St. Peter, His Name and His Office, as Set Forth in Holy Scripture

3. Thirdly, those three texts are exactly equivalent to each other: they each involve and express the other. They could not have been said of different persons without contradiction and confusion. He who has one of them must have the rest. There is variation of image, but identity of meaning. Thus, the relation between Peter and the Church is in the first, that of Foundation and Superstructure; of the heaven-built city, and of him who holds its keys: in the second, it is that of the Architect, who, by skill and authority, won for him, and given to him, by the Supreme Builder, the Word and Wisdom of God, maintains every living stone of the structure in its due place: in the third it is that of the supreme and universal Pastor and his whole flock. In all of these there is the habit of dependence between the superior and that over which he is set: in all the need of close coherence with him. Observe in particular the identity of the second and third. The special office of the Shepherd of193 souls is to lead his flock into suitable pastures, that is, duly to instruct them in the Divine Word and Will: the pastoral office is identical with that of teaching: "He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some pastors and teachers," the former are distinguished, the last united together: where the Apostle observes, that the whole ministry, from the highest to the lowest, is organised "to edify the body of Christ into the unity of faith," and to preserve men from being "carried about by every wind of doctrine." But if this was the design of Christ as to the whole ministry, and as to each individual teacher, most of all was it in instituting one supreme and universal Pastor: in him most of all would be seen the perfect fitting in together194 of each individual member: he was set up especially for the compacting of each spiritual joint, the harmony and cohesion of the whole. Here, then, the office of the universal Pastor or Teacher is precisely equivalent to him, who, by another image confirms, strengthens, consolidates his brethren. Thus, in the second text Christ foretold the third. But the more we contemplate all the three in their mutual relations, the more a certain thought suggests itself to the mind. There is a special doctrine concerning the most Holy Trinity, the most distinctive of that great mystery, which expresses the reciprocal indwelling of the Three Persons. Now something analogous may be said of the way in which these three texts impermeate and include each other, of their exact equivalence, and distinct, but inseparable force: of whom one is said, of the same must all.

4. Fourthly, they all indicate a sovereign authority, independent itself, but on which all others depend; symbolising power from above, but claiming obedience from below; immutable in itself, but by which all the rest are made proof against change; for it is not to the sheep that the shepherd is responsible, but to their owner. It has been said throughout that the one special mark of Peter's distinction was a peculiar association with Christ. It is not therefore by any infringement of equal rights that this authority is set up, but as the representative, the vicegerent, of Him in whom all power dwells: who bore this authority in His own body, and who committed to another what was first His own, both by creation and by purchase – "Feed My sheep." In all these texts the immediate transference of authority from the Person of the God-man is most striking; in Peter He inaugurates His great theandric dispensation, and forms the Body which He was to leave on earth. Thus these texts most clearly express that important doctrine of antiquity, the keystone of the Church's liberty from the world, which is the reason why the world so hates it, "The first See is judged by no man." So entirely have political ideas and jealousies infected our mode of judging of spiritual things – to such a degree is our peculiar civil liberty made the standard of Church government – that it is necessary to insist again and again on what to Christians ought to be a first principle, viz., that "all power and jurisdiction in the Church, like the Church herself, ought to rest not upon natural and human authority, but on the divine authority of Christ. This is the reason why we may pronounce no otherwise concerning such jurisdiction, than we know has been handed down from Christ, its proper author and founder. Now it is certain that at the same moment at which Christ instituted the community called the Church, such a power was introduced, and entrusted as well to Peter singly as the head, as to the Apostles under him. Nay, that power was fixed and constituted, and its ministers and bishops marked out, before the Church, that is, the whole body and commonwealth, had grown into coherence. And so ecclesiastical jurisdiction did not first dwell in the community itself, and was then translated by a sort of popular suffrage and consent to its magistrates; but from the very first origin Peter was destined to be single chief of the future body, and next to him the other Apostles."195

5. Fifthly, it must be observed that there is a definiteness about these texts which belongs in a far less degree to those forms in which the co-ordinate and co-equal authority of the Apostles, as such, is expressed. This last is left to be harmonised and brought into operation by the superior power of the chief. They are indeed sent into all the world, they are immediately instituted by our Lord, they have the promise that His power shall be with them, and that their sentence shall stand good in heaven and on earth; but this promise, which is the most distinct made to them, has been already gathered up into the hands of one, and in its practical issue is limited by the necessity of cooperating with that one; that is, the authority of Peter includes and embraces theirs, but theirs is ranged under his. Theirs is modified not only by being shared, but by having his set over them. Now observe how distinct and clear, how definite in their meaning, while universal in their range, are the things said of him alone; 1. That he should be the rock on which Christ would build His Church; 2. That permanence and victory should belong to that Church for ever through Him: 3. That he should bear the keys in the kingdom of heaven: 4. That whatever singly he should bind and loose, should be bound and loosed in heaven as well as on earth: 5. That he should confirm his brethren, the Apostles themselves being the very first so called: 6. That he should be the Shepherd of the fold. What can constitute inequality between two parties, if such a series of promises given to one, and not to the other, does not?

6. Sixthly, these promises cannot be contemplated without seeing that the ordinary and regular government of the Church springs from the person whom they designate, and in whom they are concentrated. To take the last, all spiritual care is summed up in the word Pastorship, the office of priest, bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, and pope, rising in degree, and extending in range, but in its nature the same. On the contrary Apostles, (with this one exception, in virtue of the Primacy,) Prophets, and Evangelists, are extraordinary officers, attending the opening of the dispensation, but afterwards dropping off. But the Church, as it was to endure for ever, and the orderly arrangement of the divine ministry, were summed up in the Primacy, and flowed forth from it as the full receptacle of the virtue of God the Word Incarnate. And so it is the head of the ministerial body. All which is set forth as in a picture to the mind, in that scene upon the shore of the lake of Galilee, when the Lord said to Peter, "Feed My sheep."

7. And, again, Peter was thus made the beginning and principle of spiritual power, as it left the Person of God the Word, not for once, but for ever. Long as the structure should endure, its principle of cohesion must bind it. As the law of gravitation binds all worlds together in the natural kingdom, and is a continuous source of strength and harmony, so should be in the spiritual kingdom that force which the same Wisdom of God established; it goes on with power undiminished; it is the full fountain-head from which all streams emanate; it is the highest image of God's power as the centre and source of all things. This idea is dwelt upon by S. Cyprian and S. Augustine, as well as by Pope S. Innocent,196 the contemporary of the latter, and was afresh expressed in a synodical letter of the three provinces of Africa to Pope Theodore, in A. D. 646, "No one can doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great unfailing fountain, pouring forth waters for all Christians, whence rich streams proceed, bountifully irrigating the whole Christian world."197

8. And, lastly, in these great promises Peter is specially set forth as the type and the efficient cause of visible unity in the Church. Such was the very purpose of Christ, that His disciples might be one, as He and the Father are one. For this end, in the words of S. Augustine, "He entrusted His sheep to Peter, as to another self, He willed to make him one with Himself;" and in the words of S. Leo, "He assumed him into the participation of His indivisible unity."198 But this is seen no less plainly in the words of Christ, than in the Fathers; for He made one Rock, one Bearer of the keys, one Confirmer of the brethren, and one Shepherd. The union of millions of naturally conflicting wills in the profession and belief of one doctrine is almost the very highest work of divine power; and as grace, that is, the Holy Spirit diffused in the heart, is the inward efficient of this, so the outward, both symbol and instrument, is the Primacy, that "other self" which the Lord left in the world. And as the Church of God through every succeeding age grows and expands, the need of this power becomes greater and not less, and reverence to that "single chair in which unity was to be observed by all,"199 a more imperative virtue, or rather an ever-deepening instinct, of the Christian mind.

But antiquity itself drew no other conclusions from the concentration of these great privileges in the person of Peter. We have but to go back to a time before the present nationalities of Europe, those jealous foes of Peter's authority, had come into existence, and we find the chief men of France, and Spain, and Italy, interpreting the above texts as we have done. Take one whose testimony from the circumstances of his life ought to be above suspicion. John Cassian was by birth a Scythian, was educated in a monastery at Bethlehem, travelled through Egypt, and made himself acquainted with its most distinguished religious men, went to Constantinople, and was ordained deacon by S. Chrysostome, and afterwards at Rome priest by Pope Innocent I. On the capture of Rome by Alaric, he settled at Marseilles, about the year 410, and there founded two monasteries. In his work on the Incarnation he says,200 "Let us ask him, who is supreme, both as disciple among disciples, and as teacher among teachers, who, steering the course of the Roman Church, held the supremacy as well of the faith as of the priesthood. Tell us, therefore, tell us, we pray, O Peter, Prince of the Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought to believe. For just it is that thou, who wast taught of the Lord, shouldst teach us, and open to us the door whose key thou hast received. Shut out all who undermine the heavenly house, and turn away those who attempt to make an entry through treacherous caverns and illicit approaches; because it is certain that no one shall be able to enter the door of the kingdom, save he to whom the key placed by thee in the Church shall open it. Tell us, therefore, how we ought to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to confess our common Lord." Again, fourteen hundred years ago, Maximus, Bishop of Turin in that day, confessed by his words, what his successor of the present day bears witness to by his sufferings: for he writes of Peter, "As201 the Good Shepherd he received the defence of the flock, so that he, who before had been weak in his own case, might become the confirmation to all: and he who had been shaken by the temptation of the question asked him, might be a foundation to the rest by the stability of his faith. In fine, for the firmness of his devotion he is called the Rock of the Churches, as the Lord says, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church.' For he is called the Rock, because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations, and, because, as an immoveable stone, he holds together the framework and the mass of the whole Christian structure. Peter, therefore, for his devotion is called the Rock, and the Lord is named the Rock by His inherent power, as the Apostle says, 'and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' Rightly does he merit to share the name, who, likewise, merits to share the work." Again, far and wide has the lying story been spread by false-hearted men, who above all things, hate the spiritual kingdom which God has set up in the world, that Peter's power has been the growth of gradual encroachment on the secular authority. Now, long before Pelayo renewed the Spanish monarchy in the mountains of the Asturias, and while Augustine, sent by Pope Gregory, was laying the foundation of the English Church, S. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, from 598 to 636, the very highest of the ancient Spanish doctors, wrote thus explicitly to his colleague at Toledo:202 "But as to the question of the equality of the Apostles, Peter is pre-eminent over the rest, who merited to hear from the Lord, 'Thou shalt be called Cephas – Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.' And not from any one else, but from the very Son of God and the Virgin, he was the first to receive the honour of the pontificate in the Church of Christ, to whom also, after the resurrection of the Son of God, was said by the same, 'Feed My lambs,' noting by the name of lambs the prelates of the churches. And although the dignity of this power is derived to all Catholic bishops, yet in a more special manner it remains for ever in the Roman bishop, who is by a certain singular privilege set as the head over the other limbs. Whoso, therefore, renders not reverently to him due obedience, involves himself, as being severed from the head, in the schism of the Acephali."

It would be easy to multiply such authorities of a period prior to the formation of all the existing European states. It was the will of God, providing for His Church, that before the old Roman society was utterly upheaved from its foundations by the deluge of the Northern tribes, reverence for S. Peter's throne should be fixed as an immovable rock, on which a new Christian civilization might be founded. Thus Pope Gregory II., writing to the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, about the year 717, only sums up the force and effect of all preceding tradition, when he says: "The whole West turns its eyes upon us, and, unworthy though we be, puts complete trust in us, and in that blessed Peter, whose image you threaten to overturn, but whom all the kingdoms of the West count for a God upon earth."203

CHAPTER V.

S. PETER'S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE ACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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