, which were peculiarly given to Peter, but he speaks of the power of forgiveness, which was common to all. The power of the keys, he elsewhere ascribes to Peter alone : " There went up," he says," to the mountain, Peter, wHO RECEIVED THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN; John, to whom His mother is intrusted; James, also, who first ascended the episcopal throne."* The keys of the heavenly kingdom were consequently the characteristic badge of Peter, as it was the peculiar privilege of John to receive in his charge the Mother of our Lord, and the province ofJames to govern with episcopal authority the Church of Jerusalem. "Peter, James, and John, and Barnabas," are styled pillars, but Peter is called " an eternal gate, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail."†
The equality of Paul to Peter is asserted byAmbrose, not as to the power of office, but as to the merit of virtue; and this with a view to prove that the choice of the Holy Spirit was full of wisdom. " Being chosenby the command of the Holy Spirit, which is abundant evidence ofthe excellence of his merits, he was not unworthy of so great a college.
For the same grace shone forth in those whom the same Spirit had chosen.
Nor was Paul inferior to Peter, THOUGH THE ONE WAS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, and the other a wise architect,knowing how to direct the steps of the nations that believe. Paul, I say, was not unworthy of the college ofthe apostles, since he also maybe compared with THE FIRST, and was second to none : for he who does not acknowledge himself inferior, makes himself equal."‡ The meaning is obvious. Ambrose is careful to mark even here the distinguishing characteristic of Peter as the foundation of the Church, and first of the apostles, while he supposes Paul to be equal to him in merit, and on that account to compare even with the first.
Some passages of the writings of Ambrose are occasionally abused to obscure his testimony to the primacy of Peter. Any one, however, who considers them in their connection, cannot hesitate as to their meaning.
Those places in which he gives interpretations evidently mystical, need not be specially explained, since, as we have already remarked, such expositions cannot have weight in doctrinal inquiries.
ST. JEROM, the contemporary ofAmbrose, is justly esteemed,not only for his excellent translation of the Scriptures, but also for his lucid exposition of their meaning. In his work against Jovinian, who assailed virginity, and objected that Peter, a married man, was chosen to be prince of the apostles, Jerom replied that his wife was probably deceased; a conjecture rendered likely by the omission of all mention of her in Scripture, as well as by the circumstance, that his mother-in-law, when relieved from the fever, served at table. He proceeded to show that John, on account of his virginity, enjoyed the special love of Christ, and was ad mitted to great familiarity. He then objects to himself that Peter was chosento be the foundation of the Church; and observes, that the other apostles likewise received similar powers, though he admits that, to prevent schism, Peter was chosen to be the head of all. He further inquires, why the virgin apostle, John, did not receive this distinction ; and answers that the age of Peter was a reason for preferring him : " But, you say," he remarks, " the Church is founded upon Peter: though the same thing is elsewhere done upon all the apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is consolidated upon them equally : yet ONE IS CHOSEN AMONG THE TWELVE, THAT A HEAD BEING ESTABLISHED, THE OCCASION OF SCHISM MAY BE REMOVED.
But why was not the virgin John chosen? Regard was had to age, because Peter was elder, lest a very young man should be preferred to men of advanced age."* It is clear, that while Jerom advocates so strongly the excellence of virginity and its special prerogatives, he is careful to lay down, in clear and precise terms, the primacy of Peter. All the apostles are, indeed, in a certain degree the foundations of the Church, since of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Church in glory, it is said : " the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb;"† but Peter is strictly the foundation, since tohim only, and not to the others, Christ said : " Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church." All of them have received the keys of the kingdom, inasmuch as all have received the power of binding and loosing, which is sometimes expressed by that symbol: but it was not without special and high design that to Peter alone was said : " To thee I willgive the keys ofthe kingdom." Jerom maintains that similar powers were granted to the others, on which account it may be justly said, that upon all of them the strength of the Church is consolidated, since all concur to the great work of the ministry, in union, however, with Peter, who is the head, invested with all the authority necessary for maintaining order and unity: a head, by the appointment of whom all plausible pretext for schism is removed. Were not this his peculiar privilege, there was no need ofexplaining why John was not chosen to be chief.
In his commentary upon the similitude of the wise man, who built his house upon a rock, Jerom observes : " On this rock the Lord founded the Church: from this rock Peter the apostle derived his name. The foundation which the apostolic architect laid, is our Lord Jesus Christ alone: on this stable and firm foundation, and of itself founded with a strong mass, the Church of Christ is built."‡ This, at first sight, may appear not to harmonize with the general interpretation of the fathers; but, by attention to the occasion in which it was written, it will be found not to be at variance. In reference to the similitude used by our Saviour in His sermon on the mount, it was most natural to observe, that He was the wise man who built His Church upon a rock, and that from this circumstance Peter was styled a rock: but it would be a strange phrase to say, that He built His Church upon Himself, thus confounding the architect with the foundation. Hear Jerom elsewhere : Having quoted a passage from the writings of St. Peter, he exclaims : " Oh sentence truly worthy of the apostle and of the rock of Christ !"* by which he plainly means him whom Christ made a rock of faith. "As Plato was the prince of philosophers, so was Peter of the apostles: ON HIM THE CHURCH OF THE LORD, AN ENDURING STRUCTURE, WAS BUILT."† In his letter to Marcellus he says of Peter : " UPON WHOM THE LORD BUILT HIS CHURCH."
The allusion to the text of St. Paul presents a change of metaphor. In the former Christ was the architect, and Peter the foundation : in this Paul is architect, and Christ the foundation. Metaphors admit of this variety, and it would be unjust to transfer what regards one similitude to another somewhat different.
The commentary of Jerom on the promise of our Saviour to Peter, plainly establishes the relation between them. " What means," he asks,"" I say to thee ?" Because thou hast said to Me : Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God: I also say to thee;' not in vaindiscourse, void of effect, but I say to thee,because My word effects what it expresses : ' that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church.' As He gave light to the apostles, that they might be called the light of the world, and they received other appellations from the Lord : so also He bestowed the name of Peter on Simon, who believed in the rock Christ; and according to the metaphor of a rock, it is properly said to him : ' I will build My Church upon THEE.' 'And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'
Ithink that the gates of hell are the vices and the sins of men; or certainly the doctrines of heretics, by which men are allured and led to hell." Here the learned interpreter applies to Peter the term rock, and explains the promise, as if it were said: Iwill build My Church on thee.
Against this Church neither the vices and sins of men, nor the doctrines ofheretics, can prevail. Scandals must come, and may obscure the lustre of the Church, but they cannot effect her overthrow : heresies may be broached, even by those who were children of the Church, but they can never receive her sanction, because Christ teaches in her " all days even to the consummation of the world."
When commenting on the rebuke of Christ, "Go behind me, Satan," Jerom supposes his reader to inquire, how this is compatible with the sublime address made to Peter, and with the powers conferred on him. " If," he answers, "the inquirer reflect, he will perceive that the benediction, and beatitude, and power, and the building of the Church upon him, were promised to Peter for a future time, and were not granted at the present time : I will build (he says) on thee My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;'-all in the future tense. Had he given them immediately, the error of a perverse confession* would never have taken place in him."† This enlightened doctor was firmly persuaded that if Peter had been at once constituted primate, the providence of God would have prevented his fall.
St. Jerom unhesitatingly explained the rock of Peter and his successors in the see ofRome. Addressing Pope Damasus to obtain his instructions in regard to the use of the term hypostasis, which in the East was understood by some of the Divine Nature, while others used it of the Divine Persons, as it is now employed, he says : " Let it not appear invidious: let the pomp of Roman majesty withdraw : I speak with the successor of the fisherman, and a disciple of the cross. I, who follow no one as chief‡ except Christ, am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, WITH THE CHAIR OF PETER : ON THAT ROCK I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS BUILT. Whoever eats the lamb out of this house is profane. Whoever was not in the ark of Noe, must perish in the deluge."
§ Respectfully approaching the heir of Peter's faith, Jerom begs that his boldness may be excused; and reminds Damasus, who was encompassed with a splendor like that of imperial majesty, that his greatest dignity is that of successor of the fisherman. This is his imperishable title, his highest glory : as this authority is the fundamental and immovable principle of the Church.
We have in this passage the obvious meaning of the text with its applicationin the most direct and positive manner.
ST. AUGUSTIN, in several places, gives the common interpretation of the texts regarding the primacy; but in the revision of his works, he observed, that he had likewise explained "the rock" of Christ Himself, and he left the reader to judge which of the two expositions was the more probable.|| He was led to doubt by the change of gender observable in the Greek and Latin: adistinction to which no importance can be attached by any one acquainted with the language inwhich our Lord spoke, which admits of no variation in the term, as we have already seen. His hesitationcannot outweigh the positive judgment of so many fathers, who concur in recognising Peter as the rock ofwhich Christ spoke ; especially as the context, by the acknowledgment of most learned adversaries, admits of no other interpretation. He did not, however, hesitate as to the meaning of the whole passage of Matthew, or of the other texts, which he uniformly expounded as declaring the governing authority wherewith eterwas invested. In his discourses on the Gospel of St. John, he observes that ourLord left almsgiving and prayer as remedies for the slighter sins into which even just men fall, and taught us to pray for forgiveness, as we forgive our debtors. " The Church," he says, " happy in hope, does this," (namely, sues for pardon in the name of her frail children,) " in this wretched life : which Church Peter, the apostle, ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRIMACY OF HIS APOSTLESHIP, represented in a figurative universality," (Peter being addressed as the whole Church, which he represented, as her head.) " For, as to what strictly regards himself, he was by nature an individual man, by grace an individual Christian; but by more abundant grace he was an apostle, and THE FIRST : but when it was said to him : ' To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven,' he represented the whole Church, which in this world is agitated by various temptations, as by showers, floods, and tempests, and which does not fall, because it is founded on the rock, whence Peter derived his name.
Here Augustin departs from the general interpretation of the term rock, yet considers Peter as the representative of the whole Church, receiving from Christ a power to be exercised for the benefit of all. He was not a mere actor in the scene, but an official representative, " ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRIMACY OF HIS APOSTLESHIP," in which capacity he received the promise, and subsequently the power promised, not for his mere personal advantage, but for the benefit ofthe Church at large. The holy doctor insists on this point,because the Montanists and Novatians denied to the Church the power of forgiveness. " Therefore," says he, " the Church, which is founded on Christ, received through Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is really† in Christ, Peter is the same mystically in the rock: according to which signification Christ is the rock, Peter the Church.
This Church, therefore, which Peter represented, as long as she is in the midst of evils, is freed from evils, by loving and following Christ. And she follows Him especially by means of those who contend unto death for the truth. But to the multitude is said, 'follow Me;' for which multitude Christ suffered."‡ In pursuing this allegorical explanation, Augustin evidently presupposes that the keys were given to Peter, and that in him, § the Church received them, inasmuch as not for himself only-" an individual man, an individual Christian"-but for all the Church, he, who as " an apostle and first of the apostles," received this power.* " For the benefit of all the saints," says he, " inseparably belonging to the body of Christ, PETER, THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES, received the keys of the kingdom, for its government in this most tempestuous life, to bind and loose sins,† and with reference to the same saints, John the Evangelist reclined on the bosom of Christ, to express the most tranquil repose of this most secret life." John is said to represent or signify the Church triumphant, inasmuch as, reposing on the bosom of Jesus, he presents an image of the happiness of the saints. The representative character of Peter is clearly marked as official, directed to the government of the Church militant in this stormy life. He is the pilot placed by Christ at the helm; he is the ruler, who received from Christ the keys of His kingdom.
It is in the same sense that St. Augustin insists that not only Peter, but all the apostles, in his person, since he represented the whole Church, received the keys, because the power of forgiving sins was not limited to him alone, being communicated to all of them for the benefit of the whole Church. " For it is evident," he says, " that Peter in many places of the Scripture represents the Church, chiefly in that place where it is said: ' I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' What ! did Peter receive those keys, and Paul not receive them ? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the rest of the apostles not receive them? Or are not those keys in the Church, where sins are daily remitted? But since inmeaning hinted, but not expressed,§ Peter was representing the Church, what was given to him singly, was given to the Church. So then, Peter bore the figure of the Church : the Church is the body of Christ.'|| What Augustin inculcates is plainly that the Church received the power of forgiveness, through Peter, who in his official capacity represented her, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. This does not imply that the keys, as symbols of governing power, were not given to Peter in a more special manner.
ST. LEO THE GREAT is most eloquent and forcible in the exposition of the sacred text. He observes : " Christ having assumed him to a participation in His indivisible unity, was pleased that he should be styled what He Himself was, saying : ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church ;' that the building of the eternal temple, by the wonderful gift of the grace of God, should rest on the solidity of the rock, strengthening His Church by this firmness, so that neither human temerity could affect it, nor the gates of hell prevail against it. But whosoever attempts to infringe on his power, indulges excessive and impious presumption, in seeking to violate the most sacred strength of this rock, God, as we have said, being the builder."* This exposition loses nothing of its weight from the fact that St. Leo filled, at the time, the chair of Peter. His learning and sanctity, the high esteem which he enjoyed among his contemporaries, and the veneration with which his name has been transmitted to us, do not suffer us to consider him as influenced by personal interest, or pride of station,in expounding the sacred text. He spoke the truth in Christ, with no other view than that all should adore the divine wisdom and power manifested in the establishment of the Church.
ST. LEO freely admits that the power given to Peter was to be communicated to the other apostles; but insists that it was specially lodged in him for the great ends of Christianunity. " The privilege of this power did, indeed, pass to the other apostles, and the order of this decree reached all the rulers of the Church; but not without purpose what is intended for all, is put into the hands of one."† Elsewhere he says : " The Lord hathwilled that the mystery of this gift (of announcing theGospel) should belong to the office of all the apostles, on the condition ofits being chiefly seated in the most blessed Peter, the first of all the apostles, and from him, as it were from the head, it is His pleasure that His gifts should flow into the whole body, that whoever dares recede from the rock of Peter may know that He has no part in the divine mystery."‡
The quotations hitherto submitted to the reader, show clearly that the promise recorded by St. Matthew, was understood by the fathers of the first five centuries, as implying special relations of Peter to the Church, as its foundation and ruler. It is in vain that Mr. Palmer asserts that some interpret it of the apostles generally; for it will easily be seen that these fathers, as Ambrose and Augustin, whose words we have quoted, speak of the apostolic powers as declared in other passages, and that they apply and extend to the apostles the text in question, so far only as these powers are implied, without prejudice to the primacy of Peter, which they expressly affirm. The few who speak of Christ as the rock, for the most part use this figure without direct reference to the text of Matthew, for the purpose of declaring the immovable nature of the Church, ofwhich Christ is the support; and when, like Augustin, they refer to this passage, they otherwise acknowledge in unequivocal terms the high prerogative of the prince of the apostles. All who interpret it of the faith as confessed by Peter, perfectly harmonize with those who expound it of Peter himself, so that these two interpretations, which at first sight appear different, are in reality identical. It is worthy of remark, that before the rise of Arianism, no father explained the rock of the confession of Peter; which interpretation was first suggested by the necessity of employing every available weapon against that impiety. It is also to be observed, that no father who declares faith to be the rock, expressly excludes Peter, while manypositively mention him conjointly with the confession. The moral application and allegorical expositions of some can by no means weaken the literal exposition so forciblydelivered by the great body of the fathers. We can, therefore, fairly claim their general support in the maintenance of the primacy as divinely promised to Peter. In the words of Dr. Nevin, we may say: " The promise of our Saviour to Peter, is always taken by the fathers in the sense that he was to be the centre of unity for the Church, and in the language of Chrysostom, to have the presidency of it throughout the world. Ambrose and Augustin both recognise this distinction over and over again in the clearest and strongest terms."*
pag 65 pdf
CHAPTER IV. Institution of the Primacy.
THE promise made by Christ to Peter, that He would make him the fundamental rock of His Church, and give him the keys of the kingdom ofheaven, and the solemn charge addressed to him to confirm his brethren, prepare us for the bestowal of extraordinary power. The denial of his Divine Master, might, however, seem to be an insuperable obstacle to his elevation to this dignity: but his tears, which were bitter and abundant, washed awayhis prevarication. Christ, after His resurrection, appearing to him with Thomas, John and James, and two others, besides Nathaniel, of Cana in Galilee, was pleased to fulfil His promise, after He had first elicited from Peter repeated protestations of special love. He presented Himself to them all as they were fishing, anddirected them to cast the net on the right side of the ship, assuring them that they should be successful. The verification of this assurance led John to recognise Him ; and Peter, being made sensible of the presence of his Master, girded his coat about him. Then, as the other disciples came in the ship, drawing the net, and reached the shore, "Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many,the netwas not broken."* It cannot be doubted, that by this miraculous draught was typified the wonderful conversion of nations by the apostles, with Peter at their head, acting under the command of Jesus. The occasion was most opportune for declaring the office ofPeter. "When, therefore,they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter : Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" Some have absurdly explained this question, as if Peter were asked, whether he loved his Lord more than the fish; but this cannot be seriously advanced. The comparison is evidently referred to the persons present. Peter declares his affection : "He saith to Him : yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. " This declaration was followed by the pastoral commission : " Feed Mylambs:"† that is, the tenderest,weakest portion of the flock, the little ones in Christ, the faithful who are as lambs in regard to those who have begotten them, or brought them forth in Christ. The question is renewed: "He saith to him again, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He saith to Him : yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him: feed My lambs. "* The commission is repeated, in a new form, as appears from the Greek text. The former injunction regarded feeding, the present comprises the whole pastoral care to tend, to watch over, to restrain, to bring back the stray sheep, to remove the contagious, and to do all that a shepherd should do for his flock. " He saith to him the third time : Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me ? Peter was grieved, because He saith to him the third time, lovest thou Me? And he said to Him : Lord, Thou knowest all things : Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to him: feed My sheep."† Thus, on the manifestation of his tender love and enlightened faith, Peter receives the commission to feed the sheep of Christ, namely, those who are to the faithful as sheep to lambs, their parents in Christ. In the presence of the beloved disciple, and of James, Thomas and others, Peter receives a commission, the highest that could be given, by which he becomes, under Christ, the shepherd of the flock. The declaration of special love, which was demanded of him, shows that special power was to be imparted the repetition of the injunction in various forms, manifests the intention of our Lord to communicate all necessary power for feeding, tending and governing all His flock.
Our Lord had foretold the union of Gentiles and Jews in His Church. "Other sheep I have," said He, " that are not of this fold : them also I must bring ; and they shall hear My voice and there shall be made one fold and one shepherd. " This was not to be accomplished by Himself personally, since He was not sent by His Father unless to the sheep that had strayed away of the house ofIsrael; but by the ministry ofHis apostles. All His sheep were to be united in one fold, under the charge of Peter.
Apart from all tradition, and on the strictest principles of critical exegesis, the superior authority of Peter is proved from the Scripture. We cannot suppose the keys of the kingdom, the confirming of the brethren, the feeding of the lambs and sheep, to denote no special authority. We cannot capriciously extend to the other apostles a promise, charge, and commission, addressed especially to Peter alone. Christ is the Good Shepherd: He charges Peter to act in His stead. Thus, in withdrawing His sensible presence, He leaves Peter clothed with His authority, and indicates its kind and tender character by an image the most affecting.
In very many circumstances our Lord by His actions signified the special power of Peter. From HIS bark He teaches the multitude : to HIM He gives the command to let down the net, and rewards his obedience by a miraculous draught of fishes : to HIM HE promises that he shall henceforth catch men. He commands HIM to walk to Him on the waters, and stretches forth His hand to support HIM, when the weakness of the apostle's faith causes HIM to sink. He pays tribute for HIM, as well as for Himself. All these facts have forced themselves on the attention of the declared enemies of the primacy. Barrow supposes the excellent qualities of Peter for leadership to have disposed our Lord to grant him the precedency. " They," he observes, "probably might move our Lord Himself to settle, or at least to insinuate this order ; assigning the first place to him, whom He knew most willing to serve Him, and most able to lead on the rest in His service. It is indeed observable, that upon all occasions our Lord signified aparticular respect to him, before the rest of his colleagues; for to him more frequently than to any of them He directed His discourse; unto him, by akind of anticipation, He granted or promised those gifts and privileges, which He meant to confer on them all : him He did assume as spectator and witness of His glorious transfiguration ; him he picked out as companion and attendant on Him in His grievous agony; his feet He first washed; to him He did first discover Himself after His resurrection, (as St. Paul implieth,) and with him then He did entertain most discourse ; in especial manner recommending to him the pastoral care of the Church; by which manner of proceeding our Lord may seem to have constituted St. Peter the first in order among the apostles, or sufficiently to have hinted His mind for their direction, admonishing them byHis example to render unto him a special deference."* After such admissions, the reader must be surprised to find Barrow denying all authoritative primacy in the apostle.
St. Francis de Sales, with his ordinary simplicity and force, exhibits the privileges of the prince of the apostles, as insinuated under various images in the divine writings : " Is the Church likened unto a house ? It is placed on the foundation of a rock, which is Peter. Will you represent it under the figure of a family ? You behold our Redeemer paying the tribute as its Master, and after Him comes Peter as His representative. Is the Church a bark ? Peter is its pilot; and it is our Redeemer who instructs him. Is the doctrine by which we are drawn from the gulf of sin represented by a fisher's net ? It is Peter who casts it; it is Peter who draws it; the other disciples lend their aid; but it is Peter that presents the fishes to our Redeemer. Is the Church represented by an embassy? St. Peter is at its head. Do you prefer the figure of a kingdom ? St. Peter carries its keys. In fine, you will have it shadowed under the symbol of a flock and a fold? St. Peter is the shepherd and universal pastor under Jesus Christ. " †
The occasion of promising this power was the confession which Peter made of the divinity of Christ, and the declaration of greater love than that of the other apostles was required, before its collation; yet the office was not merely personal. The reward was the greater, because it was to be perpetuated in his successors. The power promised was directed to the advantage of the Church, which was to last throughout ages : the charge given regarded all the sheep of Christ, who were to be gathered into His fold at any period of time. The image of a foundation presents the idea of permanent support, since no fabric can subsist if the foundation be removed: the kingdom of Christ must always have a ruler, bearing the keys, and exercising sovereign power under Christ; the brethren must always be confirmed in faith: the lambs and sheep of Christ at all times need the care, guidance, and protection of a shepherd, to keep them all in one sheepfold. Since the powers of hell cannot prevail against the Church, the fundamental authority of Peter can never cease: since the visible kingdom of Christ shall endure to the end of time, there must be always a viceroy governing in His name: since the prayer of Christ is always heard for His reverence, the faith of Peter can never fail : there shall be always one fold, and there shall be likewise one shepherd. If any thing be clear in Scripture, it is the promise of the primacy and its institution. " TO THEE," says Christ, " Iwill give the keys of the kingdom ofheaven. " "I have prayed for THEE that thy faith fail not : and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Feed My lambs, feed My sheep." He distinguishes this apostle from the rest : " Blessed art THOU, Simon Bar-jona. " He addresses him repeatedly and emphatically : " SIMON, SIMON." He calls on him for special and reiterated declarations of attachment : "Dost thou love Me more than these ?" As the powers given to the apostles generally are continued in their successors as the authority to teach, baptize, and otherwise concur to the salvation of men by minis- terial functions, is perpetual; so must the peculiar privileges of Peter be recognised in the occupants of his See. If among the apostles it was proper that one should preside, for the sake of order and unity, a leader is still more necessary for a body so numerous as their successors. Aruler is indispensable for a kingdom so extensive as the Church actually diffused throughout all nations,lest being divided, it be brought to desolation : a pastor for the whole flock is essential at all times, that the unity of the sheepfold may be maintained. Thus, by the very same line of argument by which we infer the perpetuity of the apostolic ministry,we are led to acknowledge the headship, or primacy, as a permanent institution of Christ.
What, then, is the character of this primacy ? Limiting myself for the present to the sacred text, I answer, that it is a fundamental principle of church organization, having the same relation to the universal Church, as the foundation has to the building: it is a central authority uniting all the parts of the sacred edifice, which rest on it necessarily and inseparably. Peter was constituted the vicegerent of Christ, having received from Him the keys of the kingdom, and consequently aplenitude of authority, delegated, however, and subordinate, which his successor inherits. The primate of the Church is bound to confirm his brethren in the faith, which he must maintain as originally delivered, opposing, by all the weight of bis authority, every error adverse to its integrity. He is powerful for the truth: powerless against the truth. He must feed the lambs and sheep of Christ with salutary pastures: he must use pastoral vigilance, lest they stray away, and employ due care to reconduct to the fold those that have actually strayed. Since Christ represents Himself under the image of a good shepherd, in giving to Peter the command to feed His lambs and sheep, He imparts the highest authority under the most tender image.
It is not difficult to reconcile the headship of Peter with that of Christ. The apostle tells us that Christ instituted the ministry, " that performing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the head, Christ; from whom the whole body, compacted and fitly joined together, by whatever joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity."* Christ is clearly styled the head in this place, in a way in which Peter cannot be so designated. Every grace by which the mind is enlightened, the will moved, and the Church built up in faith and charity, is derived from Christ; not from Peter, whose office is ministerial and external, and totally dependant on the supreme invisible head. "Christ is thehead of the Church. He is the Saviour of His body. "† Who has ever thought of ascribing to Peter headship of this nature ? Who has ever regarded him as the Saviour of the Church ? God the Father hath made Christ "head over all the Church, which is His body, and the fulness of Him, who is filled all in all."‡ No one recognises Peter as head in this sense. Christ is " above all principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." The like cannot be said of Peter, who, under Christ, was only the visible head of the Church on earth, governing it according to the principles which He taught, and in virtue of the authority which He vouchsafed to delegate. Whoever deems such authority derogatory to the headship of Christ, must consider the viceroy of amonarch an antagonist of his sovereign.
The wisdom of Christ in appointing a ruler and pastor under Himself, to confirm and unite the brethren, is clearly apparent. Order can be maintained in a body of men only by some authority exercised by one, whatever be its origin, or its limits : which authority should be propor- tioned to the importance of the objects to be attained, and the number of persons to be directed or governed. Acertain precedency of rank may suffice in abody, where objects dependent on the will of the members are at stake : but where high interests, independent of the fluctuating views of men, are involved, a binding authority, divinely constituted and guarded, is necessary. Even among the apostles a certain precedency was enjoyed by Peter, while our Lord was present. When He had withdrawn from the earth, and the apostolic band was augmented by a large number of bishops, and the Church was spread throughout many nations, every appearance of unity would soon have vanished, had there not been a central authority, around which all might gather. This became still more necessary, when the apostles closed their career, and their successors were multiplied, and scattered to the utmost bounds of civilization, and beyond them. Confusion of tongues must have ensued, had there not been a divinely constituted leader. The professed subjection of all to Christ could not have restrained the vagaries of human opinion, or preserved the harmony of believers. Without an infinitude of miracles, in proportion to the number of professors, and the diffusion of religion, there would have been no order, no unity, no faith; and the evidence which our Lord referred to, for convincing the world that He was sent by the Father, namely, the union of His disciples in the profession of revealed truth,* would have been utterly wanting. While Christ was visibly present, the disciples gathered around Him, and were one family, He being the Head; when He was about to withdraw His visible presence, He left Peter at the head of his brethren, pastor of the fold, and ruler of the kingdom, and consecrating in his person the principle of unity, He rendered his office perpetual in his successors . To this divine arrangement we owe the preservation of the revealed truths, and the unity of the Church.
To all the apostles Christ promised the power of binding and loosing, which He conferred on all, by authorizing them to remit or retain sins. He gave to all a mission like that which He had received from His Father. He sent all of them to preach His Gospel to every creature, and ordered them to teach all nations all things whatsoever He had delivered; promising them His effectual assistance even to the end of time. The apostolic power of each one was, like that of Peter, coextensive with the world : but Peter was pastor, ruler and superior. They were all equal in the episcopal character, and even in apostolic authority, with this difference, that their power was subordinate to his, and to be exercised necessarily in connection and harmony with his, that even in their persons unity might be exhibited. His universal jurisdiction was a permanent attribute of his office, as pastor and ruler, to descend and continue for ever in his successors ; while theirs was a personal prerogative, of which the bishops would partake, without enjoying severally its plenitude. This distinction is gathered from the marked manner in which Christ addressed Peter individually, while He promised and gave authority to the others in common, Peter being necessarily included. Bossuet beautifully observes : " The power divided among many imports its restriction : confer- red on one alone, over all and without exception, it bears the evidence of its plenitude. All receive the same power, but not in the same degree, nor to the same extent. Jesus Christ commences by the chief, and in the person of the chief develops all His power-in order that we should learn that the ecclesiastical authority,being originally centred in one individual, has beendiffused only on the condition that it should always be reflected back on the principle of its unity, and that all theywho share in it should be inseparably connected with that See, which is the common centre of all churches."*
CHAPTER V. Exposition of the Commission.
THE charge given by our Lord to Peter, to feed His lambs and sheep, was understood by the early fathers to imply the communication of the highest authority under Christ Himself. ORIGEN, speaking of the excellence of charity, remarks, that our Lord required the profession of it from Peter, as a condition for receiving supreme authority in the Church : " WHEN THE SUPREME POWER TO FEED THE SHEEP WAS GIVEN TO PETER, AND THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED ON HIM, AS ON A ROCK,* the declaration of no other virtue than charity was required."† Inhis admirable treatise on the unity of the Church, CYPRIAN insists, with great earnestness, on the provision made against heresy and schism by the promise made, and the pastoral power subsequently given to Peter. Deploring the havoc of souls made by the enemy of man, who transforms himself into an angel of light, and puts forward his ministers as ministers of justice, he says : "This comes to pass,beloved brethren, because recourse is not had to the source of truth, and the head is not sought after, and the doctrine of the Heavenly Teacher is not regarded. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need of a lengthy treatise and of arguments. The proof of faith is easy and compendious, because true. The Lord speaks to Peter : ' I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. ' And again, after His resurrection, He says to him : ' Feed My sheep. ' Upon that one individual He builds His Church, and to him He commits His sheep to be fed. And although, after His resurrection, He gives to all the apostles equal power, and says : ' As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose sins you shall forgive, they shall be forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they shall be retained;' yet, in order to manifest unity, He establishes, by His authority, the origin of the same unity, which begins from one. Even the other apostles were certainly what Peter was, being endowed with equal participation of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one, and the chair one. All are pastors, and the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by the apostles with one accord, that the Church of God maybe shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost also designates, speaking in the person of our Lord in the Canticle of Canticles, My dove is one, My perfect one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen one of her who bore her.' Does he who does not hold the unity of the Church, imagine that he holds the faith ? Does he who opposes and resists the Church, who deserts the chair of Peter, on whom the Church was founded, presume that he is in the Church, while the blessed apostle Paul teaches this same thing, and shows the sacrament of unity, saying : ' One body and one Spirit, one hope of your vocation, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God ?' " *
The words which I have put in italics were omitted by Erasmus in his edition of the works of St. Cyprian, published in 1521 : but restored by Paul Manutius in an edition made from manuscripts of great value, in 1563. They are quoted as far back as the year 582, by Pelagius II. in his second epistle to the Bishops of Istria, which forms a strong presumption in their favor, and they accord with the scope of the writer, and with his language on several other occasions. "Neander remarks, no less than Möhler," as Dr. Nevin reminds us, that "the clauses contain nothing that is not elsewhere affirmed by Cyprian, even more distinctly than here. "† The object of the whole work is to prove the inviolable unity of the Church; and in the passage just quoted, St. Cyprian shows how the efforts of Satan to estrange men from the Church, by corrupting their faith, or engaging them in schism, may be promptly and effectually defeated. He refers to the texts in which our Lord addresses Peter, and makes him special promises. He admits that, in other circumstances, similar promises and equal power were given to all the apostles : "yet to manifest unity He established, by His authority, the origin of the same unity, which begins from one." This cannot mean that Christ merely insinuated and recommended unity by thus beginning with Peter; since Cyprian insists throughout that unity is enjoined, and is essential to the Church : it must mean that Christ established in Peter the principle and means of unity. "The other apostles were certainly what Peter was, being endowed with an equal participation of honor and power:" the apostolic office, dignity, and jurisdiction were the same in all, but there was subordination for the maintenance of unity. The scope and the whole context show, that Cyprian recognised in Peter a central and connecting power, whereby truth should be preserved and order maintained.
Barrow himself admits that the African fathers generally considered St. Peter to have received from Christ a primacy of order, which he styles a womanish privilege, as in truth it might be styled, were mere precedence in rank given him; but this is to blaspheme Christ, who cannot, without impiety, be supposed to have bestowed an idle distinction. It is strange how this learned opponent of the supremacy, through a desire to weaken the authorities which support it, should have allowed himself to speak disrespectfully of the luminaries of the African Church. " St. Cyprian," he says, " hath a reason for it somewhat more subtile and mystical, supposing our Lorddid confer on him a preference of this kind to his brethren (who otherwise in power and authority were equal to him) that he might intimate and recommend unity to us; and the other African doctors (Optatus and St. Austin) do commonly harp on the same notion !"* He adds, that the fathers generally seem to countenance this primacy ! Thus does he virtually abandon the cause which he labors to defend.
The same explanation of the texts in question constantly recurs throughout the works of this eloquent prelate. In his book on the virginal state, he observes : " PETER, TO WHOM THE LORD RECOMMENDS THE FEEDING AND PROTECTION OF HIS SHEEP, ON WHOM HE PLACED AND FOUNDED THE CHURCH, denies that he has silver or gold, but says that he is rich in the grace of Christ. " †
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, speaking of the witnesses of the resurrection, thus distinguishes Peter from the rest : " Peter testifies it, who before indeed denied Him, but who, after having confessed Him thrice, was ordered to feed His spiritual sheep."‡ It is clear that Cyril considered this command to have been given specially to Peter. In his golden work on the priesthood, by which term he designates the episcopal office, CHRYSOSTOM argues from the charge given by Christ to Peter, to feed His sheep, that this is to be the practical evidence of the love which we bear to our Redeemer. " Speaking with the prince of the apostles, He says : ' Peter, lovest thou Me ?" and Peter answering affirmatively, He adds : ' If thou lovest Me, feed My sheep.' He designed to teach both Peter, and us all, His great benevolence and love for His Church: that by this means we also might cheerfully assume the care and charge of it. For why did He shed His blood ? Certainly thatHemight purchase the sheep, the care of which He committed to Peter, and to his successors.§ Justly, therefore, Christ thus spoke : ' Who then is the faithful and prudent servant whom the Lord placed over His family ?" "|| The inference which Chrysostom draws from the text does not imply any thing inconsistent with its special application to Peter, whom he recognises as " endowed by Christ with special authority far surpassing the other apostles : for He says : 'Peter, dost thou love Me more than all these ? " Again, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, when expressly engaged in the exposition of the text, he asks : " Why does He
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario