WITH A PREFACE BY 
 
 THOMAS WILLIAM ALLIES K.C.S.G. 
 

 A r 
 
 Of ' 1 
 
 JU> bu 1925 
 
 >0 
 
 <S / 
 
 
 - 
 
 -.-O, vision 
 
 "BX I 80 S 
 v A 4-3 
 
 Sectioi 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/stpeterhisnarnehi00alli_0 
 
ST. PETER 
 
 HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 
 
} 
 
 
 
ST PETER 
 
 HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 
 
 -- WITH A PREFACE BY - 
 
 THOMAS WILLIAM ALLIES, K.C.S.G. 
 
 P. J. KENEDY AND SONS 
 
 44 BARCLAY STREET, NEW YORK 
 
 1923 
 
NIHIL OBSTAT: 
 
 F. Thomas Bergh, O.S.B., 
 Censor deputatus, 
 
 IMPRIMATUR : 
 
 Edm. Can. Sdrmont, 
 Vicarius gmeralis. 
 
 Westmonasterii, 
 iG Julii , 1923. 
 
 Made and Printed in England 
 
PREFACE 
 
 An Autobiography drawn up by Thomas William 
 
 Allies in 1878. 
 
 Thomas William Allies. I was born February 12, 
 1813, in a parish of Somersetshire, where my father 
 was then curate in the Anglican Church. He was of 
 a family originally seated at Northfield in Worcester¬ 
 shire, where in deeds of 1368 it is mentioned, and 
 where a considerable extent of land is still called by the 
 name Allies. My father afterwards lived at Bristol 
 and Clifton. I went to the Grammar School of 
 Bristol, but left it in 1826, and by my own choice 
 was sent to Eton in April, 1827, when just fourteen. 
 I only stayed there two years, having gone up to Oxford 
 in June, 1828, to try for a scholarship at Wadham 
 College, which I succeeded in obtaining. Though I 
 returned to Eton, yet as I was matriculated in 
 November, 1828, at Oxford, this necessitated my going 
 into residence in the following spring. In that year 
 the Duke of Newcastle had founded an annual scholar¬ 
 ship for Eton College, the first trial for which came on 
 in March, 1829. I was fortunate enough to obtain 
 this scholarship, and so began my life at Oxford in 
 April, 1829. I took m Y degree in 1832, gaining a 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 first class in classics, but not going in for mathematics. 
 During this period of four years I was contemporary 
 with Gladstone, whom I had known also at Eton, 
 with Manning, Lord Elgin—then Mr. Bruce, after¬ 
 wards Governor-General of India—Lord Selborne, 
 etc. Hearing Gladstone speak at the Union in 1831, 
 I set him down in my thoughts as a future Prime 
 Minister of England; and I was equally sure that 
 Mr. Roundell Palmer would become Lord Chancellor. 
 I lived to see both these youthful prophecies fulfilled 
 after forty years. Thus I took my degree and class 
 before I was twenty years of age; but I have always 
 since felt how great a disadvantage it was to compete 
 at Oxford at sixteen with men who were generally 
 eighteen or nineteen at the beginning of their academic 
 career. After I had succeeded to a Fellowship at 
 Wadham College in 1833 ,1 went abroad to France and 
 Italy and did not return until the end of 1836, bearing 
 with me the most ardent love for Italy, with the 
 language of which I was then as familiar as with my 
 own. In 1837 I determined to take Orders in the 
 Anglican Church, not having the least doubt that it 
 was part of the Catholic Church. In December, 
 1837.1 was ordained Deacon, and in December, 1838, 
 Priest in the Anglican Church, both upon my Fellow¬ 
 ship as title; and from the former date my serious 
 life begins. When I went to Oxford in the autumn 
 of 1837 to prepare for Orders, I found the whole 
 atmosphere full of Dr. Newman and his party. My 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Vll 
 
 friend, Mr. Ward, the present editor of the Dublin 
 Review (in 1878), in answer to my question where I 
 should find what Puseyism meant, directed me to a 
 work of Newman just then published, “ The Pro¬ 
 phetical Office of the Church viewed relatively to 
 Romanism and Popular Protestantism.” I read it, 
 and from that time forth lived more and more upon 
 Newman’s mind. I had been ordained without the 
 slightest instruction in theology, as at that time 
 candidates for Orders were dispensed from attending 
 Dr. Hampden’s lectures, who was under suspicion 
 of heterodoxy. Newman became my theologian. I 
 read his sermons, and his thoughts, together with the 
 language in which he clothed them, exercised an ever- 
 increasing influence upon me. I can never remember 
 a time when I did not believe in the Catholic Church 
 —that is, one community springing from the Day of 
 Pentecost, and lasting to the Day of Judgement. 
 That faith was a gift of God, anterior to any self¬ 
 introspection which I can call up. But from the time 
 I set myself to know where and what this Catholic 
 Church was, until I had the happiness to enter into it, 
 passed a period of thirteen years, during which I can 
 see now, on looking back, that I was in a state of 
 perpetual search. The steps are as follows: I came 
 to London in 1838, and had as private pupils the sons 
 of the Lord Chancellor Cottenham, and of three 
 puisne Judges, Alderson, Coleridge, and Erskine. In 
 1840, the first of these, Alderson, a man of extra- 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 ordinary ability, who was Senior Wrangler in his day, 
 recommended me to Dr. Blomfield, Bishop of London, 
 and I became his examining Chaplain in May, 1840. 
 As such I presented the candidates to him for five 
 general ordinations from June, 1840, to June, 1842; 
 but then my Chaplaincy came to an abrupt termina¬ 
 tion. In January, 1842, the Bishop had gone to the 
 baptism of the Prince of Wales, and when I saw him 
 on his return, mentioned that the King of Prussia 
 had been one of the godfathers. This deeply offended 
 my Church principles, that a Prussian Protestant who 
 was outside the Church should be admitted as god¬ 
 father. With more sincerity than prudence I stated 
 my scruple to the Bishop, who had been a party con¬ 
 senting, and was not a little nettled at this remark of 
 his Chaplain. For he wanted, as he told me afterwards, 
 “ Moderate Oxford,” but this was immoderate with a 
 vengeance. He was the Bishop, it may be remem¬ 
 bered, who attempted to satisfy both parties in his 
 diocese by recommending that the clergy should 
 preach in their surplices. A few days afterwards the 
 Bishop said to me that he proposed to give me the 
 living of Launton in Oxfordshire. “ I advise you to take 
 it,” he said, “ because I can give it you now, whereas 
 later on I may feel unable to give you a living.” I 
 was grievously vexed at the prospect of going into 
 the country: for I greatly preferred and enjoyed my 
 position as his Chaplain. But there was no help for 
 it, so I took Launton with a capital house and £600 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IX 
 
 a year: but with a very boorish ignorant population of 
 about the same number of souls. I had married in 
 1840, and went thither in June, 1842, where I re¬ 
 mained until I resigned in September, 1850. As a 
 preparation for a country parsonage I bought St 
 Augustine and most of the Fathers in the old Bene¬ 
 dictine edition: and during these eight years I fed upon 
 Newman and them. It was not long before I dis¬ 
 covered that nothing in the world could be more 
 different from “ the Church of the Fathers ” than the 
 Established Church of England. I learnt bit by bit 
 the sacramental system for myself. It was a day 
 never to be forgotten when I ascertained for myself 
 from St Augustine that he worshipped the Eucharist. 
 
 Another time I learned from a sermon published 
 by one who is still at this moment a Bishop in the 
 Episcopal Church of Scotland, Dr. Wordsworth, that 
 confession of sins was required in the Church of the 
 Fathers in order to obtain their pardon, and I utilized 
 this by going to confession to Dr. Newman, who had 
 then withdrawn to Littlemore, and I made him a 
 general confession of my whole life, and continued 
 afterwards to go to him at times, until he left the 
 Anglican Church. It was in the spring of 1844 that 
 I thus went to him. I set up the daily morning and 
 evening service in my church and early Communion. 
 In 1844 I published a volume of sermons on the 
 Epistle to the Romans and other subjects, when my 
 faith in the Church of England was still unshaken. 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 In 1844 I restored my little church at a great expense, 
 and I remarked that from the time it was reopened 
 after restoration I never had an hour of peace in the 
 Church of England. In the year 1845 Fr. Newman 
 became a Catholic, and on the eve of his reception 
 wrote to me informing me of the step he was about to 
 take. Much as I had revered him, greatly as I felt 
 I had gained from him, and though I loved him as 
 much after he had left us as before, I did not blindly 
 follow him. I waited for his work on development, 
 and when it came, I fixed upon a page and a half 
 describing the Primacy of St Peter and of the Popes, 
 as it was exhibited in the first three centuries. I said, 
 I will test these statements. The question of the 
 Primacy includes the whole question between the 
 Church of England and the Church of Rome. I will 
 follow this subject faithfully to its issue, and where- 
 ever it leads me I will go, and I remember that I 
 thought to myself, Abraham’s sacrifice of his son 
 Isaac was certainly not greater than it would be to me 
 to quit the Church of England. That was in October, 
 1845, an< ^ it cost me five years of prayer and study 
 before the question which I had chosen to determine 
 the controversy landed me safely on the Rock of Peter. 
 What I went through in those five years no words of 
 mine can express. The ever-increasing anxiety, the 
 direction of all thoughts and studies to one point, the 
 connection of the conclusion to be come to with my 
 temporal fortunes, and the welfare of my wife and 
 
PREFACE 
 
 XI 
 
 children, the wish to be certain, the fear of being 
 deceived, of being warped one way by worldly interests, 
 or hurried another by impatience, all these formed a 
 trial which to look back upon at almost a generation’s 
 distance fills me with horror. I feel like the man who 
 rode his horse over a bridge of boats one night, and 
 when he saw what he had done the next day, died of 
 fright. The first fruit of my examination of the 
 question of the Primacy was a work intended origi¬ 
 nally to be an article in the Christian Remembrancer 
 but which speedily passed the size of an article and 
 came out in 1846 as “ The Church of England 
 cleared from the Charge of Schism upon Testimonies 
 of Councils and Fathers of the First Six Centuries,” 
 an octavo of 204 pages. In this I attempted to state 
 honestly all the passages I could find in favour of 
 St Peter’s Primacy as inherited by the Popes, and also 
 all the passages which seemed to me to impugn it. 
 The result was that I admitted fully a Primacy of 
 divine institution, while I defended my communion 
 on the ground that the Primacy had been stretched to 
 a Supremacy, whereas Anglicanism was an appeal to 
 the former against the latter. But my own mind was 
 anything but cleared by this book, for I went on 
 reading and thinking until in less than two years 
 came out a fresh edition in 1848, extended to more 
 than 500 pages, with the result, however, to my own 
 mind that I was made thoroughly unhappy by the 
 thought that my process of defending the Church of 
 
XI1 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 England left no Catholic Church at all. I had in this 
 interval thrice gone abroad for the summer vacation, 
 in 1845, in 1847, and 1848, and on all these three 
 occasions I sought every opportunity of seeing 
 Catholics, conversing with them, examining the great 
 works of charity in Paris and elsewhere, and trying 
 to understand Catholic worship, especially the cultus 
 of the Blessed Virgin, which latter soon became to me 
 an attraction. The result of these visits abroad was 
 summed up in a work published in 1849 with the 
 title of “ Journal in France in 1845 and 1848 with 
 Letters from Italy in 1847, of Things and Persons 
 concerning the Church and Education.” In this 
 volume I most honestly and conscientiously, as it 
 seemed to me, in my earnest search after truth, con¬ 
 trasted Catholicism, as I saw it in action, with that 
 utter want of discipline and dogma which I saw T all 
 around me in the Church of England, and which made 
 my life bitterness itself. This work, written by a 
 beneficed clergyman of the Church of England to the 
 honour of the Church of Rome, made a clatter in the 
 papers, and so angered my Bishop, Dr. Samuel Wilber- 
 force, that he threatened to begin proceedings against 
 me for it in the Ecclesiastical Court. A council of 
 friends of both sides, among whom were the present 
 Archdeacon Manning, Dr. Pusey, and Baron Alderson, 
 succeeded in stopping the prosecution. I believe the 
 Bishop desisted because he found that any sentence 
 which struck me would likewise strike not only his 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Xlll 
 
 brother, H. W. Wilberforce, but also his brother-in- 
 law, the then Archdeacon, afterwards Cardinal, 
 Manning. The storm, therefore, blew over, and I con¬ 
 soled myself by going to Rome in the summer of 1849, 
 when I obtained an audience of the Holy Father at 
 Gaeta in which he heard my story and gave me his 
 blessing. The next spring, 1850, brought the Gorham 
 Decision. I had, in the meantime, become very 
 uncomfortable. To quiet me Dr. Pusey had set me 
 to do a work on the Eucharist; and I was busily study¬ 
 ing the “ Summa ” of St Thomas and the dissertations 
 of Suarez about it. I found to my great delight that 
 the explanation of the Real Presence in the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation given by St Thomas was the 
 most spiritual that I had ever met with, seeming to 
 me to harmonize the doctrine, practice, and worship 
 of the Fathers. I had conceived the profoundest 
 veneration for the Catholic priesthood since I had 
 come to the knowledge that Mass was offered daily 
 by priests: for though I had lived six months together 
 at Rome in my youth, I had not learned so much as 
 that; my time for visiting churches being then late 
 in the day. I was busily engaged in this work on the 
 Eucharist, when suddenly, I know not how or why, 
 my eyes fell in Gibson’s Codex upon the Act of 
 Parliament in Henry VIITs reign, transferring to the 
 Crown the Papal Supremacy. Is this really so, I 
 said to myself. Dr. Pusey always has told me—he 
 had become my confessor after Newman left us— 
 
XIV 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 that the power of the Crown over the Church was an 
 usurpation, but this act makes it the foundation-stone, 
 the beginning of the separate existence of the Church 
 of England. The more I looked the more certain it 
 seemed. In the few days that followed I betook 
 myself eagerly to the work of Suarez, “ De Erroribus 
 Sectae Anglicanae,” and the result was a pamphlet 
 on the “ Royal Supremacy viewed in Reference to the 
 Two Spiritual Powers of Order and Jurisdiction.” I 
 sent this to my chief friends, but I found that not one 
 of them would grapple with the argument. Neither 
 Dr. Pusey nor Archdeacon Manning, nor Judges 
 Alderson and Coleridge, nor Archdeacon Wilberforce, 
 nor anyone else publicly or privately, would meet my 
 authorities and say, “You have mistaken the Royal 
 Supremacy and the Act of Parliament.” But I found 
 a general disposition to ignore my pamphlet as ill- 
 timed and uncomfortable. It came out just after 
 the Gorham decision. That wonderful decision laid 
 down the law of the Church of England concerning 
 Baptismal Regeneration to be, that those of her 
 ministers who believed it might continue to believe 
 it and to preach it, and those who disbelieved it might 
 continue to disbelieve it and to preach their disbelief 
 of it. A community which came to such a decision 
 concerning the point which implies the acceptance 
 on the one hand or the rejection on the other of the 
 whole sacramental system seemed to me only worthy 
 to be spat upon. From that time forth I never 
 
PREFACE 
 
 XV 
 
 hated or despised anything as I did the Church of 
 England. But I waited to see if anybody in her 
 would repudiate the judgement. No such repudia¬ 
 tion came. None has ever come. Her Convocation 
 has since repeatedly met, but that decision has never 
 been touched. The Gorham decision had, moreover, 
 a positive effect on my own view of the great question 
 about the Primacy. It made it clear to me as the day 
 that the point was not whether a Primacy had become 
 a Supremacy, but whether the Crown or the Church 
 was to rule in things spiritual. That the Church was 
 the Kingdom of Christ I had never doubted; and as 
 little that He had set over His Church not earthly 
 sovereigns, but St Peter and the College of Apostles. 
 In the autumn of that year I set myself to make a reply 
 to my own book which I had called a defence of the 
 Church of England. It was entitled “ The See of 
 St Peter, the Rock of the Church, the Source of 
 Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity.” I waited till 
 it was ready and then abjured the Anglican heresies 
 and was received into the Church by Fr. Newman, 
 September n, 1850. 
 
 The reflection which I would make on all the 
 preceding history is that no man among us, not even 
 Fr. Newman, was born after a more laborious travail, 
 so far as years of anxiety and inward struggle are 
 implied in that expression. It is my joy to add that 
 no one can have felt more peace and satisfaction in 
 the truth of the Catholic Church than I have felt in 
 
XVI 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 the twenty-seven years which have since elapsed. 
 Most converts in England could supply another 
 chapter to Fr. Newman’s story of “ Loss and Gain.” 
 Certainly I could. But this is not the place for it. 
 I will only say that at thirty-seven it was difficult 
 to locate oneself afresh in an extremely busy and 
 crowded world. If Masters of Arts do not sweep the 
 roads in London, as they are said to do at Melbourne, 
 there is at least no more helpless two-legged animal 
 than an ex-parson with wife and children, who has 
 become a Catholic. The epyov which I had so 
 passionately followed for thirteen years was gone. 
 I felt of about as much value or weight in the world 
 as a piece of sea-weed tossed by the surge high above 
 the water line. I may briefly note what I have done 
 since as an author. In 1852 I published “ St Peter, 
 His Name and His Office,” drawn partially from 
 Passaglia’s work. In 1853 Fr. Newman, then Rector 
 of the Catholic University at Dublin, proposed 
 to me to become Lecturer on the Philosophy of 
 History there. I delivered an inaugural Lecture on 
 the subject in December, 1854. The work called the 
 “ Formation of Christendom,” of which three volumes 
 have successively appeared in 1865, 1869, and 1875, 
 was originally intended to form part of a course on the 
 Philosophy of History, and to be delivered at Dublin; 
 but when the first volume was ready the author found 
 that no need of lectures on that subject had been felt 
 at the University, and the work has appeared in- 
 
PREFACE 
 
 xvn 
 
 dependently of it. It would require at least three 
 volumes more to complete the author’s design, depen¬ 
 dent, of course, upon the time, health, and leisure 
 granted by Almighty God. I should add, in 1865 
 Dr. Pusey published what he termed an Eirenicon, 
 the character of which may best be described by 
 Fr. Newman’s question to him, “ Why did you dis¬ 
 charge your olive branch from a catapult ?” In this 
 work Dr. Pusey, inter alia , attacked my conclusions 
 upon the Papacy as not being trustworthy, for, he said, 
 so long as I was led by the sole motive of seeking the 
 truth, I came to a conclusion adverse to the Papal 
 Supremacy. I answered this imputation in a letter 
 to Dr. Pusey in 1865, and further in 1866 I wrote a 
 work of 130 pages entitled “ Dr. Pusey and the Ancient 
 Church,” the drift of which was to demonstrate by the 
 testimony of St Augustine and all the Fathers down 
 to the Council of Chalcedon that the possession of the 
 Priesthood and of the Apostolical Succession was no 
 defence against the charge of Schism and Heresy. 
 This work I consider to have completed my answer 
 to my former work in defence of the Anglican Church. 
 Those to whom it was directed have always carefully 
 ignored it: and Dr. Pusey especially never acknow¬ 
 ledged even the receipt of the copy which I sent to 
 him: as neither did he acknowledge the letter in 
 which I answered his imputation of motives. I have 
 likewise since August, 1853, been Secretary of the 
 Catholic Poor School Committee for Great Britain, 
 
XV111 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 and as such have been greatly interested in the pro¬ 
 motion of Primary Education. Of the life hitherto 
 sketched I sum up the whole in the words: Miseri- 
 cordias Domini in ceternum cantabo. 
 
 London, 
 
 January 30, 1878. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. The Name of Peter Promised, Conferred, 
 
 and Explained - i 
 
 II. Education and Final Designation of Peter 
 to be the Ruler who should Confirm 
 his Brethren - - - - 33 
 
 III. The Investiture of Peter - - 72 
 
 IV. The Correspondence and Equivalence of 
 
 the Great Texts concerning Peter - 94 
 
 V. St Peter’s Primacy as exhibited in the 
 
 Acts ------ 127 
 
 VI. Testimony of St Paul to St Peter’s 
 
 Primacy - - - - 177 
 
 VII. St Peter’s Primacy involved in the Four¬ 
 fold Unity of Christ’s Kingdom - 199 
 
 VIII. Summary of Proof given for St Peter’s 
 Primacy 
 
 IX. Petrus de Petra 
 Index - 
 
 - 223 
 
 - 274 
 
 - 289 
 
 xix 
 
ST PETER: HIS NAME AND 
 
 HIS OFFICE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE NAME OF PETER PROMISED, CONFERRED, 
 
 AND EXPLAINED 
 
 Our Lord tells us that he came upon earth to “ finish 
 a work ”; and he likewise tells us what that work was, 
 the setting up a living society of men, who should 
 dwell in him and he in them; on whom his Spirit 
 should rest, with whom his presence should abide, 
 until the consummation of all things. For the even¬ 
 ing before his Passion, “ lifting up his eyes to heaven, 
 he said, Father, the hour is come. ... I have 
 glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work 
 which thou gavest me to do. ... I have manifested 
 thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of 
 the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest 
 them; and they have kept thy word. . . . Holy 
 Father, keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given 
 me; that they may be one, as we also are. While I 
 was with them, I kept them in thy name. . . . And 
 now I come to thee. ... I pray not that thou 
 shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou 
 shouldst keep them from evil. ... As thou hast 
 sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the 
 
2 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they 
 also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them 
 only do I pray, but for those also who through their 
 word shall believe in me; that they all may be one, as 
 thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may 
 be one in us; that the world may believe that thou 
 hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given 
 to me, I have given to them, that they may be one, as 
 we also are one. I in them, and thou in me; that 
 they may be made perfect in one; and the world may 
 know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as 
 thou hast loved me. . . . And I have made known 
 thy name to them, and will make it known; that the 
 love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, 
 and I in them .” 1 
 
 Thus, the Eternal Word declares to us that the 
 fruit of his Incarnation, the “ finished work ” which 
 his Father had given him to do, was the establishment 
 of a society whose unity in “ truth ” and “ love ” 
 should be so perfect, that he exemplifies it by the 
 indwelling in each other of the Divine Persons. This 
 society was to be perpetual and visible for ever, so 
 that the world by it and in it should recognize his own 
 mission, and believe in the sender. So the dowry of 
 this society, thus perpetually visible, was to be the 
 equally perpetual possession of truth—the revelation 
 of God’s will—and of love, which is conformity to it. 
 And he based these unexampled promises on no less 
 a guarantee than the almighty power and ineffable 
 goodness of his Father, witnessed by his own dwelling 
 amongst us in our flesh. 
 
 1 John xvii. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 3 
 
 Elsewhere he termed this society his Church, de¬ 
 clared that he would “ build it on a rock, and that the 
 gates of hell should not prevail against it .” 1 
 
 He told those whom he had set over it to go forth 
 in his name and “ to teach all nations whatsoever 
 he had commanded them,” adding the solemn engage¬ 
 ment on his own part, “ Behold I am with you all days, 
 even to the consummation of the world .” 2 
 
 His whole teaching is full of reference to it, setting 
 forth its nature with every variety of illustration, 
 enfolding it, as it were, with an exuberance of divine 
 charity. 
 
 But two conceptions run through every illustration, 
 and are involved in its primary idea, nay, as this was 
 the finished work of his Incarnation, so are they found 
 in his adorable person from which his work springs. 
 These conceptions are unity and visibility. 
 
 As the mystery of the Incarnation consists in the 
 union of the divine and human natures in one Person, 
 and in the assumption of a body—that is, matter by the 
 one uncreated, incomprehensible, and invisible Being, 
 whereby he becomes visible—so unity and visibility 
 are the unfailing marks of his Church, and enter into 
 every image of it, in such a manner that without them 
 the image loses its point and significancy. 
 
 Accordingly he proclaims the Church which he 
 was founding to be “ the Kingdom of God,” and 
 “ the Kingdom of Heaven,” thus bringing before us 
 the conceptions of order, government, power, head¬ 
 ship on the one hand, dependence on the other, and a 
 host of mutual relations between the Sovereign and 
 1 Matt, xvi 18. 2 Matt, xxviii 19, 20. 
 
4 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 the people, significantly remarking that “ a kingdom 
 which is divided against itself must fall.” Now a 
 kingdom without unity is a contradiction in terms, and 
 a kingdom of God on earth, which cannot be seen, 
 would be for spirits and not for men. 
 
 So he calls it a “ city seated on a mountain,” which 
 “ cannot be hid answering to his prophet’s words, 
 “ the city of the great King,” “ his rest, and his 
 habitation for ever .” 1 Here again are embodied the 
 notions of order, government, conspicuous majesty, 
 impregnable strength. 
 
 Thus he inspires his apostle to call it “ the house 
 of God, the pillar and ground of the truth .” 2 The 
 house must have its head, the family their father; the 
 knowledge of that father’s will is the truth which 
 rests upon the family as its support and pillar. Out¬ 
 side the family that knowledge may be lost, together 
 with the will to obey the father and to love him; but 
 within it is a living tradition, “ familiar to the ear as 
 household words.” As long as the Master and the 
 Father is there, a perpetual light from his face is there 
 too upon his children and his servants. Divide the 
 house, or corrupt its internal life, and the idea of the 
 house is destroyed; while an invisible house is an 
 absurdity. 
 
 Again, the Lord, calling himself “ the Good Shep¬ 
 herd, who giveth his life for the sheep ,” 3 terms his 
 Church the sheep-fold, and declares that as there 
 is one Shepherd, so there must be one fold. 
 
 But, rising yet in nearness to the Divine Person 
 
 1 Matt, v 14; Ps. xlvii 2; cxxxi 13, 14. 
 
 2 1 Tim. iii 15 3 John x 11-16. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 5 
 
 of the Word Incarnate, from whose side sleeping on 
 the cross she is moulded, the Church is called his 
 spouse, as united to him in eternal wedlock, “ a great 
 sacrament,” or mystery; and even yet more, his body, 
 as supported by the continual influx of her Head; and 
 all her members are called “ flesh of his flesh, and 
 bone of his bones .” 1 
 
 It is evident, then, that in these promises and 
 illustrations are set forth, as belonging to their object, 
 a visible unity, a perpetual possession and maintenance 
 of the truth, and the closest union with God, founded 
 upon a most supernatural indwelling of the Godhead 
 in a society of men on earth, the founding of which 
 was the “ finished work ” of God the Word Incarnate. 
 Were these promises to fail in any respect —which is 
 utterly impossible, for while heaven and earth shall 
 pass away, no word of their Maker can pass away— 
 it is plain that our ground for trusting in any promises of 
 Holy Writ whatsoever would he demolished. The whole 
 Christian revelation rests on the imperishable life of 
 the Church; because the corruption or division of the 
 Church would falsify the written records of our faith, 
 in which, after the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, and 
 the Godhead of our Lord, no truth is so deeply im¬ 
 bedded as the perpetual existence and office of the 
 Church. 
 
 We have seen the idea of King, Lord, Master, 
 Father, Shepherd, Husband, and Head, running 
 through the delineation of the Church. And no 
 society is complete without its ruler. Such was our 
 Lord, while on earth—the visible ruler of a visible 
 
 1 Eph. v 32, 30. 
 
6 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Church. “ While I was with them, I kept them in 
 thy name.” He went forth from his baptism to win 
 souls. The water became wine in his presence. He 
 bade men follow him, and they followed. Power 
 went forth from him and healed diseases. Grace 
 flowed from his lips and conquered hearts. An 
 innumerable multitude surrounded him, of all ages 
 and conditions. “ And going up into a mountain, he 
 called unto him whom he would himself; and they 
 came to him. And he made that twelve should be 
 with him, and that he might send them to preach .” 1 
 
 Here, then, the true Israel chooses the future princes 
 of his house, who should sit with him on thrones, 
 judging the twelve tribes. Already, while yet with 
 his Church, he is preparing for her future government, 
 when his visible presence shall be taken from her. 
 In three years all shall be accomplished, but when 
 “ the covenant should have been confirmed with 
 many in one week, and in the half of the week the 
 victim and the sacrifice should fail ”; 2 when his 
 Apostles should see him no longer; was any one 
 ordained to take that all-important place of supreme 
 ruler which he had filled ? For upon earth he had 
 been in two relations to his Church: her Founder, and 
 her Ruler. The former office belonged to his single 
 Person; in its nature it could not pass to another; the 
 work was finished once and for ever. But the latter 
 office was, in its nature, likewise perpetual. How, 
 then, should the charge of visible ruler, as man among 
 men, be executed, when his Person was withdrawn, 
 when he ascended up on high, when all power in heaven 
 1 Mark iii 13. 2 Dan. iv 26. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 7 
 
 and earth was indeed given into his hands, and so the 
 headship of spiritual influence and providential care ? 
 Then, indeed, that sacred Body was withdrawn into 
 the tabernacle of God, and the Bridegroom was taken 
 away for a time, and the voice and visible presence, 
 “ what they had seen, and heard, and handled, of the 
 word of life ,” 1 “ was with them and kept them ” no 
 longer. Should his Church, which had been under 
 one visible ruler from the beginning, now have her 
 government changed ? Or had he marked out any 
 one among the Twelve to succeed to his own office 
 of visible headship, and to be “ the greater,” and “ the 
 ruler ” 2 among his brethren, his own special repre¬ 
 sentative and vicar ? 
 
 To answer this question, we must carefully observe 
 and distinguish what is said and what is given to the 
 Apostles in common , and what to any one of their 
 number in particular; the former will instruct us as 
 to their equality, the latter as to the pre-eminence 
 which any one enjoyed over the rest, and in what it 
 consisted. 
 
 Just, then, as at a certain period of his ministry, our 
 Lord, out of the multitude who followed him, selected 
 twelve to be his special attendants upon earth, and, 
 when he should be taken up, to be the heralds of his 
 Gospel among all nations: so out of the twelve he 
 from the beginning distinguished one, marked him 
 out for a peculiar and singular office, connected him 
 with himself in a special manner, and having after 
 through the whole of his ministry given him tokens 
 and intimations of his future destination, at last 
 1 i John i i. 2 Luke xxii 26. 
 
8 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 expressly nominated him to take his own place, and 
 preside among his brethren. His dealing with this 
 Apostle forms one connected whole, in which there is 
 nothing abrupt or inharmonious, out of keeping, or 
 opposed to what he said to others. What is at first 
 obscurely intimated is afterwards expressly promised, 
 again in fresh terms corroborated, and at last, in yet 
 other language, but of the like force, most significantly 
 conveyed , 1 while it is attested by a number of inci¬ 
 dental notices scattered through the whole Gospel 
 history. Thus 2 it becomes necessary to consider 
 each particular, as well as the whole sum of things 
 said, proper and peculiar to this Apostle; to weigh first 
 their separate and then their joint force, and only at 
 last to form a united judgement upon all. 
 
 We are searching into the will of the divine Founder 
 of our faith, which he has not only communicated 
 to his Church in a living tradition, but in this case 
 likewise ordered to be set forth in authentic written 
 documents. These alone we are here considering, 
 and the point in question is whether he decreed that 
 all the Twelve should share equally in that divine 
 mission and authority which he had received from the 
 Father, or whether, while bestowing on them all very 
 high and distinctive powers, he yet appointed one, 
 namely Simon, the son of Jonas, to preside over the 
 rest in his own place. We have, then, to consider all 
 in these documents which is said peculiar to such 
 Apostle, pointing out singular gifts and prerogatives, 
 and carrying with it special authority of government. 
 
 1 See John i 42; Mark iii 16; Matt, xvi 18; Luke xxii 32; 
 John xxi 15. 2 Passaglia, pp. 35-37. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 9 
 
 And we must remember that where proofs are numer¬ 
 ous and complex, some which in themselves are only 
 probable and accessory, yet have their force on the 
 ultimate result. But this result must be drawn from 
 a general view of the whole, and will collect in one the 
 sum of proof both probable and certain. 
 
 Again, where many various causes concur, some 
 more and some less, to produce a certain effect, the 
 force of such effect is the force of all these causes put 
 together, not of each by itself alone. Or where many 
 witnesses are examined, whose evidence differs in 
 value, although the testimony of some be in itself 
 decisive, yet the verdict must be given after a con¬ 
 sideration and review of all. 
 
 Now, the first mention which we have of the Apostle 
 Simon is full of signification. Our Lord had only 
 just begun his ministry; he had been lately baptized, 
 and as yet had called no disciples. But two of John the 
 Baptist’s disciples, hearing their master name Jesus 
 “ the Lamb of God,” follow him, are kindly received 
 by him, and one of them, being Andrew, Simon’s 
 brother, finds Simon, and says to him, “ We have 
 found the Messias. And he brought him to Jesus. 
 And Jesus looking on him said, Thou art Simon the 
 son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is 
 interpreted Peter :” 1 as if he would say, By birth thou 
 art Simon, son of John; but another and a higher lot 
 is in store for thee. I will give thee another name 
 which thou shalt bear, a name in itself signifying the 
 place which thou shalt hold in my Church. Thou 
 shalt be called, and thou shalt be, the Rock. 
 
 1 John i 35-42. 
 
10 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 For why, when a vast multitude of our Lord’s words 
 and actions have been omitted, was this recorded for 
 us, save that a deep meaning lay in it ? Or what 
 could that meaning be when our Lord, for the first 
 time looking on Peter, promised to him and to him 
 alone, a new name, and that a name given in prophecy 
 to himself, a name declaring by its very sound that he 
 should be laid by the builder, as a foundation of the 
 structure about to be raised ? So in the fourth 
 century St Chrysostom comments on the text, calling 
 him “ the foundation of the Church, he that was 
 really Peter ” (the Rock) “ both in name and in deed ”; 
 and a little after St Cyril of Alexandria, “ with allusion 
 to the rock he transferred his name to Peter, for upon 
 him he was about to found his Church .” 1 The 
 V Creator of the world does not give a name for nothing. 
 His word is with power, and does what it expresses. 
 Of old, “ He spake and they were made; he commanded 
 and they were created.” Now, too, he speaks, at the 
 first dawn of his great spiritual restoration. When as 
 yet nothing has been done, and not a stone of the 
 divine building reared, he who determines the end 
 from the beginning looks upon one who seemed a 
 simple fisherman, and at first beholding him, he takes 
 Simon, the son of Jonas, out of the roll of common 
 men; he marks him for a future design; he wraps him 
 in a prophetic title; he associates him with his own 
 immovable power. Of himself it has been said , 2 
 “ Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion, 
 
 1 St Chrysostom on the text. St Cyril in Joan, i 42. 
 
 2 Isa. xxviii 16; Ps. cxvii 22; Dan. ii 35; Zach. iii 9; 
 Eph. ii 20. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 II 
 
 a tried stone, a corner-stone, a precious stone, founded 
 on the foundation. He that believeth, let him not 
 hasten.” And again, “ The stone which the builders 
 rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: 
 this is the Lord’s doing, and it is wonderful in our 
 eyes.” And again, “ A stone was cut out of a moun¬ 
 tain without hands; and it struck the statue upon the 
 feet thereof that were of iron and clay, and broke them 
 in pieces. But the stone that struck the statue became 
 a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” And 
 again, “ Behold the stone that I have laid before Jesus: 
 upon one stone there are seven eyes; behold, I will 
 grave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of Hosts; 
 and I will take away the iniquity of that land in one 
 day.” In reference to which St Paul said of Christians, 
 that they are “ built upon the foundation of the 
 apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
 the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, 
 being framed together, groweth up into a holy temple 
 in the Lord.” It is plain, then, that our Lord, “ both 
 by the Old and New Testament, is called a 
 stone .” 1 
 
 But this which he had of himself, and by virtue 
 of his own divine power, as the Word of God, he would 
 communicate in a degree, and by dependence on 
 himself, to another. This is no modern interpreta¬ 
 tion, but the very words of St Ambrose: “ Great is 
 the grace of Christ, who bestowed almost all his own 
 names on his disciples. I, said he, am the light of 
 the world, and yet he granted to his disciples the very 
 name in which he exulted, by the words, Ye are the 
 
 1 Theodoret in Dan. ii 34. 
 
12 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 light of the world. Christ is the Rock, but yet he did 
 not deny the grace of this name to his disciple, that he 
 should be Peter, because he has from the Rock firm 
 constancy, immovable faith.” 1 
 
 In the third century, Origen, on this very text, 
 observes: “ He said he should be called Peter, by 
 allusion to the Rock, which is Christ, that as a man 
 from wisdom is termed wise, and from holiness holy, 
 so too Peter from the Rock.” And in the fifth, St Leo 
 paraphrases the name thus: “ While I am the inviolable 
 Rock, the Corner-stone, who make both one, the 
 foundation beside which no one can lay another; yet 
 thou also art the rock, because by my virtue thou art 
 established so as to enjoy by participation the properties 
 which are peculiar to me.” 2 
 
 Here, then, we have three facts: (i) That our Lord 
 having twelve apostles whom he chose, loved, and 
 honoured, above all his other disciples, yet promised 
 to one only a new name; 3 and (2) this a name in the 
 highest degree significative, and most deeply pro¬ 
 phetical of a particular office; and (3) a name peculiar 
 to himself, as the immovable foundation of the Church. 
 This happened in the first year of his ministry, before, 
 
 1 Ambrose in Luc., lib. 6, n. 97. 2 Serm. iv 2. 
 
 3 For the name Boanerges, which in one place is given to 
 the two sons of Zebedee, is in the first place a joint name; 
 secondly, it is nowhere else referred to, and does not take 
 the place of their birth-names; thirdly, it indicates not an 
 official dignity, but an inward disposition. We cannot 
 doubt that such a name bestowed on the two brothers was 
 a mark of great distinction, but, for the above reasons, it 
 cannot come into competition with the name of Peter. See 
 Passaglia, p. 44, n. 38. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 13 
 
 as it would appear, either Peter or any other Apostle 
 was called. 
 
 The promise thus emphatically made to Simon, 
 “ Thou shalt be called the Rock,” our Lord fulfilled 
 in the second year of his ministry, when he distin¬ 
 guished the twelve Apostles from the rest of his 
 disciples, giving them authority to teach, and power to 
 heal sicknesses and to cast out devils. Then, says 
 St Mark, “ to Simon he gave the name of Peter 
 and St Matthew, “ The names of the twelve apostles 
 are these: the first, Simon, who is called Peter;” and 
 St Luke, “ Simon, whom also he named Peter.” 1 
 And by this name he marked him out from amongst 
 all his brethren, and united him to himself. “ He 
 changes, too,” says Tertullian, “ Peter’s name from 
 Simon, because also as Creator he altered the names 
 of Abraham, Sara, and Oshua, calling the last Jesus, 
 and adding syllables to the others, but why did he 
 call him Peter ? If for the strength of his faith, many 
 solid substances would lend him a name from them¬ 
 selves. Or was it because Christ is both the Rock and 
 the Stone, since we'read that he is set for a stone of 
 stumbling and a rock of offence ? I omit the rest. 
 And so it was his pleasure to communicate to the 
 dearest of his disciples, in a peculiar manner, a name 
 drawn from the figures of himself, I imagine, as being 
 nearer than one drawn from figures not of himself.” 2 
 
 It is, then, setting a seal on his former acts, drawing 
 out and corroborating their meaning, that he once 
 more, and in the most emphatic way of all, recurs to 
 
 1 Mark iii 14; Matt, x 1; Luke vi 14 
 
 2 Cont. Marcion., 1 . 4, c. 13. 
 
14 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 this name, attaching to it the most signal promises, 
 and establishing its prophetic power. In the third 
 year of his ministry our Lord “ came into the quarters 
 of Cesarea Philippi; and he asked his disciples,saying, 
 Whom do men say that the Son of Man is ? But they 
 said, Some John the Baptist, and others Elias, and 
 others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith 
 to them, But whom say ye that I am ? Simon Peter 
 answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the 
 living God. And Jesus answering, said to him, 
 Blessed art thou, Simon Bar 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 will I build my Church, and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will 
 give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And 
 whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
 also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
 earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” 
 
 When we reflect that the first act of our Lord to 
 Peter was to look upon him, and to promise him this 
 name, a token of his omnipotence to Simon yet know¬ 
 ing him not, as that seeing him under the fig-tree was 
 to Nathanael of his omniscience; and that when he 
 chose his twelve Apostles, it is said markedly, “ to 
 Simon he gave the name of Peter,” the force of his 
 reply cannot well be exceeded. The promise of our 
 Lord answers part by part to the confession of his 
 Apostle. The one says, “ Thou art the Christ,” that 
 is, the anointed one; the other, “ Thou art Peter,” 
 that is, the Rock, the name which I gave thee myself: 
 my own title with which I invested thee. The one 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 15 
 
 adds, “ The Son of the living God ”; the other “ And 
 upon this rock I will build my Church,” that is, as it 
 is true what thou confessest, that I am “ the Son of the 
 living God,” so my power as such shall be shown in 
 building my Church upon thee whom I have named 
 the Rock, “ and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it.” Not only this, but I will unfold to thee 
 the full meaning of thy name, and declare the gifts 
 which accompany it. “ And I will give to thee the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven.” 1 It was written 
 of old : These things saith the holy one and 
 the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that 
 openeth and no man shutteth; shutteth and no man 
 openeth.” As he gave to thee to share his name of 
 the Rock, so he shall give to thee to bear in his name 
 his own symbol of supreme dominion, the key which 
 opens or shuts the true city of David. All ages shall 
 own thee, all nations acknowledge thee, as The Bearer 
 of the Keys. As long as my Church shall last, against 
 which the gates of hell shall not prevail, thy office shall 
 last too; as long as there are souls to be saved, they 
 shall pass by thy ministry into the gate of the Church. 
 And further, as long as there need in my spiritual 
 kingdom laws to be promulgated, precepts issued, sins 
 forgiven, “ whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, 
 it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” 
 
 Who, indeed, can adequately express the gifts 
 which the world’s Creator and Redeemer here promises 
 to his favoured servant ? Thus in the fourth century 
 St Chrysostom labours to set them forth: “ See how 
 
 1 Apoc. iii 7. 
 
16 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 he raises Peter to a higher opinion of himself; and 
 reveals and shows himself to be the Son of God by 
 these two promises. For what belongs to God alone, 
 to loose sins, and to render the Church immovable 
 in such an assault of waves, and to make a fisherman 
 more solid than any rock, when the whole world was 
 at war with him, these are what he promises to give 
 him; as the Father, addressing Jeremias, said, * I have 
 made thee an iron pillar and a wall/ but him to one 
 nation, whereas the other to the whole world. Will¬ 
 ingly would I ask those who wish to diminish the 
 dignity of the Son, which are the greatest gifts, those 
 which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the 
 Son. For the Father bestowed on Peter the revelation 
 of the Son; but the Son disseminated that of the 
 Father and of himself through the whole world; and 
 put into the hands of a mortal man power over all things 
 in heaven , when he gave the keys to him who extended 
 the Church through the whole world, and showed it 
 to be firmer than the heaven/’ 1 And not many years 
 later St Leo says, “ That which the truth ordered 
 remains; and blessed Peter, persisting in that strength 
 of the rock which he received, has not deserted the 
 guidance, once undertaken, of the Church. For thus 
 was he set before the rest, that while he is called the 
 Rock, while he is declared to be the foundation, while 
 he is appointed the door-keeper of the kingdom of 
 heaven, while he is advanced to be the judge of what 
 shall be bound and what loosed, with the condition 
 that his sentence shall be ratified even in heaven, we 
 might learn through the very mysteries of the names given 
 1 St Chrys. in Matt, xvi, Horn. 54. 
 
ST peter: his name and hie office 17 
 
 to him , how he was associated with Christ ” 1 This 
 association passed, indeed, into the very mind of the 
 Church, for among all the titles given by fathers and 
 councils and liturgies to Peter, and expressing his 
 prerogatives, the one contained in this name is the 
 most frequent. Thus he is termed “ the rock of the 
 Church,” 2 “ the rock of the Church that was to be 
 built,” 3 “ underlying the building of the Church,” 4 
 “ receiving on himself the building of the Church,” 5 
 “ the immovable rock,” 6 “ the rock which the proud 
 gates of hell prevail not against,” 7 “ the most solid 
 rock,” 8 “ he to whom the Lord granted the participa¬ 
 tion of his own title, the rock,” 9 “ the foundation 
 second from Christ,” 10 “ the great foundation of the 
 Church,” 11 “ the foundation and basis,” 12 “ founding 
 the Church by his firmness,” 13 “ the support of the 
 
 1 St Leo, Serm. 3. 
 
 2 Hilary in Matt, xv, n. 6; in Ps. cxxxi, n. 4; de Trin., 
 1 . 6, n. 20. Gregory Naz. Orat. 26, p. 453. Ambrose, 
 St Amb. Retract, lib. 1, c. 21, St Aug. 
 
 3 Tertullian de Monogam., c. 8. Origen in Ps. 1, 
 Eusebii, Hist., 1 . 6, c. 25. Cyprian, Ep. 71, Fir- 
 milian, 74. 
 
 4 Basil cont.Eunom., lib.2, n. 4. Zeno, lib.2, tract. 13,n. 2. 
 
 6 By the same. 
 
 6 Epiphan. Hasr. 59, n. 7. 
 
 7 Aug. in. Ps. cont. par. Donati. Leo, serm. 98. 
 
 8 Theodoret, ep. 77. 
 
 9 Maximus of Turin, Serm. pro natali Petri et Pauli. 
 
 10 Greg. Nazian. in Horn, archieratico inserta. 
 
 11 Origen in Exod. horn. 5, n. 4. 
 
 12 Gallican Sacramentary, edited by Mabillon, t. i, Mus. 
 Ital., p. 343. Synod of Ephesus, Act 3. 
 
 3 Peter Chrysologus, serm. 154. ' 
 
 2 
 
18 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Church,” 1 “ the Apostle in whom is the Church’s 
 support,” 2 “ the support of the faith,” 3 “ the pillar 
 of the Church,” 4 and by an authority sufficient 
 alone to terminate all controversy, the great Council 
 of Chalcedon, 5 “ the rock and foundation of the 
 Catholic Church, and the basis of the orthodox 
 faith.” 
 
 Thus, then, we have the name of Peter first pro¬ 
 mised, next conferred, then explained. And further 
 light will be shed on this by the consideration of the 
 purpose for which names in Holy Writ were bestowed 
 by divine command on individuals, or their former 
 names changed. 
 
 Now, of names opposed in Scripture there would 
 seem to be three classes. The first and most common 
 are commemorative , and are for the purpose of record¬ 
 ing and handing down to posterity remarkable facts. 
 Such are Peleg, “ because in his days the earth was 
 divided ”; Isaac, from the laughter of his father and 
 mother; Issachar, a reward; Manasses, “ God hath 
 made me to forget my labours”; Ephraim, “God 
 hath made me to grow ”; 6 and a multitude of 
 others. 
 
 The second class may be termed significative , being 
 imposed to distinguish their bearers from others by 
 
 1 Ambrose de Virginitate, c. 16. 
 
 2 Ambrose in Luc., lib. iv, n. 70. 
 
 3 Chrysostom, Horn., tom. iii, p. 4. 
 
 4 Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, in Act 3 of Council of 
 Ephesus. 
 
 5 Council of Chalcedon, Act 3. 
 
 6 Gen. x 25; xvii 19; xxx 18; xli 51, 52. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 19 
 
 some quality. Such are Jacob, the supplanter; 
 Esau, Edom, the red; Moses, the taken or saved; 
 Maccabeus; Boanerges. 1 
 
 The third and highest class are prophetic , and as 
 such evidently can be imposed by God alone, who 
 foresees the future. They are twofold: (1) Those 
 which fore-signify events concerning not so much 
 their bearers as others: such are Shear-jashub, “ the 
 remnant shall return”; Jezrael, “I will visit”; 
 Lo-ruhamah, “not pitied”; Lo-ammi, “not my 
 people.” (2) Those which point out the office and 
 destiny of their bearers; such as Noe, rest; Israel, 
 a prince before God; Josue, saviour; Sarah, princess; 
 John, in whom there is grace; and, after the divine 
 name of Jesus, “ who saves his people from their 
 sins,” 2 Abraham, and Cephas, or Peter. These two 
 neither commemorate a past event, nor signify a 
 quality or ornament already possessed, but are wholly 
 prophetic, inasmuch as they shadow out the dignity 
 to which the leaders of the two covenants are divinely 
 marked out by the very imposition of their name. 
 
 For it will perhaps bring out the pre-eminence and 
 superior authority of Peter, if we consider the very 
 close remembrance and almost identity of the dis¬ 
 pensation into which God entered with Abraham, 
 and that which Christ gave to Peter. But first we 
 must observe how the more remarkable things occur¬ 
 ring in the New Testament were foretold by types, 
 
 1 Gen. xxv 26; xxvii 36; xxv 25; xxv 30; Exod. ii 10; 
 1 Macc. ii 4; Mark iii 17. 
 
 2 Isa. vii 3; Os. i 4, 6, 9; Gen. v 29; xxxii 28; Num. 
 xiii 17; Gen. xvii 15; Matt, iii 1. 
 
20 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 images, parallelisms, and distinct prophecies in the 
 Old. How 1 both our Lord, the Evangelists, and the 
 Apostles take pains to point out the close agreement 
 between the two covenants; how the ancient ecclesi¬ 
 astical writers do the like in their contests with early 
 heretics, or in recommending the truth of the Christian 
 faith either to Jew or Gentile. They considered 
 scarcely any proof of the Gospel superior to that which 
 might be drawn by grave and solid inference from the 
 anticipation of Christian truths in the old covenant. 
 Now, among such truths, what concerns Peter is surely 
 of signal importance, as it affects the whole judgement 
 on the form of government which our Lord instituted 
 for his Church. 
 
 Again, it may be taken as an axiom that, as a simili¬ 
 tude of causes is inferred from a similitude of effects, 
 so a resemblance of the divine counsels may be inferred 
 from a resemblance of exterior manifestations. As 
 effects are so many steps by which we rise to the 
 knowledge and discernment of causes, so divine mani¬ 
 festations are tokens which unfold God’s eternal 
 decrees. Thus if the series of dealings which con¬ 
 stitute God’s dispensation to Abraham be very much 
 like that other series in which the Scriptures of the 
 New Testament set forth the dispensation given to 
 Peter, we may conclude, first, that the two dispensa¬ 
 tions may be compared; and, secondly, that from their 
 resemblance, a resemblance in the divine purpose 
 may be deduced. 
 
 First, 2 then, “ God at sundry times, and in divers 
 manners, speaking to the fathers ” of that covenant 
 1 Passaglia, p. 51. 2 Ibid ., p. 52. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 21 
 
 of grace, into which he had already entered with our 
 first parents, said to Abram, “ Go forth out of thy 
 country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father’s 
 house, and I will make of thee a great nation.” But 
 when in the last days he began to fulfil that covenant, 
 and to declare his will by his Son, Jesus said to Simon 
 and Andrew, “ Follow me, and I will make you to 
 become fishers of men,” and to Simon specially, 
 “ Fear not, for henceforth thou shalt catch men.” 1 
 
 Abram hearkened to God calling him: “ So Abram 
 went out as the Lord had commanded him”; and 
 Simon as readily obeyed Christ’s vocation: “ And 
 immediately leaving their nets they followed Him.” 2 
 
 God rewarded Abraham’s obedience by the promise 
 of a new name: “ Neither shall thy name be called 
 any more Abram, but thou shalt be called Abraham.” 
 So Christ honoured Simon, saying, “ Thou art 
 Simon, the son of Jonas ; thou shalt be called 
 Cephas.” 3 
 
 No sooner had God unfolded the dignity shadowed 
 forth in the promised name, and bestowed that 
 dignity on Abraham, than he required of him a signal 
 instance of faith and love: “ God tempted Abraham, 
 and said to him, Take thy son, thine only begotten, 
 whom thou lovest, and offer him for a holocaust.” So 
 Christ required of Simon a proof of faith and of 
 superior love before he either unfolded the excellence 
 of the promised name, or adorned him with that 
 excellency: “ He saith to them, Whom say ye that 
 
 1 Gen. xii i; Mark i 16, 17; Luke v 10. 
 
 2 Gen. xii 4; Mark i 18. 
 
 3 Gen. xvii 5; John i 42. 
 
22 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 I am ?” “ Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more 
 than these P” 1 
 
 And both were no less ready to show the fortitude 
 of their faith and love than they had been ready to 
 follow the divine calling. For, “ Abraham stretched 
 forth his hand, and took the sword to sacrifice his 
 son ”; and “ Simon Peter answering, said, Thou art 
 the Christ, the Son of the living God and again, 
 “ Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” 2 
 
 Then, as the bestowal of the new name was the 
 reward of the obedience with which each had followed 
 his vocation, so God, moved by their remarkable 
 ensuing faith and charity, explained the dignity con¬ 
 tained in that name, and bestowed it when so explained. 
 The following refers to the explanation: “ By myself 
 have I sworn, because thou hast done this thing,” 
 and “ Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to 
 thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say 
 unto thee.” 
 
 But as to the dignity bestowed, it should be re¬ 
 marked that it is divine, and communicated to each 
 with this resemblance: First, that Abraham thereby 
 becomes the source and parent of all the faithful, and 
 Peter their base and foundation; the one, the author 
 of a seed which should equal in number the stars of 
 the heaven and the sand of the sea; the other, the Rock 
 of the Church, which should embrace all nations, 
 tribes, and languages. God says to Abraham, “ And 
 multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of 
 heaven and as the sand which is on the sea-shore.” 
 
 1 Gen. xxii i; Matt, xvi 15; John xxi 15. 
 
 2 Gen. xxi 10; Matt, xvi 16; John xxi 15. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 23 
 
 But Christ to Peter, “ And upon this rock I will build 
 my Church.” Secondly , the blessing thus bestowed 
 from above upon each was not one which should rest 
 in their single persons, but from them and through 
 them should be extended to the universal posterity 
 and society of the faithful; so that all who should 
 believe to the consummation of time should gain 
 through them blessing, stability, and victory over the 
 assault of enemies and the gates of hell. The promise 
 to Abraham is clear: “ Thy seed shall possess the gate 
 of their enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations 
 of the earth be blessed ”; nor less so to Peter, “ And 
 the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” 
 
 But the high excellence of this dignity, embracing, 
 as it does, the whole company of the faithful, was 
 presignified in the very meaning of the name imposed. 
 For of Abraham’s name we read, “ And thy name shall 
 be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made 
 thee.” Exactly resembling is what is said of Peter’s 
 appellation, “ Thou art Peter, the Rock, and upon this 
 rock I will build my church.” 
 
 Nay, we may put in parallel columns the two 
 promises, thus— 
 
 1. Thy name shall be 1. Thou art Peter. 
 Abraham. 
 
 2. For a father of many 2. And upon this rock I 
 nations have I made thee. will build My Church. 
 
 And just as in the former the second clause contains 
 the reason of the first, so in the latter likewise the 
 two clauses cohere, as the name and its explanation. 
 Again, the dignity of the one is expressed-as that 
 
24 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 of the Father; of the other as that of the Rock. Further, 
 those alone can share the blessing of Abraham, who 
 are born of his spirit; and those alone the stability 
 divinely granted to Peter, who refuse by any violence, 
 or at any cost, to be separated from him. 
 
 But Abraham was thus raised to be the friend of 
 God, associated in the divine Fathership, and made 
 the teacher of posterity; and therefore, as being such, 
 God would show him his counsels, that through him 
 they might descend to his children. “ And the Lord 
 said, Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to 
 do ? for I know that he will command his children and 
 his household after him to keep the way of the Lord.” 
 In a precisely similar way, when God would call the 
 Gentiles to the light of the Gospel, he showed it by a 
 special revelation to Peter alone: “ There came upon 
 him an ecstasy of mind: and he saw the heaven opened; 
 and this was done thrice.” And the reason of so 
 preferring Peter was God’s decree, that through him 
 other Christians, even the Apostles themselves, might 
 be informed, and convinced. “ You know that in 
 former days God made choice among us that by my 
 mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the 
 Gospel and believe.” “ And thou, when thou art 
 converted, confirm thy brethren.” 1 
 
 Finally, as God pronounces Abraham blest, so 
 Christ pronounces Peter: and as he made Abraham the 
 source and fountain-head of blessing and strength 
 to all others, so no less did Christ make Peter. Of 
 the first we read, “ I will bless thee, and will 
 make thy name great, and thou shalt be a bless- 
 1 Gen. xviii 17; Acts x 10; xv 7; Luke xxii 32. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 25 
 
 ing”; of the second, “Blessed art thou, Simon 
 Bar Jona;” and “Upon this rock I will build my 
 Church.” 
 
 In one word, the parallel is as follows between 
 Abraham and Peter. Both receive a remarkable call, 
 and follow it; both are promised and receive a new, 
 and that a prophetical name; of both signal instances 
 of faith and love are required; both furnish these, and 
 therefore do not lose the increase of their reward. To 
 Abraham his prophetical name is explained, and to 
 Peter likewise; Abraham understands his destination 
 to be the Father of all nations, and Peter that he is 
 made the Rock of the universal Church; Abraham is 
 called blest, and so Peter. To Abraham it is revealed 
 that no one, save from him, and through him, shall 
 share the heavenly blessing; to Peter that all, from 
 him, and through him, shall gain strength and stability. 
 It is only through Abraham that his posterity can 
 promise itself victory over the enemy, and only through 
 being built on Peter, the Rock, that the Church will 
 triumph over the gates of hell. Finally, if Abraham, 
 as the teacher of the faithful, is instructed in the 
 divine counsels with singular care, not less is shown to 
 Peter, whom Christ has made the doctor and teacher 
 of all believers. 
 
 The gifts thus bestowed on Abraham and Peter are 
 peculiar , for they are read of no one else in the Holy 
 Scriptures; they are not only gifts, but a reward for 
 singular merit; and in their own nature they cannot be 
 general. As by them Abraham is put into a relation 
 of Father ship, so that all the faithful become his 
 children, so Peter being called and made the rock and 
 
26 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Foundation of the Church, all its members have a 
 dependence on him. 
 
 And if these gifts are peculiar, no less do they convey 
 a singular dignity and pre-eminence. For it follows 
 that, as St Paul says, all the faithful are children of 
 Abraham , 1 being heirs not of his flesh, but of his 
 spirit and faith; so no one is, or can be, a part of the 
 Church’s building, who rests not on Peter as the 
 foundation. For the same God who said to Abraham, 
 “ Thy name shall no longer be called Abram, but 
 Abraham shall be thy name,” said also to Simon, 
 “ Thou shalt not be called Simon, but Cephas ”; the 
 same God who said to the former, “ In thee shall all 
 families of the earth be blessed,” said to the latter, 
 “ Upon this Rock I will build my Church.” 
 
 What is the source of this pre-eminence in both ? 
 To both the same objection may be made, and for 
 both the same defence. 
 
 How should blessing and adoption be propagated 
 from Abraham, as a sort of head, into the whole body 
 of the faithful ? Because Abraham is considered as 
 joined with that mighty Seed his offspring, whence 
 in chief and primarily the salvation of all depends; 
 because Abraham is made by participation partner 
 of that dignity which naturally and substantially belongs 
 to the Seed that was to spring from him. God himself 
 has told us this, and his Apostle St Paul explained it. 
 For as we read that it was said to Abraham, “ In thee 
 shall all nations of the earth be blessed,” so God 
 himself has told us that in thee, by thee , means in, by 
 thy seed. Hence St Paul: “ To Abraham were the 
 
 1 Gal. iii 7. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 27 
 
 promises made, and to his seed. He saith not, seeds, 
 as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is 
 Christ . 5,1 So that the divine words, “ In thee shall 
 all nations of the earth be blessed,” give this meaning: 
 “ As thou shalt give flesh to my only begotten Son 
 whom I cherish in my bosom, whence he shall be 
 called at once ‘ the Son of God and the son of Abra¬ 
 ham ,’ 2 so he makes thee a partner of his dignity and 
 excellence, whence, if not the source and origin, yet 
 thou shalt be a broad stream of blessing to be poured 
 out on all nations.” 
 
 Now, just in the same manner is Peter the Rock of 
 the Church, and the cause next to Christ of that 
 firmness with which the Church shall remain impreg¬ 
 nable to the end. For therefore is he the Rock and 
 Foundation of the Church, because he has been called 
 into a sort of unity with him of whom it is said, “ Be¬ 
 hold, I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious, 
 and he that believeth on it shall not be ashamed ”: 
 and in whom, as Paul explains, “ the whole building 
 fitly framed together increaseth unto a holy temple 
 in the Lord .” 3 Therefore is he the Church’s Rock, 
 because as he, by his own confession, declared the 
 Godhead of the Foundation in chief, “ Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God,” so from him, who 
 is the chief and substantial Foundation, he received 
 the gift of being made partner in one and the same 
 property: “And I too say unto thee, that thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church 
 one with me by communication of my office and charge, 
 my dignity and excellency. Hence the stability of 
 1 Gal. iii 16. 2 Matt, i 1. 3 Isa. xxviii 16; Eph. ii 21. 
 
28 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Peter is that of Christ, as the splendour of the ray is 
 that of the sun; Peter’s dignity that of Christ, as the 
 river’s abundance is the abundance of the fountain. 
 Those who diminish Peter’s dignity may well be 
 charged with violating the majesty of Christ; those 
 who are hostile to Peter, and divorced from him, 
 stand in the like opposition to Christ. 
 
 Now, this parallel is an answer 1 to those who 
 object to Peter’s supereminence as the Foundation, 
 that this dignity is entirely divine, surpassing by an 
 almost infinite degree the capacity of man. For is 
 not that a divine dignity which consists in the paternity 
 of all the faithful ? Is not that prerogative beyond 
 man’s capacity by which one becomes the author of a 
 blessing diffused through all nations ? Yet no one 
 denies that such a dignity and such a prerogative were 
 granted to Abraham. In divine endowments, there¬ 
 fore, their full and natural possession must be carefully 
 distinguished from their limited and analogous par¬ 
 ticipation. The one, as inherent, cannot fall to the 
 creature’s lot; the other as transferable, may be granted 
 as God pleases. For what further removed from 
 man than the Godhead ? Yet it is written, “ I have 
 said, Ye are gods .” 2 
 
 Not weightier is the other objection, that the office of 
 being the Foundation is too important to be entrusted 
 to human care. Was there less difficulty in blessing 
 being diffused from one man among all nations ? 
 Rather we must look on man not as he is by, and of, 
 himself, apart from God, and left to his own weakness, 
 but as upborne by divine power, according to the 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 58. 2 Ps. Ixxxii 6, with John x 34. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 29 
 
 promise, “ Behold, I am with you all days, until the 
 consummation of the world.” Who can doubt that 
 man, in union with God, may serve for a foundation, 
 and discharge those offices in which the unity of a 
 structure consists ? It is confidently and constantly 
 objected, that “ other foundation no man can lay 
 besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ .” 1 
 As if what has been laid by Christ himself, and consists 
 in the virtue of Christ alone, can be thought other 
 than Christ; or as if it were unusual, or unscriptural, 
 for things proper to Christ to be participated by men. 
 Therefore the chief difficulties against Peter’s pre¬ 
 eminence, and character as the Foundation, seem to 
 spring from the mind failing to realize the supernatural 
 order instituted by God, and the perpetual presence 
 of Christ watching over his Church. 
 
 Thus it is no derogation to Abraham’s being the 
 Father of the faithful, or to the hierarchy of the Church 
 instituted by Christ himself, that our Lord says, 
 “ Call none your father upon earth, for one is your 
 Father who is in heaven ”; 2 inasmuch as Scripture 
 abundantly proves that divine gifts are richly conferred 
 upon men. What more divine than the Holy Spirit ? 
 Yet it is written, “ And I will ask the Father, and he 
 shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide 
 with you for ever .” 3 What a higher privilege than 
 filial adoption ? Yet it is said, “ Ye have received the 
 spirit of filial adoption, by which we cry, Abba, 
 Father .” 4 What a greater treasure than co-inheritance 
 with Christ ? Yet we read, “ But if children, also 
 
 2 Matt, xxiii 9. 
 
 4 Rom. viii 15. 
 
 1 Cor. iii 11. 
 
 3 John xiv 16. 
 
30 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 heirs: heirs of God, but joint heirs with Christ . 5 ’ 1 
 What higher than the vision of God ? Yet St Paul 
 bears witness, “We see now through a glass darkly, 
 but then face to face . 5 ’ 2 What more wonderful than 
 the power of remitting sins ? Yet this very power 
 is granted to the Apostles: “ Whose sins you shall 
 forgive, they are forgiven them . 553 What further from 
 human weakness than the power of working miracles ? 
 Yet Christ establishes this, “ Amen, amen, I say unto 
 you, he that believeth on me, the works which I do 
 shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he 
 do .” 4 Indeed, the participation and communion of 
 heavenly gifts have the closest coherence with that 
 supernatural order, which God in creating man chose, 
 and to which he called fallen man back through his 
 only begotten Son; with that dispensation of Christ 
 by which he loved the Apostles as he himself was 
 loved by the Father, by which he called them, not 
 servants, but friends ,” 6 and gave them that glory 
 which he had himself received from the Father. And 
 the tone of mind which denies Peter’s prerogative 
 as the Foundation of the Church, under pretence that 
 it is a usurpation of divine power, tends to deny some 
 one or all of the privileges just cited, and, as a fact, 
 does deny some of them. It is wonderful to see how 
 only common and vulgar things are discerned by 
 modem eyes, where the Fathers saw celestial and 
 divine gifts . 6 Those without the Church have fallen 
 away as well from the several parts and privileges, 
 
 1 Rom. viii 17. 2 1 Cor. xiii 12. 3 John xx 23. 
 
 4 John xiv 12. 5 John xv 9, 15. 
 
 6 Passaglia, p. 442, n. 28. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 31 
 
 from what may be called the standing order of the 
 Incarnation, as from its final purpose and scope; and 
 it is much if they would not charge with blasphemy 
 that glorious saying put forth by the greatest of the 
 Eastern, as by the greatest of the Western Fathers, 
 “ that God became man, in order that man might 
 become God .” 1 
 
 Was, then, St Chrysostom wrong when he said that 
 our Lord, in that passage of Matthew, showed a 
 power equal to God the Father by the gifts which he 
 bestowed on a poor fisherman ? “He who gave to 
 him the keys of the heavens, and made him Lord of 
 such power, and needed not prayer for this, for he did 
 not then say, I prayed, but, with authority, I will build 
 my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of heaven .” 2 
 Was he wrong when he called him “ the chosen of the 
 Apostles, the mouth-piece of the disciples, the head 
 of the band, the ruler over the brethren ?” 3 or where 
 he saw these prerogatives in the very name of Peter, 
 observing, “ When I say Peter, I mean the impreg¬ 
 nable rock, the immovable foundation, the great 
 Apostle, the first of the disciples ?” 4 
 
 To sum up, then, what has been hitherto said, we 
 have advanced so far as this: first the promise, and 
 then the bestowal of a new name, expressing a singular 
 pre-eminence, and in its proper sense befitting Christ 
 
 1 '0 toC Geou A670S £vr)vdp&Trr]<T€i> 'tv a yfxels QeoiroLrjddixev. St 
 
 Athan. de Incarn. Factus est Deus homo, ut homo 
 fieret deus. St Aug., Serm. 13, de Temp. 
 
 2 St Chrys., tom. vii 786. Horn. 82, in Matt. 
 
 3 Tom. viii 525. Horn. 88 in Joan. 
 
 4 Horn. 3, de Pcenitentia. Tom. ii 300. 
 
32 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 alone, have distinguished Simon from the rest of the 
 Apostles. But much more the power signified by that 
 name, and explained by the Lord himself, carries far 
 higher Peter’s privilege, and indicates him to be the 
 possessor of authority over the Apostles. For if 
 Simon is the Rock of the Church, and if the property 
 of Foundation, on which the structure of the Church 
 rests, belongs to him immediately after Christ, and 
 analogously with Christ, there arises this relation 
 between Christ and Simon, that as he is first, and 
 chiefly, and by inherent power, so Simon is second¬ 
 arily, by participation and analogy, that which under¬ 
 lies, holds together, and supports the Apostles and the 
 whole fabric of the Church. 
 
 Now such a relation carries with it not merely 
 precedency of honour, but superior authority. The 
 strength of the Apostles lay in their union with Christ* 
 and subordination to Him. The like necessity of 
 adhering to Peter is expressed in his new name. 
 Take away that subordination, and you destroy the 
 very image by which the Lord chose to express Peter’s 
 dignity; and you remove, likewise, Peter’s participa¬ 
 tion in that property which the Lord communicated 
 to him in the name of the Rock. For if the Apostles 
 needed not to be joined with him, he had no title to 
 be called the Foundation; and if he had no co-active 
 power over the Apostles, he did not share the property 
 by which Christ is the Rock and Foundation. Thus 
 the name, and the dignity expressed by the name, 
 show Peter to have been singly invested by the Lord 
 with both honour and power superior to the Apostles . 1 
 
 1 Passaglia, pp. 48, 49. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 EDUCATION AND FINAL DESIGNATION OF 
 PETER TO BE THE RULER WHO SHOULD 
 CONFIRM HIS BRETHREN 
 
 Having promised 1 and bestowed on Simon a new 
 name, prophetic of the peculiar position which he 
 was to occupy in the Church, and having set forth 
 the meaning contained in that name in terms so large 
 and magnificent that, as we have seen, the greatest 
 Saints and Fathers have felt it impossible to exhaust 
 their force, our Lord proceeded to educate Peter, so 
 to say, for his especial charge of supreme ruler. He 
 bestowed upon him, in the course of his ministry, 
 tokens of preference which agree with the title thus 
 solemnly conferred; and he instructed him with all 
 the care which we should expect to be given to one 
 who was to become the chief doctor of Christians. 
 Such instruction may be said to consist in two things: 
 a more complete knowledge of the Christian revela¬ 
 tion, and a singular apprehension of its divine proofs. 
 
 Now, innumerable as are the particulars in which 
 the Christian revelation consists, they may yet be 
 gathered up mainly in two points, which meet in the 
 person of our Lord, and are termed by the ancient 
 Fathers who have followed this division, the Theology , 
 and the Economy . There is the Divine Nature, that 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 68. 
 
 33 
 
 3 
 
34 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 “ form of God," which our Lord had from the begin¬ 
 ning in the bosom of the Father; and there is the 
 human nature, that “form of a servant ,” which “ in 
 the economy or dispensation of the fulness of times ” 
 he assumed, in order that he might purchase the 
 Church with his blood, and “ re-establish all things 
 in heaven and on earth .” 1 All, therefore, in the 
 Christian faith which concerns “ the form of God ” 
 is termed the Theology; all which contemplates “ the 
 form of a servant ,” the Economy. 
 
 But the heavenly origin and certain truth of both 
 these parts of Christian faith are proved partly by the 
 fulfilment of prophecy, and partly by the working of 
 miracles. To both our Lord perpetually appealed, and 
 his Apostles after him, and those who have followed 
 them. One, then, who was to be the chief ruler and 
 doctor of Christians, needed especial instruction in the 
 theology and economy, especial assurance of the 
 fulfilment of prophecy, and the working of miraculous 
 power. Now Peter was specially selected for this 
 instruction and that assurance. 
 
 The whole teaching of our Lord, indeed, and the 
 innumerable acts of power and words of grace with 
 which it was fraught, were calculated to convey these 
 to all the Apostles. But while they were witnesses 
 in common of that teaching in general, some parts of 
 it were disclosed only to Peter and the two sons of 
 Zebedee. Perhaps there is no incident in the Gospel 
 history, which set forth in so lively a manner, and so 
 convincingly proved, the mysteries concerning the 
 union of “ the form of God ” and “ the form of a 
 
 1 Eph. i io. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 35 
 
 servant,” as the Transfiguration. After long years 
 Peter recalled that manifestation in proof that he 
 and his brethren had not taught “ cunningly devised 
 fables, when they made known the power and presence 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, but had been eye-witnesses 
 of his majesty. They had heard the voice coming 
 down to him from the excellent glory, ‘ This is my 
 beloved Son, in whom I have pleased myself: hear ye 
 him/ And this voice we heard brought from heaven, 
 when we were with him in the holy mount.” Among 
 all the Apostle’s experience of the three years’ ministry, 
 by the shore and on the waves of the lake of Galilee, in 
 the cornfields or on the mountain side, in the noonday 
 heat or midnight storm, even in the throng which 
 cried “ Hosanna !” and “ Crucify him !” this stood 
 out, until “ the laying aside of his fleshly tabernacle,” 
 as “ the Lord had signified to him .” 1 For 2 what 
 indeed was not there ?—the plurality of persons in the 
 Godhead, the Father and the Son, the true, and not 
 adopted, Sonship of the latter, his divine mission unto 
 men; the new order of things resulting from it, and 
 the summing up under one head of all things in heaven 
 and in earth; the sealing up and accomplishing of the 
 law and the prophets, by the presence of their repre¬ 
 sentatives, Moses and Elias, a most wonderful and 
 transporting miracle; and the command implicitly to 
 obey him in whom the Father was well pleased. Thus 
 the Transfiguration may be termed the summing up 
 of the whole Christian revelation. 
 
 But now of this we read that “ after six days Jesus 
 taketh unto him Peter , and James, and John his 
 1 2 Pet. i 14. 2 Passaglia, p. 69. 
 
36 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain 
 apart.” These three alone of the twelve. Yet does 
 he not associate the sons of Zebedee with Peter in this 
 privilege ? Needful no doubt it was that so splendid 
 an act should have a suitable number of witnesses, 
 and that as His future glory should have three witnesses 
 from heaven, and as many from earth , 1 so this, its 
 rudimental beginning, should be attested by three as 
 from heaven, God the Father, Moses, and Elias, and 
 by three from earth, Peter, James, and John. Dear 
 to him, likewise, next to Peter, and most privileged 
 after Peter, were the sons of Zebedee; yet a distinction 
 is seen in the mode in which they are treated even 
 when joined together in so great a privilege. For 
 in all the three accounts Peter is named first: “ He 
 taketh to him Peter, and James, and John.” They 
 likewise are called by their birth-name, he by his 
 prophetic appellation of the Rock; they are silent, but 
 he speaks: “ Peter answering, said ”; nor only speaks 
 but in the name of all: “ It is good for us to be here,” 
 as if their leader. And, fifthly, he is named specially, 
 they as his companions: “ but Peter, and they that were 
 with him , were heavy with sleep .” 2 Thus even when 
 three are associated in a special privilege above the 
 twelve, Peter is distinguished among the three. 
 
 But if there was one other occasion on which above 
 all “ the form of the servant ” was to be set forth in 
 the most awful, and the most endearing light, it was 
 on that evening, “ the hour ” of evil men and “ the 
 power of darkness,” when “ the righteous servant 
 who should justify many ” was about to perform the 
 1 1 John v 6, 7. 3 Luke ix 32. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 37 
 
 great central, crowning act of his mediation. Then 
 we read that “ He said to his disciples, Sit you here, 
 till I go yonder and pray /’ 1 And then immediately 
 “ taking with him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, 
 he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad.” Yet here 
 again, even in the association with the sons of Zebedee, 
 Simon is distinguished, for he is named first; and by 
 the illustrious name of Peter, the Rock; and as the 
 leader of the others, for, says Matthew, Christ after 
 his first prayer “ comes to his disciples, and finds 
 them sleeping, and says to Peter , What, could ye not 
 watch with me one hour ?” Why the change of 
 number, Peter in the singular, ye in the plural ? Why 
 the blame of Peter, involving the blame of the rest ? 
 Because the members are censured in the head. 
 
 In these two signal instances our Lord, while 
 preferring Peter and the two sons of Zebedee to the 
 rest of the Twelve, yet marks a gradation likewise 
 between them and Peter. And these two set forth the 
 theology and economy, in the most emphatic manner. 
 
 And as the supreme preceptor must not only be 
 acquainted with the truth which he has to deliver, 
 but with the evidence on which it rests, so is Peter 
 specially made a witness of his Lord’s “ power and 
 presence ” and “ the works which no other man did.” 
 In that remarkable miracle of raising to life the daughter 
 of the ruler of the synagogue we read: “ He admitted 
 not any man to follow him, but Peter and James, and 
 John the brother of James ”; 2 where, as before, and 
 always, Peter is mentioned first, and by the prophetic 
 name of his Primacy. 
 
 1 Matt, xxvi 36. 
 
 2 Mark v 35. 
 
38 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 From 1 all which we gather four points: 1. Several 
 things are mentioned in the Gospels which Christ 
 gave to Peter, and not to the rest of the Apostles. 
 2. But nothing which he gave to them together, and 
 not to Peter with them. 3. What he seemed to give 
 to them in common, yet accrues to Peter in a special 
 manner, who appears among the Apostles not as one 
 out of the number, but their destined head, by the 
 name, that is, of Peter, so markedly promised, bestowed, 
 and so wonderfully explained by our Lord. Of this 
 name, as we have seen, St Chrysostom, an Eastern 
 patriarch, as well as a great Saint and Father, observed, 
 “ When I say Peter, I mean the impregnable Rock, the 
 immovable Foundation, the great Apostle, the first 
 of the disciples.” 4. Either we are not to take Christ’s 
 dealing as the standard of Peter’s dignity and destina¬ 
 tion, or we must admit that he was preferred to the 
 rest, and made the supreme teacher of the faithful. 
 
 St Matthew records the incidents of the officers 
 asking for the payment of the didrachma which all the 
 children of Israel were bound to contribute to the 
 Temple; and his words show us a fresh instance of 
 honour done to Peter, and a fresh note of his superiority. 
 “ When they were come to Capharnaum, they that 
 received the didrachma came to Peter, and said to him, 
 Doth not your Master pay the didrachma ?” 2 But 
 why should they come to him , and ask, not if his 
 Master, but “ your ” Master, the Master of all the 
 Apostles, paid the census, save that it was apparent, 
 even to strangers, that Peter was the first, and most 
 prominent of the company ? Why use him rather 
 1 Passaglia, p. 72. 2 Matt, xvii 23. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 39 
 
 than any of the others, for the purpose of approaching 
 Christ ? “As Peter seemed to be the first of the 
 disciples, 5 ’ says St Chrysostom, on the text, “ they go 
 to him.” The context naturally suggests this reason, 
 and the ancient commentators remarked it. But what 
 follows is much more striking. Peter answered, Yes, 
 that is, that his Master observed all the laws of Moses, 
 and this among the number. As he went home he 
 purposed, no doubt, to ask our Lord about this pay¬ 
 ment, but “ when he was come into the house Jesus 
 prevented him,” having in his omniscience seen and 
 heard all that had passed, and he proceeded to speak 
 words involving his own high dignity, followed by a 
 singular trial of Peter’s faith, and as marked a reward 
 of it when tried. “ What thinkest thou, Simon ? 
 The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute 
 or custom ? of their own children or of strangers ? 
 And he said, Of strangers. Jesus said to him, Then 
 the children are free.” Slight words in seeming, 
 yet declaring in fact that most wonderful truth which 
 had formed so shortly before Peter’s confession, and 
 drawn down upon him the yet unexhausted promise; 
 for they expressed, I am as truly the Son of that God, 
 the Sovereign of the Temple, for whom this tribute is 
 paid, as the children of earthly sovereigns, who take 
 tribute, are their sons by nature. Therefore by right 
 I am free. “ But that we may not scandalize them, 
 go to the sea and cast in a hook; and that fish which 
 shall first come up, take; and when thou hast opened 
 its mouth, thou shalt find a stater; take that, and 
 give it to them for me and thee.” Declaring to his 
 favoured disciple afresh that he is the true, and not the 
 
40 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 adopted, Son of God, answering his thoughts by antici¬ 
 pation, and expressing his knowledge of absent things 
 by the power of the Son of God, he tries his faith by 
 the promise of a fresh miracle, which involved a like 
 exercise of divine power. Peter, in proceeding to 
 execute his command, must make that confession 
 afresh by deed, which he had made before by word, 
 and which his Lord had just repeated with his own 
 mouth. How else could he go to the lake expecting to 
 draw at the first cast a fish in whose mouth he should 
 find a coin containing the exact amount due to the 
 Temple for two persons ? But what followed ? What 
 but a most remarkable reward for the faith which he 
 should show ? “ Take that, and give it to them for 
 
 me and thee.” There are looks, there are tones of the 
 voice, which convey to us more than language. So, 
 too, there are acts so exceedingly suggestive, that 
 without in any formal way proving, they carry with 
 them the force of the strongest proof. And so, 
 perhaps, never did our Lord in a more marked manner 
 associate Peter with himself than here. It was a singu¬ 
 lar distinction which could not fail to strike every one 
 who heard it. Thus St Chrysostom exclaims, “You 
 see the exceeding greatness of the honour ’’j 1 and he 
 adds, “ wherefore, too, in reward for his faith he 
 connected him with himself in the payment of the 
 tribute.” Indeed, how could one of the disciples be 
 more signally pointed out than by this incident, as 
 ‘‘ the faithful and wise steward, whom the Lord 
 would set over his household, to give them their portion 
 of food in due time ” ? 
 
 1 On Matt., Horn. 58, n. 2. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 41 
 
 Other Fathers, as well as St Chrysostom, did not fail 
 to see such a meaning in this passage; but let us take 
 the words of Origen as pointing out the connection 
 of this incident with the important question following. 
 His words are: “ It seems to me that (the disciples) 
 considering this a very great honour which had been 
 done to Peter by Jesus, in having put him higher than 
 the rest of his disciples, they wished to make sure of 
 what they suspected by asking Jesus, and hearing his 
 answer, whether, as they supposed, he judged Peter 
 to be above them; and they also hoped to learn the 
 cause for which Peter was preferred to the rest of the 
 disciples. Matthew, then, wishing to signify this by 
 these words, ‘ take that, and give it to them for me 
 and thee,’ added, 4 on that day the disciples came to 
 Jesus, saying, Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the 
 kingdom of heaven ?’ ’ n 
 
 For, indeed, why should they immediately ask 
 this question ? The preceding incident furnishes a 
 natural and sufficient cause. The Apostles, it seems, 
 were urged by the plainness of Christ’s words and acts 
 to inquire who among them should have the chief 
 authority. Who will not agree with St Chrysostom: 
 “ The Apostles were touched with a human infirmity, 
 which the Evangelist, too, signifies in the words, ‘ in 
 that hour,’ when he had honoured him (Peter) before 
 them all. For though of James and John one of the 
 two was the first-born ” (alluding to an opinion that the 
 tax was paid by the first-born), “ he did nothing like 
 it for them. Hence, being ashamed, they confessed 
 their excitement of mind, and do not say plainly, 
 1 Origen on the text, in Matt., tom. xiii 14. 
 
42 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Why hast thou preferred Peter to us ? Is he greater 
 than we are ? For this they do not dare; but they 
 ask indefinitely, Who is the greater ? For when 
 they saw three preferred to the rest, they felt nothing 
 like this; but when one received so great an honour 
 they were pained. Nor were they kindled by this 
 alone, but by putting together many other things. 
 For he had said to him, ‘ I will give to thee the keys/ 
 and ‘ Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona/ and here, 
 ‘ Give it to them for me and for thee ’; and also they 
 were pricked at seeing his confidence and freedom of 
 speech / ,1 
 
 Thus their question, if it did not express, at least 
 suggested this meaning, “ Speak more plainly and 
 distinctly whether Peter is to be the greater and the 
 chief in the Church, and accordingly among us,” and 
 so they seem to have drawn from our Lord’s act a 
 conclusion which they did not see in the promising 
 or bestowing the prophetic name of Peter, nor even in 
 the promises conveyed in explaining that name, and 
 were vexed at the preference shown to him. 
 
 And if 2 any be inclined to conclude from hence 
 that our Lord’s words and acts to Peter had not been 
 of any marked significance, they should be reminded 
 that the very clearest and plainest things were some¬ 
 times not understood by the Apostles, before the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit on them. This was 
 specially the case with the things which they were 
 disinclined to believe. Thus our Lord again and 
 again foretold to them his passion in express terms, 
 
 1 St Chrysostom on the text, Horn. 58, tom. vii, p. 587. 
 
 2 Passaglia, p. 77, n. 38. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 43 
 
 but we are told, “ they understood none of these 
 things.” 1 He foretold, too, his resurrection, yet they 
 did not in the least expect it, and they became at length 
 fully assured of the fact before they remembered the 
 prediction. Strange as these things seem, yet prob¬ 
 ably every one’s private experience will furnish him 
 with similar instances of a veil being cast upon his 
 eyes, which prevented his discerning the most evident 
 things, towards which there was generally some secret 
 disinclination. 
 
 But 2 how did our Lord answer their question ? 
 Did he remove at once the ground of their jealousy 
 by declaring that in the kingdom of heaven no one 
 should have pre-eminence of dignity, but the condition 
 of all be equal ? On the contrary, he condemns 
 ambition and enjoins humility, but likewise gives such 
 a turn to his discourse as to insinuate that there would 
 be one pre-eminent over the rest. “ Jesus calling unto 
 him a little child, set him in the midst of them, and 
 said, Amen I say unto you, unless you be converted 
 and become as little children, you shall not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven.” 3 Then he adds, “ Whoso¬ 
 ever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, 
 he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.” Thus 
 he did not exclude the pre-eminence of that “ greater 
 one,” about which they asked, but pointed out what 
 his character ought to be. But this will be much 
 clearer from a like inquiry, and the answer to it, 
 recorded by St Luke. 
 
 For even at the Last Supper, our Lord having told 
 them that he should be betrayed, and was going to 
 1 Luke xviii 34. 2 Passaglia, p. 78. 3 Matt, xviii 2. 
 
44 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 leave them in the way determined for him, there was 
 not only an inquiry among them which of them 
 should do that thing, but also, so keenly were their 
 minds as yet, before the coming down of the Holy 
 Spirit, alive to the desire of pre-eminence, “ there 
 was a strife among them which of them should seem 
 to be greater.” Now our Lord meets their con¬ 
 tention thus: “ 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 that is the greater 
 among you, let him become as the younger; and he 
 that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is 
 greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth ? 
 Is not he that sitteth at table ? But I am in the 
 midst of you as he that serveth. And you are they 
 who have continued with me in my temptations; and 
 I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a 
 kingdom; that you may eat and drink at my table in 
 my kingdom; and may sit upon thrones judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel.” 1 
 
 Now 2 in this speech of our Lord we may remark 
 four points: 
 
 1. What is omitted, though it would seem most 
 
 apposite to be said. 
 
 2. What is affirmed, if not expressly, yet by plain 
 
 consequence. 
 
 3. What comparison is used in illustration. 
 
 4. What meets with censure and rejection. 
 
 1. First, then, though the Apostles had twice before 
 contended about pre-eminence, yet our Lord neither 
 there, nor here, said openly that he would not prefer 
 1 Luke xxii 25. 2 Passaglia, p. 77. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 45 
 
 any one over the rest, or appoint any one to be their 
 leader. Yet the importance of the subject, his own 
 wisdom, and his love towards his disciples, as well as 
 his usual mode of acting, seemed to demand that, had 
 it been his will for no one of them to be set over the 
 rest, he should plainly declare it, and thus extinguish all 
 strife. No less a matter was at issue than the harmony 
 of the Apostles with each other, the peace of the Church 
 and the success of the divine counsel for its govern¬ 
 ment. Moreover, the Gospels represent him to us as 
 continually removing doubts, clearing up perplexities, 
 and correcting wrong judgements among his disciples. 
 Let us recall to mind a very similar occasion, when the 
 mother of the sons of Zebedee with her children came 
 before him, asking “ that these my two sons may sit 
 the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left, 
 in thy kindgom.” He rejected their prayer at once, 
 saying, “ To sit on my right or my left hand is not 
 mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is pre¬ 
 pared by my Father.” 1 The silence, therefore, of 
 Christ here, under such circumstances, is a proof 
 that it was not the divine will that all the Apostles 
 should be in such a sense equal that no one of them 
 should hold a superior authority over the rest. 
 
 2 . But eloquent as this silence is, we are not left 
 to trust to it alone, for our Lord’s words point out, 
 besides, the institution of one superior. “ The kings 
 of the Gentiles,” he says, “ lord it over them; and 
 they that have power over them are called benefactors. 
 But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, 
 let him become as the younger; and he that is the 
 
 1 Matt, xx 2o. 
 
46 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 leader, as he that serveth.” A greater and a leader , 
 then, there was to he. Our Lord’s words contain two 
 parallel propositions repeated: 1. There is among 
 you one who is the greater, let him, then, be as the 
 younger. 2. There is among you one who is the 
 leader, let him be as he that serveth. Thus our Lord’s 
 meaning is most distinct that they should have a 
 superior. 
 
 But in the very similar passage about the sons of 
 Zebedee, lest any should conclude that no one of the 
 Apostles was to be superior to the rest, he called them 
 to him, and said, “ You know that the princes of the 
 Gentiles lord it over them, and they that are the 
 greater exercise power upon them. It shall not be so 
 among you, but whosoever will be the greater among 
 you, let him be your minister; and he that will be the 
 first among you shall be your servant. Even as the 
 Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.” 
 Where he tells them his will, not that no one of the 
 Apostles should be “ great ” and “ first,” but what 
 the type and model should be which that “ great ” 
 and “ first ” one should imitate, even the Son of Man 
 who came to minister. 
 
 3. For to make this quite certain, there, and here 
 too, he directs us to a particular comparison, by which 
 he explains and concludes his discourse, “ For who is 
 greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth ? 
 Is not he that sitteth at table ? But I am among you 
 as he that serveth. . . . And I dispose unto you, 
 as my Father disposed unto me, a kingdom.” Here 
 our Lord sets himself before his Apostles as the 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 47 
 
 exemplar both of the rule which the superior was to 
 exercise, and of the temper and character which he 
 was to show. As he had been speaking of the king¬ 
 doms of the Gentiles, so he now points out to them in 
 contrast the true kingdom which he was disposing 
 unto them. The Church, as it had been from the 
 beginning, was to be the model of what it should be 
 to the end. Now all confess that in that Church 
 Christ had held the place of “ the First,” “ the Great 
 One,” “ the Ruler.” And now he explains that one 
 of his Apostles should occupy that place of his, and 
 occupying it should be of a like temper with himself, 
 who had been the minister and servant of all. And it 
 may be remarked that the same word is here applied 
 to him who should rule among the disciples, which 
 expresses the dignity of Christ himself in the prophecy 
 of Micheas, quoted in Matt, ii 6, “ Out of thee shall go 
 forth 1 the ruler , who shall be shepherd over my people 
 Israel.” For Christ says, “ He that is the greater 
 among you, let him be as the younger; and he that 
 ruleth , as he that serveth. For who is greater, he that 
 sitteth at meat, or he who serveth ? But / am among 
 you as he that serveth.” “ I dispose to you a kingdom, 
 as my Father disposed to me:” let him who follows 
 me in place, follow me in character. 
 
 But, 4, what does our Lord censure and reject from 
 his Church ? It is plain that he compares kingdom 
 with kingdom, and the kingdom of heaven, which is 
 the Church, with human kingdoms, and, moreover, 
 that the negative quality as to which, in the clause, 
 “ But you not so,” the two are compared, is, not the 
 
 1 ^o^evos. 
 
48 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 fact that there is pre-eminence and rule in both, but 
 a certain mode of exercising them. This is the pomp 
 and ambition expressed in the words, “ lording it,” 
 “ exercising authority,” “ are called beneficent.” As 
 again is shown in the repeated declaration that what 
 had been most alien from the spirit of his own ministry 
 should not appear in the ministry that he would 
 establish after him. Now, he had shown no pomp 
 and pride of dominion, but yet he had shown the 
 dominion itself in the fullest sense, the power of 
 passing laws, enjoining precepts, defining rites, 
 threatening punishments, governing, in short, his 
 Church, so that he had been pre-eminently “ the 
 Lord.” Lastly, this is shown in the words recorded 
 by St John, as said shortly after on this same occasion: 
 “ You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, 
 for so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Master, have 
 washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s 
 feet: for I have given you an example , that as I have done 
 unto you, so you also may do.” 1 
 
 Now, nothing can show more strongly than this 
 discourse the pre-eminence and authority which our 
 Lord was going to establish in one of his Apostles 
 over the rest. For here we have his intention dis¬ 
 closed that in his kingdom, which is the Church, 
 some one there should be “ the Great,” “ the First,” 
 and “ the Ruler,” who should discharge, in due 
 proportion and analogy, the office which he himself, 
 before he returned to the Father, had held. But 
 before we consider further who this one was, let us look 
 at the subject from a somewhat different point of view. 
 
 1 JohrTxiii$i5. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 49 
 
 And 1 here we must lay down three points, the first 
 of which is, that our Lord, during his life on earth, 
 had acted in two capacities, the one as the Author and 
 Founder, the other as the Head and Supreme Ruler of 
 his Church. His functions in the former capacity 
 are too plain to need enlarging upon. He disclosed 
 the objects of our faith; he instituted rites and sacra¬ 
 ments ; he provided by the establishment of a ministry 
 for the perpetual growth and duration of the Church. 
 It was in this sense that he spoke of himself to his 
 Apostles, as “ the Master,” who could share his 
 prerogatives with no one: “ But be not you called 
 Rabbi, for one is your Master, and all you are 
 brethren.” 2 Thus is he “ the Teacher,” “ the Master,” 
 throughout the Gospel. 
 
 But he likewise acted as the Head of his Church, 
 with the dignity and authority of the chief visible 
 Ruler. He was the living bond of his disciples; the 
 person around whom they grouped; whose presence 
 wrought harmony; whose voice terminated contention 
 among them; who was ever at hand to solve emergent 
 difficulties. Thus it is that prophecy distinguished 
 him as “ the Lord,” “ the King,” “ the Shepherd ”; 
 “ on whose shoulders is the government,” “ who should 
 rule his people Israel.” And his Church answers 
 to him in this capacity, as the family, the house, the 
 city, the fold, and the kingdom. 
 
 Thus his relation to the Church was twofold: as 
 Founder, and as Supreme Pastor. 
 
 Secondly , the Church shares her Lord’s prerogative 
 of unchangeableness, and as he is “ Jesus Christ the 
 1 Passaglia, p. 82. 2 Matt, xxiii 8. 
 
 4 
 
50 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” so she, his 
 mystical body, in her proportion remains like herself 
 from the beginning to the end. The Church and 
 Christianity are bound to each other in a mutual 
 relation; the Church is Christianity embodied; Christi¬ 
 anity is the Church in conception; the consistency and 
 identity which belong to Christianity belong likewise 
 to her; neither can change their nature, nor put on 
 another form. 
 
 But, thirdly , the Church would be unlike herself, 
 if, having been from her very cradle visibly adminis¬ 
 tered by the rule of One, she fell subsequently, either 
 under no rule at all, according to the doctrine of the 
 Independents, or under the rule of the multitude, 
 according to the Calvinists, or under the rule of an 
 aristocracy, as Episcopalians imagine. A change of 
 government superinduces a change of that substantial 
 form which constitutes a society. But this holds in 
 her case especially, above all other societies, as she 
 came forth from the creative hand of her Lord, her 
 whole organization instinct with inward life, her 
 government directly instituted by God himself, in 
 which lies her point of distinction from all temporal 
 polities. 
 
 For imagine that, upon our Lord’s departure, 
 no one had been deputed to take the visible headship 
 and rule over the Church. How, without ever fresh 
 revelations, and an abiding miraculous power, could 
 that complex unity of faith, of worship, and of polity, 
 have been maintained, which the Lord has set forth 
 as the very sign and token of his Church P 1 A multi- 
 
 1 John x, xiii, xvii. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 51 
 
 tude scattered throughout the most distant regions, 
 and naturally differing in race, in habits, in tempera¬ 
 ment, how could it possibly be joined in one, and 
 remain one, without a powerful bond of unity ? Hence, 
 in the fourth century, St Jerome observed, “ The 
 safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the 
 supreme Priest, in whom, if all do not recognize a 
 peculiar and supereminent power, there will arise 
 as many schisms in the Church as there are priests .” 1 
 And the repentant confessors out of Novatian’s schism, 
 in the middle of the third century, “ We know that 
 Cornelius (the Pope) has been elected Bishop of the 
 most holy Catholic Church, by Almighty God and 
 Christ our Lord.—We are not ignorant that there is 
 one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we confessed, 
 one Holy Spirit, and that there ought to be one Bishop 
 in the Catholic Church .” 2 And these words, both 
 of St Jerome, and of the confessors, if they primarily 
 apply to the diocesan bishop among his priests and 
 people, so do they with far greater force apply to the 
 chief Bishop among his brethren in the whole Church. 
 Now, as our Lord willed that his Church should do 
 without fresh revelations and new miracles, such as 
 at first accredited it, and that it should preserve unity; 
 and as, when it was a little flock, which could be 
 assembled in a single room, it had yet one visible 
 Ruler, how can we doubt that he willed this form of 
 government to remain, and that there should be one 
 perpetually to rule it in his name,and preserve it in unity, 
 since it was to become co-extensive with the earth ? 
 
 Again, we may ask, was the condition of fold, house, 
 
 1 Dialog, cont. Lucif., n. 9. 2 St Cyprian, Ep. 46. 
 
52 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 family, city, and kingdom, so repeatedly set forth in 
 Holy Scripture, to belong to the Church only while 
 Christ was yet on earth, or to be the visible evidence 
 of its truth for ever ? Do these terms exhibit a 
 temporary, or a perpetual state ? Each one of these 
 symbols by itself, and all together, involve one visible 
 Ruler; therefore, so long as the Church can be called 
 with truth the one house, the one family, the one city, 
 the one fold, the one kingdom, so long must it have 
 one visible and supreme Ruler. 
 
 But once grant that such a one there was after our 
 Lord's departure, and no one can doubt that one to 
 have been Peter. It is easier to deny the supreme 
 Ruler altogether, than to make him any one but Peter. 
 The whole course of the Gospels shows none other 
 marked out by so many distinctions. Thus, even 
 those who wish to refuse a real power to his Primacy 
 are compelled by the force of evidence to allow him a 
 Primacy of order and honour. 
 
 But nothing did our Lord more pointedly reject 
 than the vain pomp of titles and honours. In nothing 
 is his own example more marked than in that he 
 exercised real power and supreme authority without 
 pomp or show. Nothing did he enjoin more em¬ 
 phatically on the disciple who should be the “ Great 
 One,” and “ the Ruler,” among his brethren, than 
 that he must follow his Master in being the servant of 
 all. A Primacy, then, consisting in titles and mere 
 precedency, is of all things most opposed to the spirit 
 and the precepts of our Lord. And so the Primacy 
 which he designated must be one of real power and 
 pre-eminent authority. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 53 
 
 And this brings us back to the passage of St Luke 
 which we were considering, where four things prove 
 that Christ had such a headship in view. First, the 
 occasion, for the Apostles were contending for a place 
 of real authority. The sons of Zebedee expressed it 
 by sitting on his right hand and on his left, that is, 
 holding the second and the third place of dignity in 
 the kingdom. 
 
 Secondly, the double comparison which our Lord 
 used, the one negative, the other affirmative: in the 
 former, contrasting the Church’s Ruler with the kings 
 of the Gentiles, he excluded pomp and splendour, 
 lordship and ambition; in the latter, referring him to 
 his own example, who had the most real and true 
 power and superiority, he taught him to unite these 
 with a meekness and an attention to the wants of his 
 brethren, of which his own life had been the model. 
 
 Thirdly, the words “ the First,” “ the Greater,” 
 and “ the Ruler ” indicate the pre-eminence of the 
 future head, for as they appear in the context, and 
 according to their scriptural force, they indicate not 
 a vain and honorary but a real authority, one of them 
 being even the very title given to our Lord. 
 
 And, fourthly, this is proved by the object in view, 
 which is, maintaining the identity of the Church and 
 the form which it had from the beginning, and pre¬ 
 serving its manifold unity. As to its identity, and 
 original form, it is needless to observe that Christ 
 exercised in it not an honorary but a real supremacy, 
 so that under him its government was really in the 
 hands of one, the Ruler. As to the preservation of its 
 unity—and especially a unity so complex—the very 
 
54 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 analogy of human society will sufficiently teach us 
 that it is impossible to be preserved without a strong 
 central authority. Contentions can neither be checked 
 as they arise, nor terminated when they come to a 
 head, without the interference of a power to which 
 all yield obedience. And the living example of those 
 religious societies which have not this power is an 
 argument whose force none can resist. Where Peter 
 is not, there is neither unity of faith, nor of charity, 
 nor of external regimen. 
 
 No sooner , 1 then, had our Lord in this manner 
 pointed out that there should be one hereafter to take 
 his place on earth and to be the Ruler of his brethren, 
 expressing at the same time the toilsome nature of the 
 trust, and the duty of exercising it with the spirit 
 which he, the great model, had shown, than, turning 
 his discourse from the Apostles, whom hitherto he 
 had addressed in common, to Peter singly, he proceeded 
 to designate Peter as that one, to assure him of a singular 
 privilege, and to enforce upon him a proportionate 
 duty. 
 
 And first, a break in the hitherto continuous dis¬ 
 course is ushered in by the words, “ And the Lord 
 said,” and what follows is fixed to Peter specially, 
 by the reiteration of his name, “ Simon, Simon, 
 behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may 
 sift you as wheat to have you , that is, not Peter 
 alone, but all the Apostles, the same you, whom in 
 the preceding verses he had so often repeated, “ you 
 not so,” “ I am in the midst of you,” “ you are they 
 that have continued with me,” “ and I dispose to you a 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 89. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 55 
 
 kingdom,” “ that you may eat and drink with me 
 and what follows ? What was the resource provided 
 by the Lord against this attack of the great enemy on 
 all his fold ? “ But I have prayed for thee> that thy faith 
 fail not: and thou being once converted confirm thy 
 brethren.” Not “ I have prayed for you ” where all 
 were assaulted, “ that your faith fail not,” but I have 
 prayed for thee , Peter, that thy faith fail not! Nothing 
 can be more emphatic than this change of number, 
 when our Lord throughout all his previous discourse 
 had used the plural, and now, continuing the plural 
 to designate the persons attacked, uses the singular 
 to specify the person for whom he has prayed, and to 
 whom he assures a singular privilege, the fruit of that 
 prayer. Nothing could more strongly prove that this 
 address was special to Peter. 
 
 Nor less evident is the singular dignity of what is 
 here promised to him. First of all, it is the fruit of 
 the prayer of Christ. Of what importance must that 
 be which was solicited by our Lord of his Father, 
 and at a moment when the redemption of the world 
 was being accomplished, and when his Passion may be 
 said to have begun ? Of what importance that which 
 was to be the defence not of Peter only, but all the 
 disciples, against the most formidable assault of the 
 great enemy, who had demanded 1 them as it were to 
 deliver them over to punishment ? And this was 
 “ that thy faith fail not.” How is it possible to draw 
 any other conclusion here than what St Leo in the 
 fifth century expressed so clearly before all the bishops 
 of Italy ? “ The danger from the temptation of fear 
 
 1 i^yTTiaaro. The word in classic Greek has this force. 
 
56 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 was common to all the Apostles, and all equally 
 , needed the help of the divine protection, since the 
 devil desired to dismay all, to crush all; and yet a 
 special care of Peter is undertaken by our Lord, and 
 he prays peculiarly for the faith of Peter, as if the state 
 of the rest would be more sure, if the mind of their 
 chief were not conquered. In Peter, therefore, the 
 fortitude of all is protected, and the help of divine 
 grace is so ordered, that the firmness which through 
 Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conferred on 
 the Apostles .” 1 And if such is the importance of the 
 help secured, no less is the charge following: “ And 
 thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” 
 To confirm others is to be put in an office of dignity 
 and authority over them. And his brethren were 
 those whom our Lord till now had been addressing 
 in common with him; to whom he had just disclosed 
 “ a Greater ” and “ a Ruler ” “ among ” them; that 
 is, the Apostles themselves. Among these, then, when 
 our Lord’s visible presence was withdrawn, Peter was 
 to be the principle of stability, binding and moulding 
 them into one building. For one cannot fail to see 
 how this great promise and prophecy answers to those 
 in Matthew. There our Lord, as Architect, promised 
 to lay Peter as the foundation of the Church, against 
 which the gates of hell should not prevail: here, being 
 about to leave the world, when his own work was 
 finished, to ascend unto his Father, and to assume his 
 great power and reign, he makes Peter as it were the 
 Architect to carry on the work which was to be com¬ 
 pleted by his grace and authority, but by human 
 
 1 Serm. 4, c. 3. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 57 
 
 co-operation. So exact is the resemblance that we 
 may put the two promises in parallel columns to illus¬ 
 trate each other: 
 
 Thou art Peter, and upon But I have prayed for thee, 
 this Rock I will build my that thy faith fail not; and 
 Church; and the gates of hell thou, being once converted, 
 shall not prevail against it. confirm thy brethren. 
 
 But light is thrown on the greatness of this pre¬ 
 eminence thus bestowed on Peter of confirming his 
 brethren, if we consider that the term is applied to the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as bestowing by 
 inherent power what is here granted by participation. 
 Of the Father it is said, “ To him that is able to 
 establish you according to my Gospel—the only wise 
 God, through Jesus Christ, be honour and glory.” 
 •And again, “ Now he that confirmeth us with you in 
 Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God;” and again, 
 
 The God of all grace, who hath called us unto his 
 eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered 
 a little, will himself perfect you, confirm , establish you .” 1 
 Of Christ likewise: “ As therefore you have received 
 Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in him, rooted and 
 built up in him, and confirmed in the faith.” And 
 “ waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who also will confirm you unto the end without 
 crime.” And again: “ Now our Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every 
 good word and work .” 2 And the Holy Spirit is 
 continually mentioned as the author of this gift, when, 
 for instance, to him is ascribed “ the teaching all truth,” 
 
 1 Rom. xvi 25; 2 Cor. i 21; 1 Pet. v 10. 
 
 2 Col. ii 6; 1 Cor. i 7; 2 Thess. ii 16. 
 
58 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 “ the leading into all truth,” “ the bringing to mind ” 
 all things which Christ had said. And St Paul prays 
 “ that he would grant you, according to the riches of 
 his glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might 
 unto the inward man .” 1 
 
 What, therefore, is proper to the most Holy Trinity, 
 and given in the highest sense by the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost, it was the will of Christ should be 
 shared by Peter, according as man is capable of it. 
 That is, it was his pleasure that the same man, whom 
 he had intimately associated with himself by communi¬ 
 cating to him his prerogative to be the Rock, should be 
 closely joined with the Blessed Trinity, by partici¬ 
 pating in that privilege, whereby, together with the 
 Father and the Holy Spirit, he is the confirmation and 
 stability of the faithful. But if any rule there can be 
 whereby to measure pre-eminence and dignity, it is 
 surely that which is derived from participation of divine 
 properties and offices. And the closer that by these 
 Peter is shown to have approached to God, the higher 
 his exaltation above the rest of his brethren, who, as 
 it has been observed, are the Apostles. To them he 
 is the Rock, and them he is to confirm. Thus Theo- 
 phylact, in the eleventh century, commenting on this 
 text, says, “ The plain meaning of this is, that, since 
 I hold thee as the ruler of my disciples, after thou 
 shalt have wept over thy denial and repented, confirm 
 the rest. For this belongs to thee as being after me 
 the rock and support ” (literally, confirmation) “ of 
 the Church. Now, one may see that this is said not 
 only of the Apostles, that they are confirmed by Peter, 
 1 John xvi 13; xiv 16, 26; Eph. iii 16. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 59 
 
 but also concerning all the faithful until the con* 
 summation of the world.” 
 
 But looking more closely into the nature of this 
 dignity, since Christ, by the bestowal of heavenly 
 gifts, caused Peter to be conspicuous through the 
 firmness of his own faith, and through the charge 
 of confirming the faith of his brethren, we can call 
 it by no fitter name than a Primacy of faith. For 
 it has these two qualities: it cannot fail itself; and it 
 confirms others. And for the authority which it 
 carries, such a Primacy of faith cannot even be 
 imagined without at the same time imagining the 
 office by which Peter was bound to watch over the 
 firmness and integrity of the common faith. In this 
 office two things are involved: first, the right to, and 
 therefore the possession of, all things necessary for 
 its fulfilment; and secondly, the duty by which all 
 were bound to agree in the profession of one faith with 
 Peter. So that Peter’s dignity, rightly termed the 
 Primacy of faith, mainly consists in the supreme right 
 of demanding from all an agreement in faith with him. 
 
 It 1 remains to explain the proper force of the word 
 confirm . Now, this is a term of architecture, and as 
 such is joined with other terms relating to that art, 
 as by St Peter, “ the God of all grace . . . himself 
 fit you together ” (as living spiritual stones), “ confirm, 
 strengthen, ground you .” 2 It means, to make any¬ 
 thing fit so firmly that it cannot be shaken. Thus in 
 Holy Writ it frequently bears metaphorically a moral 
 signification, such as encouraging, supporting, as we 
 say, confirming the resolution, as in the passage just 
 1 Passaglia, p. 563. , 2 1 Pet. v 10. 
 
6o 
 
 ST PETER: HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 
 
 quoted; and again, “ Be watchful, and confirm the 
 things that remain, which are ready to die .” 1 Now, 
 it cannot be doubted that the phrase “ confirm thy 
 brethren,” carries a moral sense very like that in 
 which the word confirm, when applied to the 
 spiritual building of the Church, is used of God 
 and of Christ , 2 from whom the Church has both its 
 being and its perseverance to the end, and again of the 
 Apostles, who strengthen the flock entrusted to them 
 by the imparting spiritual gifts, as St Paul says, “ I 
 long to see you, that I may impart unto you some 
 spiritual grace to strengthen you .” 3 Or, again, it is 
 used of bishops, who, as sent by the Apostles, and 
 charged by the Holy Spirit with the government of the 
 Church, are bid to be watchful and see that those who 
 stand do not fall, and those who are in danger do not 
 perish . 4 Accordingly, when it is said to Peter, “ And 
 thou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy brethren,” the 
 charge and office are laid upon him , as an architect 
 divinely chosen , of holding together , strengthening , and 
 keeping in their place the several parts of the ecclesi¬ 
 astical structure. 
 
 But what are these parts to be confirmed, and what 
 is the nature of the confirmation ? 
 
 As to the first question there can be no controversy, 
 it being determined by the words “ confirm thy 
 brethren” and it is plain, from what is said above, 
 that by brethren are meant the Apostles. He had, 
 therefore, the Apostles committed to his charge 
 
 1 Apoc. iii 2. 
 
 2 Rom. xvi 25; 1 Thess. iii 13; 2Thess. ii 17; 1 Pet. v 10. 
 
 8 Rom. in. 4 Apoc. iii 2. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 61 
 
 immediately; but likewise, the rest of all the faithful 
 mediately. When a person has been named by Christ 
 to confirm the Apostles expressly, the nature of the 
 case does not allow that the whole congregation of 
 believers be not in their persons committed to him. 
 The care of the flock is manifestly involved in the care 
 of the shepherds; and no one in his senses can doubt 
 that the man who is charged to support the pillars 
 is charged to keep in their place the inferior 
 stones. 
 
 And as to the nature of the confirmation, it is for 
 protection against the fraud of the great enemy. And 
 the danger lay in losing the faith. Peter, then, is 
 charged to confirm, in such sense that neither the 
 pillars of the Church, nor its inferior parts, may, by 
 the loss of faith, be moved from their place, and so 
 severed from the Church’s structure. No charge 
 can be higher than such an office of confirmation; nor 
 for anything need we to be more thankful to our 
 Saviour. Nothing can more distinctly show the 
 divinely appointed relation between Peter on the one 
 hand, and on the other, the rest of the Apostles, and 
 the whole company of the faithful; nothing define 
 more clearly the special authority of Peter; that is, to 
 protect and strengthen the unity of the faith, and to 
 possess all powers needed for such protection. 
 
 This charge was given after that by the prayer 
 of Christ the privilege had been gained for Peter’s 
 faith, that it should never fail. Hence, that faith is 
 become, in virtue of such prayer, the infallible standard 
 of evangelical truth: as St Cyprian expressed it of 
 old, “ that faith of the Romans, which perfidy cannot 
 
62 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 approach .” 1 It follows that all the faithful owe to it 
 obedience. And Peter’s authority rests on a double 
 title, external of mission, internal of spiritual gift: the 
 former contained in the words of Christ the legis¬ 
 lator, “ And thou , 2 in thy turn, one day confirm thy 
 brethren;” the latter, in the words of Christ the 
 
 1 St Cyprian, Ep. 55. 
 
 3 As far as the words by themselves go, it is the opinion of 
 the best commentators that they may be equally well ren¬ 
 dered, “ And thou, when thou art converted,” or “ And 
 thou, in thy turn, one day,” etc. But as it is impossible to 
 bring a discussion turning on a Hebrew idiom conveyed in 
 a Greek word before the English reader, we must here 
 restrict ourselves to the proof arising from the sense and 
 context. And here one thing alone, among several which 
 may be urged, is sufficient to prove that the sense preferred 
 in the text, “ And thou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy 
 brethren,” is the true one. For the other rendering sup¬ 
 poses that the time of Peter’s conversion would also be the 
 time of his confirming his brethren; whereas this was far 
 otherwise. He was converted by our Lord looking on him 
 that same night shortly after his denial, and “ immediately 
 went out and wept bitterly.” But he did not succeed to the 
 charge of confirming his brethren till after our Lord’s 
 ascension. It must be added that the collocation of the 
 original words icai av 7r ot£ iTriorptyag crrrjpi^ov is such as 
 absolutely to require that the joint action indicated by them 
 should belong to the same time, and that an indefinite time 
 expressed by tcotL Now this would be false according to 
 the rendering, “ And thou, when thou art converted, confirm 
 thy brethren,” for the conversion was immediate and definite, 
 the confirmation distant and indefinite; whereas it exactly 
 agrees with the rendering, “ And thou, in thy turn, one day 
 confirm thy brethren.” 
 
 Those who wish to see the whole controversy adfnirably 
 drawn out, may find it in Passaglia, b. ii, ch. 13. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 63 
 
 bestower of all gifts, “ But I have prayed for thee, 
 that thy faith fail not.” 
 
 More than a thousand years ago two Easterns seem 
 to have expressed all this, one the Bishop Stephen, 
 suppliantly approaching Pope Martin I, in the Lateran 
 Synod of a.d. 649, and speaking of “ the blessed 
 Peter, in a manner special and peculiar to himself, 
 having above all a firm and immutable faith in our 
 Lord God, to consider with compassion, and confirm 
 his spiritual partners and brethren when tossed by 
 doubt: inasmuch as he has received pow T er and sacer¬ 
 dotal authority, according to the dispensation over all, 
 from the very God for our sakes incarnate.” 1 And 
 Theodore, Abbot of the Studium, at Constantinople, 
 addressing Pope Paschal I, a.d. 817, in the midst of 
 persecution from the state, as if he were Peter himself: 
 “ Hear, O Apostolic Head, O shepherd of the sheep 
 of Christ, set over them by God, O doorkeeper of the 
 kingdom of heaven, O rock of the faith upon which the 
 Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who 
 adornest and governest the See of Peter. To thee, 
 said Christ our God, * And thou, in thy turn, one day 
 confirm thy brethren/ Behold the time, behold the 
 place, help us, thou who art ordained by God for this. 
 Stretch forth thy hand as far as may be: power thou 
 hast from God, because thou art the chief of all.” 2 
 
 Now let us 3 view in its connection the whole scope 
 of our Lord’s discourse. We shall see how naturally 
 the contest of the Apostles arose out of what he had 
 told them, and how well the former and the latter part 
 
 1 Mansi, Concilia, x 894. 
 
 2 Baronius, Annal., a.d. 817, xxi. 
 
 3 Passaglia, p. 545. 
 
64 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 of his answer harmonize together, and terminate that 
 contest. We learn from St John’s record of this 
 divine conversation, that our Lord besought his Father, 
 saying, “ While I was with them in the world, I kept 
 them in thy name . . . but now I come to thee:” 
 that is, so long as I was with them visibly in the world 
 (for invisibly I will always be with them, and nurture 
 them with the spiritual influx of the Vine), I kept 
 them united in thy name; “ but now I come to thee,” 
 I leave the world, I relinquish the office of visible 
 head. It remains, that by the appointment of another 
 visible head, thou shouldst entrust him with my office, 
 provide for the conspicuous unity of all, and preserve 
 them joined unto each other and to us. So St Luke 
 tells us, that no sooner had our Lord declared to the 
 Apostles, “ the Son of Man indeed goeth according 
 to that which is determined,” than they began to have 
 a strife among them, “ which of them should seem to 
 be the greater.” For they had heard that Christ 
 would withdraw his visible presence, and they had 
 heard him also earnestly entreating of the Father to 
 provide for their visible unity. Accordingly, the time 
 seemed at hand when another was to take this office of 
 visible head; hence their questioning, who should be 
 the greater among them. Now our Lord does not 
 reprove this inference of theirs, but he does reprove 
 the temper in which they were coveting pre-eminence. 
 For, engaged as they were in the strife, he warned 
 them that the person who should be “ the Greater and 
 the Ruler ” among them, must follow in the discharge 
 of his office the rule and the standard which he had set 
 up in his own conduct, and not that which the kings 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 65 
 
 of the Gentiles follow. Thus, setting these in sharp 
 contrast, he proceeds: “ The kings, indeed, of the 
 nations lord it over their subjects and love high titles, 
 and to be called benefactors; but I, though Lord and 
 Master amongst you, have dealt otherwise, as you know. 
 For I have exercised, not a lordship, but a servitude; 
 I have not sat at table, but waited; I have not cared for 
 titles, but called you friends and brethren. Let this 
 example, then, be before you all, but especially before 
 him who is to be the greater and the ruler among you. 
 For I appoint unto you, and dispose of you, as my 
 Father hath disposed of me; of me he hath disposed 
 that through humiliation, emptying of myself, ig¬ 
 nominy, and manifold temptations, I should gain the 
 kingdom, reach the joys of heaven, and obtain all 
 power in heaven and on earth. So likewise dispose I 
 of you, that through humility, sufferings, reproaches, 
 hunger, thirst, and all manner of temptations, you may 
 reach whither I have come, being worthy, after your 
 hunger and your thirst, to eat and drink at my table 
 in my kingdom; after being despised and dishonoured, 
 to sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 Now, hitherto you have trodden with me this royal 
 way full of sorrows, and have continued with me in 
 my temptations. But little will it profit to begin, if 
 you persevere not to the end. None shall be crowned, 
 save he who has contended lawfully; none be saved, 
 but he who perseveres to the end. Will you remain 
 with me still in your temptations to come, and when 
 I am no longer present with you visibly, to protect and 
 exhort, will you preserve your steadfastness ? Simon, 
 Simon, behold ! I see Satan exerting all his force to 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 overcome your purpose, and to destroy the fidelity 
 which you have hitherto shown me. I see the danger 
 to your faith and your salvation approaching. But I, 
 who, when visibly present with you, left nothing un¬ 
 done to guard, protect, and strengthen you visibly, 
 so, too, when separated from your bodily sight, will 
 yet not leave you without a visible support. Where¬ 
 fore, Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thou fail not, 
 and thou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy brethren. 
 Remember that thou hast to discharge that part 
 visibly towards thy brethren, which I, while yet 
 mortal and visible, discharged; remember that I 
 therefore had special care of thee, because it was 
 my will that thou, confirmed by my prayers, shouldst 
 confirm thy brethren, my disciples, and my friends.” 1 
 
 Now, from 2 what has been said, it appears that 
 Peter in Holy Scripture is set forth as the source and 
 principle of ecclesiastical unity under a double but 
 cognate image, as Foundation, and as Confirmer. Of 
 the former we will here say nothing further, but a few 
 consequences of the latter it is desirable here to group 
 together. 
 
 I. The unity, then, which consists in the profession 
 of one and the same faith, is conspicuous among those 3 
 modes of unity by which Christ has willed that his 
 Church should be distinguished. Now, first, St Paul 
 declares that the whole ministerial hierarchy, from the 
 Apostolate downwards, was instituted by our Lord, 
 for the sake of obtaining and preserving this unity. 
 “ He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 547. 2 Ibid p. 571. 
 
 3 For which see hereafter, Ch. VII. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 67 
 
 other some Evangelists, and other some pastors and 
 doctors, for the perfecting ” literally, the fitting in 
 together, the same word which St Peter had used 
 in his prayer, ch. v 10), “of the saints, for the work 
 of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; 
 until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the 
 knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
 unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. ,, 1 
 To this living hierarchy he expressly attributes pre¬ 
 servation from, doctrinal error, proceeding thus: 
 “ That henceforth we be no more children tossed to 
 and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, 
 by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by 
 which they lie in wait to deceive.” And, secondly, 
 this hierarchy itself was knitted and gathered up into 
 a monarchy, and its whole force and solidity made 
 to depend on association with Peter, to whom alone 
 was said, “ But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith 
 fail not;” to whom alone was enjoined, “And thou, 
 in thy turn, one day confirm thy brethren.” 
 
 II. Accordingly the pre-eminence of Peter is well 
 expressed by the words, 2 “ Primacy of faith,” “ chief- 
 ship of faith,” “ chiefship in the episcopate of faith,” 
 meaning thereby a peculiar authority to prescribe the 
 faith and determine its profession, and so protect its 
 unity and purity. This is conveyed in the words of 
 Christ, Confirm thy brethren. Thus St Bernard 3 
 
 1 Eph. iv 11. 
 
 2 Petrus uti audivit, vos autem quid me dicitis ? Statim 
 loci non immemor sui primatum egit; primatum confessionis 
 utique, non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis.—Ambros. 
 de Incarn., c. 4, n. 32, tom. 2, p. 710 
 
 3 Ep. 190, vol. 1, p. 649. 
 
68 ST PETER: HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 
 
 addressed Innocent II, “ All emergent dangers and 
 scandals in the kingdom of God, specially those which 
 concern the faith, are to be referred to your Apostolate. 
 For I conceive that we should look especially for 
 reparation of the faith to the spot where faith cannot 1 
 fail. That indeed is the prerogative of his see. For 
 to whom else was it once said, ‘ I have prayed for thee, 
 Peter, that thy faith fail not ’ ? Therefore what 
 follows is required of Peter’s successor: ‘ And thou, in 
 thy turn, one day confirm thy brethren.’ And this is 
 now necessary. It is time for you, most loving father, 
 to recognize your chiefship, to approve your zeal, and 
 so make your ministry honoured. In that you clearly 
 fulfil the part of Peter, whose seat you occupy, if by 
 your admonition you confirm hearts fluctuating in faith, 
 if by your authority you crush those who corrupt it.” 
 
 III. All who have received the ministry of the word, 
 and the charge of defending the faith and preserving 
 unity, and are “ ambassadors in Christ’s name,” have 
 a claim to be listened to, but he above all who holds 
 the chiefship of faith, and who received the charge, 
 “ Confirm thy brethren.” He therefore must be the 
 supreme standard of faith, which is just what St Peter 
 Chrysologus, in the fifth century, wrote to Eutyches: 
 “ We exhort you in all things, honourable brother, to 
 pay obedience to what is written by the most blessed 
 Pope of the Roman city; for St Peter, who both lives 
 and rules in his own see, grants to those who ask for 
 it the truth of faith.” 2 
 
 1 St Cyprian in the third century, uses the same expression. 
 Ep. 55 - 
 
 2 Twenty-fifth letter among those of St Leo. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 69 
 
 IV. And in this prerogative of Peter, to be heard 
 above all others, we find the meaning of certain ancient 
 expressions. Thus Prudentius calls him, “ the first 
 disciple of God ’’j 1 St Augustine, “ the figure of the 
 Church ”; 2 St Chrysostom, “ the mouthpiece of the 
 disciples, and teacher of the world”; 3 St Ephrem 
 Syrus, “ the candle, the tongue of the disciples, and the 
 voice of preachers”; 4 St Cyril of Jerusalem, “ the 
 prince of the Apostles, and the highest preacher of the 
 Church.” 5 In these and such-like continually re¬ 
 curring expressions we recognize his chiefship in the 
 episcopate of faith, his being the standard of faith, and 
 his representing the Catholic faith, as the branches are 
 gathered up in the root, and the streamlets in the 
 fountain. 
 
 V. Our Lord 6 has most solemnly declared, and St 
 Paul repeated, that no one shall be saved without 
 maintaining the true and uncorrupt faith. Of this 
 Peter’s faith is the standard and exemplar. Accord¬ 
 ingly, by the law of Christ, unity with the faith of Peter 
 is necessary to salvation. This law our Lord set forth 
 in the words, “ Confirm thy brethren.” And to this 
 the Fathers in their expressions above quoted allude. 
 
 VI. The true faith and the true Church are so in- 
 divisibly united, that they cannot even be conceived 
 apart from each other, faith being to the Church as 
 
 1 Con. Symmachum, lib. 2, v. 1. 
 
 2 Sermon 76. 3 Horn. 88 on John. 
 
 4 Encom. in Petrum et caeteros Apostolos. 
 
 6 Cat. xi, n. 3 : 0 TTpuTOGTarpe tmv ’A7ro<7ro\wj' icai Tijt; IkkXij- 
 
 aictQ KopvfpaioQ Kppv'i. 
 
 6 Mark xvi 16; John iii 18; Rom. iii 3, etc. 
 
70 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 light to the sun. But the true faith neither is nor can 
 be other than that which Peter, “ the first disciple of 
 God,” “ the teacher of the world,” “ the mouthpiece 
 of the disciples,” and “ the confirmer of his brethren,” 
 holds and proposes to others. No communion, there¬ 
 fore, called after Christ, which yet differs from that 
 faith can claim either the name or dignity of the true 
 Church. 
 
 VII. If any knowledge have a special value, it is 
 surely that by which we have a safe and ready test of 
 the true faith and the true Church. It is of the 
 utmost necessity to know and embrace both, and the 
 means of reaching them are proportionably valuable. 
 Now that test abides in Peter, by keeping which before 
 us we can neither miss the true faith nor the true 
 Church. For no other true faith can there be than 
 that which he delivers who received the charge of 
 confirming his brethren, nor other true Church than 
 what Christ built, and is building still. Hence the 
 expression of St Ambrose, “ Where Peter is, there is 
 the Church ’’j 1 and of Stephen of Larissa, to Pope 
 Boniface II (a.d. 530), “ that all the Churches of the 
 world rest in the confession of Peter.” 2 
 
 VIII. With all these agrees that famous and most 
 early testimony of St Cyprian, that men “ fall away 
 from the Church into heresy and schism so long as 
 there is no regard to the source of truth , no looking to 
 the heady nor keeping to the doctrine of our heavenly 
 Master. If any one consider and weigh this, he will 
 not need length of comment or argument. It is easy 
 
 1 Ambros. in Ps. 1 , n. 30. 
 
 2 Mansi, tom. viii 746. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 71 
 
 to offer proofs to a faithful mind, because in that case 
 the truth may be quickly stated.” 1 And then he 
 quotes our Lord’s words to Peter, Matt, xvi 16, and 
 John xxi 17, adding, “ upon him being one he builds 
 his church.” Therefore that Church can neither be 
 torn from the one on whom she is built, nor profess 
 any other faith, save what that one, who is Peter, 
 proposes. 
 
 1 De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE INVESTITURE OF PETER 
 
 Our Lord has hitherto, while on earth, 1 ruled as its 
 visible head that body of disciples which he had chosen 
 out of the world, and which his Father had given him. 
 And this body he for the first time called the Church 
 in that famous prophecy 2 wherein he named the 
 person, who, by virtue of an intimate association with 
 himself, the Rock, should be its foundation. Its 
 duration until the consummation of the world, he 
 pronounced at the same time, in spite of all the rage 
 of “ spiritual wickedness in high places ” against it, 
 because it was to be founded upon the rock which he 
 should lay. 
 
 Secondly, he had, at that period of his ministry when 
 he thought it meet, the second year, selected out of the 
 rest of his disciples, after ascending into a mountain 
 and continuing the night long in prayer, twelve whom 
 he named Apostles—as before and above all sent by 
 him. “ He called whom he would himself, and they 
 came to him.” To them “ he gave authority over 
 unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every 
 disease and every weakness.” He chose them also 
 “ to be with him,” his personal friends, “ and he sent 
 them to preach.” To them, moreover, he subse¬ 
 quently made a promise that whatever they should 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 93. 
 
 2 Matt, xvi 16. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 73 
 
 bind on earth should be bound in heaven, and what¬ 
 ever they should loose on earth should be loosed in 
 heaven. 1 
 
 Thirdly, as at a certain time in his ministry, that is 
 the second year, he had selected twelve to be nearer 
 his person than the rest of his disciples, so at a yet later 
 time, the third year of his ministry, he had set apart 
 one out of the twelve, to whom from the very first, and 
 before either he, or any one, had been called to be an 
 Apostle, or even, as it would seem, a disciple, he had 
 given a prophetic name. By word and deed, in corre¬ 
 spondence with that name, he designated Peter to be 
 the future rock of his Church, to be the bearer of the 
 keys, which opened or shut the entrance to his mystical 
 Holy City, to be endued with power singly to bind and 
 to loose. Finally, on the very eve of his being taken 
 away from his disciples, he pointed out Peter as the 
 future “ First one,” “ Greater one,” or “ Ruler,” 
 among them, having, as such, had given to him a special 
 and singular charge, after the departure of the Head, 
 to “ confirm his brethren.” 
 
 It is manifest that this was all which, before his 
 offering himself up for the sin of the world, and the 
 withdrawal of his visible presence thereupon ensuing, 
 he could do for the government of his Church. For as 
 long as he was there, the Son of Man among men, seen, 
 felt, touched, and handled, the sacred voice in their 
 ears, and the divine eyes gazing bodily upon them, he 
 was not only the fountain of all headship and rule, but 
 he exercised in his own person the highest functions 
 of that headship and visible rule. He daily en- 
 
 1 Matt, x i; Mark iii 13-15 ; Luke vi 12, 13 ; Matt, xviii 18. 
 
74 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 couraged, warned, corrected, taught, united them; in 
 short, to use his own words, “ while he was with them, 
 he kept them in his Father’s name.” 1 
 
 But now another time, and other dangers were 
 approaching. The sword was drawn which should 
 “ strike the shepherd,” there was a fear that “ the 
 sheep would be scattered,” not only for a moment, but 
 for ever. To meet this the care of the Divine Guardian 
 was necessary in a further disposition of those powers 
 which he received at his resurrection from the dead. 
 For henceforth his visits, as of a risen King, were to be 
 few and sudden, when he pleased, and at times they 
 expected not, “ for forty days appearing to them and 
 speaking of the kingdom of God,” and as soon as his 
 final injunctions had been thus royally given, “ the 
 heavens were to receive him till the time of the res¬ 
 toration of all things.” The Apostles could no longer 
 “ be with him,” as before, nor he “ keep them,” as in 
 the days of his flesh. 
 
 How, then, does he complete the ministerial hier¬ 
 archy which sprung from his own divine person on 
 earth, and which is to rule his Church and represent 
 that person from his first to his second coming P 
 
 Now, first, we must remark, that while great care 
 is taken to make known to all the Apostles the resur¬ 
 rection of the Lord, yet a special solicitude is shown 
 with regard to that one who was to be “ the Ruler.” 
 Thus the angels, announcing the fact to the holy 
 women at the sepulchre, “ He is risen, he is not here, 
 behold the place where they laid him,” add, “ but go, 
 tell his disciples and Peter , that he goeth before you 
 
 1 John xvii 12. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 75 
 
 into Galilee.” 1 The expression indicates his superior 
 place, as when Peter, himself delivered from prison, 
 recounted to the disciples at the house of Mark his 
 escape, and added, “ Tell these things to James and to 
 the brethren,” where no one fails to see the pre¬ 
 eminence given to James by such a mention of him, 
 that Apostle being the Bishop of Jerusalem and so put 
 over the brethren, and, with himself, one of those who 
 “ seemed to be pillars.” Again, to Peter our Lord 
 appeared first among the Apostles. St Paul, exhibiting 
 a sort of sum of Christian doctrine, as he says “ the 
 Gospel which I preached unto you,” begins, “ I 
 delivered unto you first of all that which I also re¬ 
 ceived, how that Christ died for our sins according to 
 the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he 
 rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, 
 and that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the 
 eleven.” By him alone first, then by them in con¬ 
 junction with him. And further, St Paul’s words 
 seem to express a sort of descending ratio, “ Then was 
 he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once, 
 of whom many remain until this present, and some are 
 fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then 
 by all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen also 
 by me, as by one born out of due time. For I am the 
 least of the Apostles.” 2 And while they were yet in 
 doubt, and for joy could not receive the marvellous 
 tidings when brought by the women, as soon as our 
 Lord appeared to Peter their hesitation was removed, 
 and the two disciples returning from Emmaus—them¬ 
 selves full of his wonderful conversation with them— 
 1 Mark xvi 6. 2 i Cor. xv 1-9. 
 
76 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 “ found the eleven gathered together and those that 
 were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and 
 hath appeared to Simon.” This the Church in her 
 exultation repeats, where philologists tell us that the 
 Greek and bears what is often the Hebrew meaning, 
 and signifies “ for,” as if no doubt could remain any 
 longer of their happiness, when Peter had become a 
 witness of it. 
 
 These are indications of superiority, slight perhaps 
 in themselves if they stood alone, but not slight as 
 bearing tacit witness to a fact otherwise resting on its 
 own explicit evidence. If one of the Apostles was 
 destined to be the head of the rest, this is what we 
 should have expected to happen to that one, and this 
 did happen to Peter, who is elsewhere made the head 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 But now we come to those most important injunc¬ 
 tions which our Lord gave to his Apostles after his 
 Resurrection, concerning the government of his Church. 
 And here it becomes necessary to mark with the utmost 
 accuracy what he said and what he gave to all the 
 Apostles in common, and what to Peter in particular. 
 
 First of all, then, we may remark our Lord’s care to 
 redeem the promises which he had made to the Twelve, 
 and to convey to them their legislative, judicial, and 
 executive powers. These are mentioned by each of 
 the four Evangelists, in somewhat different terms, but 
 alike involving the distinctive Apostolic powers of 
 immediate institution by Christ, and universal mission; 
 as Apostles they are sent , and they are sent by Christ. 
 The form recorded in St Matthew is, “ All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, there- 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 77 
 
 fore, and make disciples all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
 I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all 
 days, even to the consummation of the world.” 
 
 The form of St Mark is, “ Go ye into the whole 
 world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.” 
 
 St Luke refers specially in two passages to the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost, as being himself as well 
 the divine “ Gift,” and the immediate worker of all 
 graces in man, as the principle of the ecclesiastical 
 hierarchy. “ And I send the promise of my Father 
 upon you, but stay you in the city till you be endued 
 with power from on high.” And again, “ Eating 
 together with them, he commanded them that they 
 should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for 
 the promise of the Father, which you have heard,” 
 saith he, “ by my mouth; for John, indeed, baptized 
 with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost not many days hence.” “ You shall receive 
 the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and 
 you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all 
 Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of 
 the earth.” 
 
 The form recorded by St John is, “ As the Father 
 hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, 
 he breathed on them; and he said to them, Receive ye 
 the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are 
 forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they 
 are retained .” 1 
 
 1 Matt, xxviii 18; Mark xvi 15; Luke xxiv 49; Acts i 4-8; 
 John xx 21. 
 
j 8 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Now, it may be remarked that these passages of the 
 several Evangelists are identical in their force; that is, 
 they each convey all those powers which constitute 
 the Apostolate. These are received by all the Apostles 
 in common, and together; and in the joint possession 
 of them consists that equality which is often attributed 
 by the ancient writers to the Apostles, as notably by 
 St Cyprian. “ He gives to all the Apostles an equal 
 power, and says, 4 As the Father sent me, I also send 
 you/ ” And again, “ Certainly, the other Apostles 
 also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellow¬ 
 ship, both of honour and power.” 1 
 
 And these Apostolic powers, legislative, judicial, 
 and executive, are afterwards referred to as exercised. 
 Thus, in Acts xv, the first council passes decrees which 
 bind the Church; nay, which go forth in the joint name 
 of the Holy Ghost and the Rulers of the Church: 
 “ It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” 
 These powers are delivered by St Paul to the cities to 
 be kept (Acts xvi 4). Again, in Acts xx 28, Bishops are 
 charged to rule the Church, each over his flock, wherein 
 the Holy Ghost has placed him. In 1 Cor. v 1-5 
 St Paul, “ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 
 excommunicates, and in 2 Cor. x 6 he sets forth his 
 Apostolic power. In the Epistles to Titus and 
 Timothy he sets them in authority, enjoins them to 
 ordain priests in every city, and commands them to 
 “ reprove,” or “ rebuke.” 
 
 And all these powers St Peter, of course, as one of 
 the Twelve, had received in common with the rest. 
 The limit to them would seem to lie in their being 
 
 1 De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 79 
 
 shared by twelve; as, for instance, universal mission 
 dwelling in such a body must practically be determined 
 and limited somehow to the different members of that 
 body, or one would interfere with the other. But 
 there is nothing in these powers which answers to the 
 images of “ the rock,” on which the Church is built, 
 the single “ bearer of the keys,” and “ confirmer ” of his 
 brethren, which Christ had appropriated to one Apostle. 
 
 In like manner, then, as our Lord fulfilled his 
 promises to the Twelve, so did he those to St Peter, and 
 we find written the committal of an authority to him 
 exactly answering to these images. This authority 
 expresses the full legislative, judicial, and executive 
 power of the head, which can be executed by one alone 
 at a time, and is of its own nature supreme, and re¬ 
 sponsible to none save God. It remained for our Lord 
 to find an image setting forth all this as decisively as 
 that of the Rock, the Bearer of the keys, and the Con¬ 
 firmer of his brethren. 
 
 Once, as he passed along the shores of the lake of 
 Galilee, he had seen two fishermen casting their net 
 into the sea, and had “ said to them, Come after me, 
 and I will make you fishers of men, and immediately 
 leaving their nets, they followed him.” Once again, 
 too, he had gone into the ship of that same fisherman, 
 and sitting, taught the multitudes out of it. And then 
 he bade that fisherman, “ who had laboured all the 
 night and taken nothing, to launch out into the deep,” 
 and in faith “ let down his nets for a draught,” where¬ 
 upon “ he enclosed so great a multitude of fishes that 
 the net brake.” 1 And again, in after times, when the 
 
 1 Mark i 16; Luke v 3. 
 
8o 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 fisherman had become an Apostle, that same ship 
 waited on his convenience, and carried him across the 
 lake. It was there he was asleep when the storm 
 raged, and his disciples in little faith awoke him, saying, 
 “ Master, save us, we perish,” not yet knowing that 
 the ship which carried the Lord might be tost, but 
 could not sink. 1 From it they beheld him walking 
 on the sea, in the fourth watch of the night, when 
 Peter, in his fervour, desired to join him, and going to 
 meet his Lord on the waves, his faith failed him, and 
 he began to sink, till the Almighty hand supported him, 
 and drew him with it to the ship, which “ presently 
 was at the land to which they were going.” 2 And 
 now, Peter, and Thomas, and Nathaniel, and the sons 
 of Zebedee, and two others, were once more on that 
 same ship and sea, but no longer with him who had 
 commanded the winds, and walked on the waves. 
 Once more, too, they 3 toiled all the night, and “ caught 
 nothing ”; when, lo, in the morning light, Jesus stood 
 on the shore, but yet unknown to them, and bade them 
 cast the net on the right side of the ship, “ and now 
 they were not able to draw it for the multitude of 
 fishes.” Thus he revealed himself to them, and in¬ 
 vited them to eat with him of the fishes which they had 
 caught. “ Then Simon Peter went up, and drew the 
 net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty- 
 three. And although there were so many, the net was 
 not broken:” for, indeed, that draught of great fishes, 
 gathered by Peter at Christ’s command, betokened 
 God’s elect, whom the Church is to gather out of the 
 
 1 Mark iv 38; Luke viii 24. 2 John vi 21. 
 
 3 John xxi 1-14. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 81 
 
 sea of this world, who cannot break from the net, 
 which net, therefore, Peter drew to land, even the ever¬ 
 lasting shore whereon Christ welcomes his own. 
 And after that marvellous banquet of the disciples with 
 their Lord, betokening the never-ending marriage- 
 feast, wherein “ the roasted fish is Christ in His 
 passion,” 1 our Lord proceeds to crown all that series 
 of distinctions, wherewith, since imposing the pro¬ 
 phetic name, he had marked out Simon, the son of 
 Jonas, to be the Leader of his disciples. Thus he 
 fulfils by the side of the lake of Galilee what he fore¬ 
 shadowed when he first looked upon Peter, what he 
 promised in the quarters of Cesarea Philippi, and what 
 he repeated on the eve of his passion. 
 
 It was his will to appoint one to take his place on 
 earth. Now he had assumed to himself specially a 
 particular title under which of old time his prophets 
 had foretold his advent among men, and which above 
 all others expressed his tender love for fallen man. 
 It had been said of him, “ I will set up one shepherd 
 over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant 
 David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shep¬ 
 herd.” And again, “ Say to the cities of Juda, 
 behold your God. . . . He shall feed his flock like a 
 shepherd: he shall gather together the lambs with his 
 arm, and shall take them up in his bosom, and he 
 himself shall carry them that are with young.” And, 
 once more, in the very prophecy by which the chief 
 priests and scribes declared to Herod that he must be 
 born at Bethlehem, “ For from thee shall go forth the 
 
 1 St Aug. in Joan, cxxii. “ Piscis assus Christus est 
 passus.” 
 
 6 
 
82 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Ruler, who shall feed (or shepherd) my people Israel.” 
 Appropriating these predictions to himself, the Lord 
 had said, “ I am the good shepherd. The good shep¬ 
 herd giveth his life for his sheep. And other sheep I 
 have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring; 
 and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” 1 And 
 now it was his pleasure to give this particular title, so 
 specially his own, to Peter, and to Peter alone, and to 
 Peter in most marked contrast even with the best-beloved 
 of his other disciples, and to Peter, thrice repeating the 
 charge, and varying the expression of it so as to include 
 the term in its utmost force. “ When, therefore, they 
 had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of 
 John, lovest thou me more than these ? He saith to 
 him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He 
 saith to him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again, 
 Simon, son of John, lovest thou me ? He saith to him, 
 Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith 
 to him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him the third 
 time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me ? Peter was 
 grieved because he had said to him the third time, 
 Lovest thou me ? And he said to him, Lord, thou 
 knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. 
 He said to him, Feed my sheep.” 
 
 Our Lord had before addressed the seven disciples 
 present in common, “ Children, have you any meat ?” 
 “ Cast the net, and you shall find.” “ Bring hither 
 of the fishes which you have caught.” “ Come and 
 dine.” But now, turning to one in particular, he 
 singles him out in the most special manner, by his 
 
 1 Ezech. xxiv 33; Isa. xl 9-11; Mich, v 2; Matt, ii 6; 
 John x11,14, 16. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 83 
 
 name, by asking of him a love greater than that of any 
 other towards himself, by conferring on him a charge, 
 which, as we shall see, from its extension excludes its 
 being held in joint possession by any other, and by 
 a prophecy concerning the manner of his death, which 
 is wholly particular to Peter. If it is possible by any 
 words to convey a power and a charge to a particular 
 person, and to exclude the rest of the company from 
 that special power and charge, it is done here. 
 
 But, secondly, it is a charge of a very high and dis¬ 
 tinguishing nature indeed, for our Lord before con¬ 
 ferring it demands of Peter, as a condition, greater 
 love towards his own person than that felt for him by 
 any of the Twelve—even by the sons of Zebedee, whom 
 from their zeal he surnamed Boanerges, sons of 
 thunder—even by the disciple whom he loved, and 
 who lay on his breast at the Last Supper. What must 
 that charge be, the preliminary condition for which is 
 a greater love for Jesus than that of the beloved dis¬ 
 ciple ? What shall be a fitting sequel to “ Simon, son 
 of John, lovest thou me more than these ?” What, 
 again, the importance of that office, in bestowing which 
 our Lord thrice repeats the condition, and thrice in¬ 
 culcates the charge ? The words of God are not 
 spoken at random, nor his repetitions without effect. 
 What, again, are the subjects of the charge ? They 
 are “ my lambs,” and “ my sheep that is, the fold 
 itself of the Great Shepherd. As he said, “ If I wash 
 thee not, thou shalt have no part with me,” so those 
 who are not either his lambs or his sheep form no part 
 of his fold. Others, too, in Holy Writ, are addressed 
 as shepherds, but with a limitation, as, “ Take heed 
 
84 ST PETER: HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 
 
 to the whole flock wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed 
 you bishops,” or “ Feed the flock of God which is 
 among you .” And, more emphatically it was said, “ Go 
 ye, therefore, and make disciples all nations and 
 “ Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel 
 to every creature.” 1 But they to whom this was said 
 were yet themselves sheep of the Great Shepherd, and 
 in committing the world to them, he did not commit 
 them to each other. Whereas here, they too, as his 
 sheep, are committed to one, even Peter; and very ex¬ 
 pressly, in the persons of James and John, and the rest 
 present, “ Lovest thou me more than these ?” A 
 particular flock is never termed absolutely and simply 
 “ the flock,” or “ the flock of God,” but “ the flock 
 which is among you” “ in which the Holy Ghost hath 
 made you bishops .” And again, the Apostles are sent 
 in common to the whole world, to preach to all nations, 
 and to form one flock; but they are twelve, and “ power 
 given to several carries its restriction in its division, 
 whilst power given to one alone and over all, and with¬ 
 out exception, carries with it plenitude, and not having 
 to be divided with any other, it has no bounds save 
 those which its terms convey.” 2 What are the terms 
 here ? “ Feed,” and “ be shepherd over ” or “ rule ” 
 
 “ my lambs and my sheep.” The terms have no 
 limit, save that of salvation itself. Such, then, are 
 the persons indicated as subjects of this charge. But 
 what is the nature of the charge ? Two different 
 words of unequal extent and force in the original, but 
 both rendered “ feed ” in the translation, convey this. 
 
 1 Acts xx 28; 1 Pet. v 10; Matt, xxviii 19; Mark xvi 15. 
 
 2 Bossuet, Sermon sur V Unite. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 85 
 
 One means “ to give food ” simply, the other, of far 
 higher and nobler reach, embraces every act of care 
 and providence in the government of others, under an 
 image the farthest removed from the spirit of pride 
 and ambition. Such is even its heathen meaning, and 
 the first of poets termed Agamemnon by this word, 
 “ Shepherd of the people.” By this word, St Paul 
 and St Peter 1 himself express the power of the bishop 
 over his own flock. And so our Lord, here instituting 
 the Bishop of bishops, the one Shepherd of the one 
 fold, gives to Peter over all his flock the very word 
 given to him in the famous prophecy, “ Thou, Beth¬ 
 lehem, the land of Juda, art not the least among the 
 princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the 
 captain that shall rule my people Israel. This very 
 word used of himself in Psalm ii to express all his power 
 and dominion, in his revelation to St John is spoken 
 of his own triumphant career, as the Word of God 
 going forth to battle, “ He shall rule them with a rod 
 of iron.” Again, in the same book, it is applied by 
 himself to set forth the honour which he will give “ to 
 him that shall overcome and keep my works unto the 
 end.” 2 Thus, just as in the persons pointed out, the 
 subject of this charge is universal , so in the terms by 
 which it is expressed, the nature of the power is 
 supreme. What the bishop is to his own flock, Peter is 
 made to “ the flock of God ”: and this at once, in the 
 most simple, as well as in the most absolute and 
 emphatic manner, by institution from the Chief 
 Shepherd himself, at the close of his ministry, and by 
 
 1 Acts xx 28; 1 Pet. v 10; Ps. ii 9; Apoc. xix 15, ii 27. 
 
 2 HoLfiaivi.iv used in the text of John, and in all these. 
 
86 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 associating Peter singly with himself in his most dis¬ 
 tinctive title. If the fold of Christ is equivalent to 
 “ the Church of Christ,” and “ the kingdom of 
 heaven,” so to feed and to rule the lambs and the sheep 
 of that fold is equivalent to being “ the Rock ” of that 
 Church, and “ the Bearer of the keys,” as well as the 
 First , the Greater one , and the Ruler in that kingdom 
 of heaven. 
 
 Again, looking at the circumstances under which 
 this charge is received by Peter, it either conveys that 
 special and singular honour and power which we have 
 here set forth, or none at all. For Peter had already 
 received the full Apostolic authority: he had heard 
 together with the rest of the Apostles those words of 
 power, “ As my Father sent me, I also send you,” 
 and the charge following, to bind and to loose. It 
 could not therefore be this power which was here 
 given him, for he had it already. All which James and 
 John, the sons of thunder, ever had given them, he also 
 had before these words were uttered. Besides, a 
 power which was to be shared by James and John, and 
 the rest of the Apostles, could not be given in terms 
 which distinguished him from them, “ Lovest thou 
 me more than these ?” It could not be the mere 
 forgiveness of his denial, for not only did the Apos- 
 tolate, since conferred, carry that, but when our Lord 
 appeared to him first of all the Apostles after his Re¬ 
 surrection, it was a token of such forgiveness. There 
 remained nothing else to give him but a presidency 
 over the Apostles themselves, the reward of superior 
 love, as was prophesied and promised to him in reward 
 for superior faith. For these two oracles of our Lord 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 87 
 
 exactly correspond to each other as promise and per¬ 
 formance. Their conditions and their terms shed a 
 reciprocal light on each other. In the one there is the 
 great confession, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God ”; in the other as singular a declaration, 
 “ Lovest thou me more than these ? Yea, Lord.” 
 In the one there follows the reward, “ And I say to 
 thee, that thou art Peter,” etc.; and in the other a like 
 reward, “ Feed my lambs, be shepherd over my 
 sheep.” The one is future, “ I will build, I will give, 
 thou shalt bind, thou shalt loose ”; the other present, 
 “ Feed, and be shepherd.” What concerns “ the 
 Church and the kingdom of heaven ” in the one, 
 concerns “ the fold ” in the other. And the promise 
 and performance are singularly restricted to Peter— 
 “ I say unto thee, thou art Peter ”—“ Simon, son of 
 John, lovest thou me more than these ?” 
 
 And then Peter received the promise of the supreme 
 episcopate before all and by himself, under the terms 
 that he should be the Rock, by being built on which 
 the Church should never fall, that he should be the 
 Bearer of the keys in the kingdom of heaven, and that 
 singly he should bind and loose in heaven and on earth. 
 Thus, after his own Apostolate and that of the rest 
 had been completed, by himself, and as the crown of 
 the divine work, he received the fulfilment of that 
 supreme episcopate, under the terms, “ Feed my 
 lambs, be shepherd over my sheep.” And as a part 
 out of that magnificent promise made to him singly 
 was afterwards taken and made to the Apostles 
 jointly with him, for so “it was the design of Jesus 
 Christ to put first in one alone what afterwards he 
 
88 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 meant to put in several; but the sequel does not 
 reverse the beginning, nor the first lose his place. 
 That first word, ‘ whatsoever thou shalt bind,’ said to 
 one alone, has already ranged under his power each 
 one of those to whom shall be said, ‘ Whatsoever ye 
 shall remit for the promises of Jesus Christ, as well 
 as his gifts, are without repentance; and what is once 
 given indefinitely and universally is irrevocable.” 1 
 When Peter and the rest already possessed the whole 
 Apostolate, that is, the commission to go and preach 
 to the whole world, and to make disciples of all nations, 
 a power was added to Peter to make up what was 
 promised to him originally; the Apostles themselves, 
 with the whole fold, were put under his charge; he 
 represented the person of the Great Shepherd: and 
 the divine work was complete. 
 
 Thus the powers of the Apostolate and the Primacy 
 are not antagonistic, but fit into and harmonize with 
 each other. In the college of the Twelve, as before 
 inaugurated, and sent forth into the whole world, 
 something would have been wanting, had not “ the 
 appointment of a head removed the chance of schism” : 2 
 and Satan would have shaken the whole fabric had 
 there not been one divinely set to “ confirm the 
 brethren.” He who “ kept them ” once, when “ with 
 them,” by his personal presence, now kept them for 
 evermore by the word of his power, issued on the 
 shore of the lake of Galilee, but resounding through 
 every age, clear and decisive, amid the fall of empires 
 and the change of races—“ Simon, son of John, lovest 
 
 1 Bossuet, Sermon sur VUniti ,. 
 
 2 St. Jerome. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 89 
 
 thou me more than these ? Feed my lambs: Feed my 
 sheep.” 
 
 And that the universal and supreme authority over 
 the Church of Christ was in these words committed 
 to Peter by the Lord, is the belief of antiquity. Thus, 
 St Ambrose, in the West: “ It is not doubtful that 
 Peter believed, and believed because he loved, and 
 loved because he believed. Whence, too, he is grieved 
 at being asked a third time, Lovest thou me ? For we 
 ask those of whom we doubt. The Lord does not 
 doubt, and he asks not to learn, but to teach him whom, 
 on the point of ascending into heaven, he was leaving, 
 as it were , the successor and representative of his love . 1 
 It is because he alone out of all makes a profession, that 
 he is preferred to all. Lastly, for the third time, the 
 Lord asks him, no longer hast thou a regard (diligis me) 
 for me, but lovest (amas) thou me: and now he is 
 ordered to feed, not the lambs, as at first, who need a 
 milk diet, nor the little sheep, as secondly, but the 
 more perfect sheep, in order that he who was the 
 more perfect might have the government .” 2 In the East, 
 St Chrysostom: “ Why, then, passing by the rest, 
 does he converse with him on these things ? He was 
 the chosen of the Apostles , and the mouthpiece of the 
 disciples , and the head of the hand. Therefore, also 
 Paul once went up to see him rather than the rest. It 
 was, besides, to show him that for the future he must 
 be bold, as his denial was done away with, that He 
 puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. 
 And he does not mention the denial, nor reproach him 
 with what had passed; but he says, If thou lovest me, 
 
 1 Amoris sui veluti vicarium. 2 In Lucam, lib. 10, n. 175. 
 
go st peter: his name and his office 
 
 rule the brethren , and show now that warm affection 
 which on all occasions thou didst exhibit, and in which 
 thou didst exult, and the life which thou didst offer to 
 lay down for me, now spend for my sheep.” Again, 
 “ Thrice he asks the question, and thrice lays on him 
 the same command, showing at how high a price he 
 sets the charge of his own sheep” Again, “ He was 
 put in charge with the direction of his brethren.” 
 “ He made him great promises, and put the world 
 into his hands ” Thus John and James, and the rest 
 of the Apostles, were committed to Peter, but never 
 Peter to them: and he adds, “ But if any one asks, How 
 then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem ? I 
 would reply that he elected Peter not to be the teacher 
 of this throne, but of the whole world” And in 
 another place, “ Why did he shed his blood to purchase 
 those sheep which he committed to Peter and his suc¬ 
 cessors ? With reason then said Christ, ‘ Who is the 
 faithful and prudent servant whom his Lord had set 
 over his own 1 house ?’ ” Theophylact repeated, seven 
 hundred years later, the perpetual tradition of the East: 
 “ He puts into Peter’s hands the headship over the 
 sheep of the whole world, and to no other but to him 
 gives he this; first, because he was distinguished above 
 all, and the mouthpiece of the whole band; and 
 secondly, showing to him that he must be confident, 
 as his denial was put out of account.” Pope St Leo 
 declares that “ though there be among the people of 
 God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter rules 
 all by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules 
 
 1 St Chrys. in Joan. Horn. 88, pp. 525-527; and De 
 Sacerdot., lib. 2, tom. i, p. 372. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 91 
 
 by sovereign power.” 1 St Basil assigned an adequate 
 reason for this nearly a century before. He viewed all 
 pastoral authority in the Church as included in this 
 grant to Peter, declaring that the spiritual “ ruler is 
 alone the one who represents the person of the Saviour, 
 and offers up to God the salvation of those who obey 
 him, and this we learn from Christ Himself in that he 
 appointed Peter to he the shepherd of his Church after 
 himself .”2 
 
 But especially must we quote St Cyprian, because 
 to that equality of the Apostles as such, before re¬ 
 ferred to by us, by considering which without regard 
 to the proportion of faith some have been led astray, 
 he adds the full recognition of the Primacy, and urges 
 its extreme importance. Thus quoting the promise 
 and the fulfilment, “ Thou art Peter,” etc., and “ Feed 
 my sheep,” he goes on, “ Upon him being one he 
 builds his Church; and though he gives to all the 
 Apostles an equal power, and says, ‘ As the Father 
 sent me, I also send you,’ etc., yet in order to manifest 
 unity he has, by his own authority, so placed the source 
 of the same unity as to begin from one. Certainly the 
 other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with 
 an equal fellowship both of honour and power, but a 
 beginning is made from unity, that the Church may be 
 set before us as one.” 3 That is, the Apostles were 
 equal as to the powers bestowed in John xx 23-25, but 
 as to those given in Matt, xvi 18, 19, Luke xxii 31-33, 
 and John xxi 15-18, “ the Church was built upon 
 
 1 St Leo, Serm. 4. 
 
 2 St Basil, Constit. Monas, xxii, tom ii, p. 573. 
 
 3 St Cyprian, de Unit. 3. 
 
92 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Peter alone,” and he was made the source and ever- 
 living spring of ecclesiastical unity. 
 
 Yet clearly as our Lord in this charge associates 
 Peter with himself, puts him over his brethren, the 
 other Apostles, by that one title of “ the Shepherd,” in 
 which is summed up all authority over his Church, 
 still a touch of tenderness is added by the Master’s 
 hand, which brings out all this more forcibly, and must 
 have told personally on Peter’s feelings and those of 
 his fellow-disciples, as the highest and most solemn 
 consecration to his singular office. For when the Lord 
 spoke that parable, “ I am the good shepherd,” he 
 added, as the token of the character, “ The good shep¬ 
 herd giveth his life for his sheep.” And so now, 
 appointing Peter to take his place over the flock, he 
 adds to him this token also: “ Amen, amen, I say to 
 thee, When thou wast younger thou didst gird thyself, 
 and didst walk where thou wouldst, but when thou 
 shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and 
 another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou 
 wouldst not.” “ When thou wast younger, thou didst 
 gird thyself,” alluding, perhaps, to that impulse of 
 affection with which, just before, as soon as Peter 
 heard from John that it was the Lord standing on the 
 shore, “ He girt his coat about him and cast himself 
 into the sea,” for his love waited not for the slowness 
 of the boat. Thus he taught Peter that the chiefship 
 to which he was appointing him, that “ care of all the 
 churches, ” as it required a different spirit to fulfil 
 it from that which prevailed among “ the kings of 
 the nations,” so it led to a different end. The last 
 crowning act of a lifelong self-sacrifice, which began 
 
st peter: his name and his office 93 
 
 by being the servant of all, ran through a thousand acts 
 of humiliation and anxiety, was to the martyrdom of 
 crucifixion. And so in his death, as well as in his 
 charge of visible head of the Church, he was to be 
 made like his Lord, and after the manner of the Good 
 Shepherd, whom he succeeded, should lay down his 
 life for his sheep. For “ this he said signifying by 
 what death he should glorify God. And when he had 
 said this, he saith to him, Follow me,” with far deeper 
 meaning now than when those words of power were 
 first uttered to him beside that lake. Then it was 
 “ Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 
 Now it is, “ Follow me, and I will associate thee with 
 my life and with my death, with my charge and with 
 its reward. This shall be the proof of thy great love, 
 to be obedient even to death, and that the death of the 
 cross.” Such was the anointing which the first 
 Primate of the Church received to the triple crown. 
 “ Follow thou me.” Like his divine Master, he was 
 during the whole of his ministry to have the cross set 
 before his eyes, and laid upon his heart as the certain 
 end of his course. And thus Peter “ received power 
 and sacerdotal authority over all, from the very God 
 for our sakes incarnate”: 1 thus he followed in the 
 steps of the Good Shepherd, as he succeeded to his 
 office. And therefore, having accomplished his mis¬ 
 sion and triumphed on the Roman hill, from Rome 
 he speaks through the undying line of his spiritual 
 heirs, and feeds the flock of Christ. 
 
 1 Stephen of Dora, in the Lateran Synod, a.d. 649. 
 Mansi, x 893. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE AND EQUIVALENCE OF 
 THE GREAT TEXTS CONCERNING PETER 
 
 Before we compare together more exactly what was 
 said to the Apostles in common, and what to Peter in 
 particular, it is desirable to consider briefly two other 
 points, which will complete the evidence furnished by 
 the Gospels. 
 
 i. If, then, the question 1 to be decided by docu¬ 
 ments is, whether several persons are to be accounted 
 equal in rank, honour, and authority, or whether one 
 of them is superior to the rest, it will be an unexcep¬ 
 tionable rule to observe whether they are spoken of in 
 the same manner. For words are signs of ideas, and 
 set forth as in a mirror the mind’s conceptions. A 
 similarity of language, therefore, will indicate a simi¬ 
 larity of rank; a distinction of language, especially if 
 it be repeated and constant, will show a like distinction 
 of rank. Let us apply this rule to the mode in which 
 the Evangelists speak of Peter and of the other Apostles. 
 
 Now, to express one of rank and his attendants, the 
 Evangelists often use the phrase, a person and those 
 with him. Thus Luke vi 4, “ David and those that 
 were with him ” ; and Matt, xii 3 with Mark ii 25, 
 “ Have ye not read what David did when himself was 
 an hungered and those that were with him ?” Of our 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 106. 
 
 94 
 
st peter: his name and his office 95 
 
 Lord and the Apostles it is said, Mark iii 11, “ And he 
 made twelve, that they should be with him”; and 
 xvi io, “ She went and told them that had been with 
 him.” And Acts iv 13, the chief priests “ knew 
 them,” Peter and John, “ that they had been with 
 Jesus ” And Matthew xxvi 69, Peter is reproached, 
 “ Thou also wast with Jesus” Now, just so the 
 Evangelists speak of Peter. Our Lord having on one 
 occasion left the Apostles for solitary prayer, St Mark 
 writes i 36, “ And Simon and they that were with 
 him followed after him.” Again, the woman with the 
 issue of blood having touched the Lord when he 
 asked, “ Who is it that touched me ?” St Luke says, 
 viii 45, “ all denying, Peter and they that were with him 
 said,” etc. And on the occasion of the Transfigura¬ 
 tion, “ Peter and they that were with him” being James 
 and John. Just as after the Resurrection Luke writes, 
 Acts ii 14, “Peter standing up with the eleven”; 
 verse 37, “ They said to Peter and to the rest of the 
 Apostles ”; v 29, “ Peter and the Apostles answering 
 said.” And the angels to the holy women, Mark xvi 7, 
 “ Go tell his disciples and Peter.” 
 
 It is then to be remarked that Peter is the only 
 Apostle who is put in this relation to the rest. Never 
 is it said “ James,” or “ John and the rest of the 
 Apostles,” or, “ and those with him.” Peter is 
 named, and the rest are added in a mass, and this 
 happens in his case continually, never in the case of 
 any other Apostle. 
 
 No adequate cause can be alleged for this but the 
 Primacy and superior rank of Peter, which was ever 
 in the mind of the Evangelist, and is sometimes in- 
 
g 6 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 dicated by the prophetic name, for as often as Simon 
 is called Peter, he is marked as the foundation of the 
 Church, according to the Lord’s prophecy. And long 
 before contentions about the prerogatives of Peter 
 arose, the ancient Fathers attributed it to his Primacy 
 that he was thus named expressly and first, the others 
 in a mass, or in the second place. 
 
 According, then, to the rule above-mentioned, Peter, 
 by the mode in which the Evangelists speak of him, 
 is distinguished from the other Apostles, and his 
 position with regard to the rest is described in the very 
 same phrase which is used to express the superiority 
 of David over his men, and even of our Lord over the 
 Twelve. And for this there seems no adequate cause 
 but that special association of Peter with himself 
 indicated in the name, and the promises accompanying 
 it in Matt. xvi. 
 
 2 . Again, four 1 catalogues of the Apostles exist, 2 and 
 in each of these Peter is placed first. And in the three 
 which occur in the Gospels (that of Luke in the Acts 
 being a more brief repetition of his former one) the 
 prophetic name Peter is indicated as the reason for his 
 being thus placed first. So Mark: “ And to Simon 
 he gave the name Peter. And James the son of 
 Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named 
 them Boanerges, which is the sons of thunder:” for 
 which reason, that the Lord had given them a name, 
 though it was held in common, and not, like that of 
 Peter, expressive of official rank, but personal qualities, 
 Mark seems to set these two before Andrew, whom 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 109. 
 
 Matt, x 2-5; Mark iii 16-19; Luke vi 14-17; Acts i 13. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 97 
 
 both in Matthew and in Luke they follow. Again, 
 Luke says, “ He chose twelve of them, whom also 
 He named Apostles, Simon whom he surnamed Peter, 
 and Andrew his brother,” etc. “ The first of all, and 
 the chief of them, he that was illiterate and uneducated,” 
 says St Chrysostom; 1 and Origen long before him, 
 observing that Peter was always named first in the 
 number of the Twelve, asks, What should be thought 
 the cause of this order ? He replies, it was constantly 
 observed because Peter was “ more honoured than the 
 rest,” thus intimating that he no less excelled the rest 
 on account of the gifts which he had received from 
 heaven, than “ Judas through his wretched disposition 
 was truly the last of all, and worthy to be put at the 
 end.” 2 Much more marked is Matthew in signifying 
 the superior dignity of Peter, not only naming him at 
 the head in his catalogue, but calling him simply and 
 absolutely “ the first.” “ And the names of the Twelve 
 apostles are these, The first, Simon, who is called Peter, 
 and Andrew his brother, James,” etc. Now, that 
 second and third do not follow shows that “ first ” is 
 not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre¬ 
 eminence. Thus in heathen authors this word “ first ” 
 by itself designates the most excellent in its kind: 
 thus in the Septuagint occur, “first friend of the king,” 
 “ first of the singers,” “ the first priest ” 3 — i.e.> the 
 chief priest. So our Lord, “ whichever among you 
 will be first;” “ Bring forth the first robe;” and St Paul, 
 “sinners, of whom I am first” 4 — i.e., chief. Thus 
 
 1 St Chrysostom in Matt., Horn. 32. 
 
 2 Origen in Joan., tom. 32, n. 5, t. 4, p. 413. 
 
 3 1 Paral. xxvii 33; Neh. xii 45; 2 Paral. xxvi 20. 
 
 4 Matt, xx 27; Luke xv 22; 1 Tim. i 15. 
 
 7 
 
98 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 “ the first of the island,” Acts xxviii 7, means the chief 
 magistrate; the “ first ” generally in Latin phraseology, 
 the superior, or prince. 
 
 Such, then, is the rank which Matthew gives to 
 Peter, when he writes, “ the first Simon, who is called 
 Peter.” 
 
 It should also be remarked that, whenever the 
 Evangelists have occasion to mention some of the 
 Apostles, Peter being one, he is ever put first. Thus 
 Matthew, “ he taketh unto him Peter, and James, and 
 John his brother ”; and Mark, “ he admitted not any 
 man to follow him, but Peter, and James, and John 
 the brother of James.” Again, “ Peter, and James, 
 and John, and Andrew asked him apart ”; and “ he 
 taketh Peter, and James, and John with him”; and 
 Luke, “ he suffered not any man to go in with him, 
 but Peter, and James, and John, and the father and 
 mother of the maiden ”; and “ he sent Peter and John.” 
 Thus, John, “ There were together Simon Peter, and 
 Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael who 
 was of Cana in Galilee, and the two sons of Zebedee, 
 and two others of his disciples.” 1 This rule would 
 seem to be invariable, though James and John are not 
 always mentioned next after him. 
 
 An attempt has been made to evade the force of 
 these testimonies, by giving as a reason for Peter being 
 always thus named first, that he was the most aged of 
 all the Apostles, and the first called. Even were it so, 
 such reasons would seem most inadequate, but un¬ 
 fortunately they are neither of them facts. For as to 
 
 1 Matt, xvii 1; Markv37, xiii 3, xiv 33; Luke viii 51, xii 8; 
 John xxi 2. 
 
st peter: his name and his office 99 
 
 age, antiquity bears witness that Andrew was Peter's 
 elder brother. And as to their calling, St Augustine 
 has observed, “ In what order all the Twelve Apostles 
 were called, does not appear in the narrations of the 
 Evangelists, since not only not the order of the calling, 
 but not even the calling itself of all is mentioned, only 
 the calling of Philip, and Peter, and Andrew, and of 
 the sons of Zebedee, and of Matthew the publican, 
 termed also Levi. Now, Peter was both the first and 
 the only one who separately received a name from 
 him.” As it may be conjectured from the Gospels 
 that Christ said to Philip first of all “ Follow me,° 
 John i 44, he has the best right to be considered the first 
 called. 
 
 Now the two classes of facts just mentioned, as to 
 the mode in which the Evangelists speak of Peter in 
 combination with the other Apostles, prove directly 
 and plainly his Primacy, while they do not directly 
 prove, save Matthew's title of First , nor are they here 
 quoted to prove, the nature of the Primacy, which rests, 
 as we have seen, on other and more decisive texts. 
 
 At length, then, we have before us the whole evidence 
 of the Gospels, and having considered it, piece by 
 piece, may now take a general view. It is time to 
 gather up the several parts of this evidence, and, 
 claiming for each its due force, to present the sum of 
 all before the mind. For distinct and decisive as 
 certain texts appear, and are, even by themselves, yet 
 when they are seen to fit into a whole system, and per¬ 
 fectly to harmonize together, they have much greater 
 power to convince the mind which really seeks for 
 1 De Consensu Evang., lib. ii, c. xvii, n. 39. 
 
100 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 truth. But moral evidence generally, and especially 
 that which results from a study of the Holy Scripture, 
 is not intended to move a mind in a lower condition 
 than this—a mind, that is, which loves something else 
 better than the truth. 
 
 Thus, out of the body of his disciples we see our 
 Lord choosing Twelve, and again, out of those Twelve, 
 distinguishing One by the most singular favours. This 
 distinction even begins before the selection of the 
 Twelve, and has its root in the very beginning of our 
 Lord’s ministry: for, as we have seen, it was when 
 Andrew first led his brother Simon before Christ, that 
 he “ looked upon him,” and promised him the prophetic 
 name which revealed his Primacy and his perpetual 
 relation to the Church of God. The name thus pro¬ 
 mised is in due time bestowed, and solemnly recorded 
 by the three Evangelists, at the appointment of the 
 Apostles, as the reason why he is invariably set at their 
 head; Matthew, still more distinctly expressing it in his 
 Primacy, “ the first , Simon, who is called Peter.” And 
 their whole mode of mentioning him, and exhibiting 
 his relation to the other Apostles, shows that this 
 Primacy was, when they wrote, ever in their minds. 
 It comes out in the most incidental way, as when Mark 
 writes “ Simon, and they that were with him, followed 
 after ” Christ; or Luke, “ Peter, and they that were 
 with him, said ”; as naturally as they write, “ David, 
 and those that were with him ”; or of our Lord himself, 
 and the Apostles, “those that had been with him.” 1 
 Again this preference of Peter is shown by our Lord, 
 both at the Transfiguration and the Agony: where, 
 1 Mark i 36; Luke viii 45; Matt, xii 3; Mark ii 25, xvi 10. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 IOI 
 
 even when the two next favoured of the Apostles are 
 associated with him as witnesses, yet there is evidence 
 of Peter’s superiority in the mode with which the 
 Evangelists mention him. Great as was the dignity 
 of the two sons of thunder, they are yet ranged under 
 Peter by Luke, with that same phrase which we have 
 just been considering. “ Peter, and they that were with 
 him, were heavy with sleep.” And our Lord, at the 
 Agony, says to Peter, “ Could not you ”—that is, all 
 the three—“ watch with me one hour P” 1 Again, how 
 incidentally, yet markedly, does Matthew show that 
 this superiority of Peter over others was apparent even 
 to strangers, when he writes, that the officers who 
 collected the tribute for the Temple, came to him , and 
 said, “ Does not your Master ” (the Master of all the 
 Apostles) “ pay the didrachma ?” 2 Much more 
 significant is the incident immediately following, when 
 our Lord orders him to go to the sea, to cast a hook, 
 and to bring up a fish, which shall have a stater in his 
 mouth, adding, “ Take that, and give it to them for 
 me, and for thee a token of preference so strong, 
 and of association so singular, that it set the Apostles on 
 the immediate inquiry, who should be the greater among 
 them: the answer to which we will revert presently. 
 
 And this designation of Peter to his high and singular 
 office becomes even more striking, if we contrast what 
 our Lord did and said to him with what he did and said 
 to another Apostle, who in another way is even in some 
 respects preferred to Peter himself. For/ 4 the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved,” who lay on his breast at supper, to 
 whom he committed at the most sorrowful of all 
 
 1 Luke ix 32; Matt, xxvi 40. 
 
 2 Matt, xvii 24. 
 
102 
 
 ST. peter: his name and his office 
 
 moments the domestic care of the Virgin Mother, has 
 in the affection of our Lord his own unapproachable 
 sphere. But as Peter does not come into competition 
 with him here, so neither in another view he with Peter. 
 His distinction is private, and in the nature of personal 
 affection: Peter’s is public, and in the nature of Church 
 government. To one is committed the Mother of the 
 Lord, the living symbol of the Church, the most blessed 
 of all creatures, and that, when her full dignity and 
 blessedness stood at length revealed in the full God¬ 
 head of her Son, yet whose throne was intercessory, 
 apart from rule on earth: to the other is committed the 
 Church herself, her championship in the time of con¬ 
 flict, the rudder of the vessel on the lake, till with Christ 
 it should reach the shore. Each of these, so eminent 
 and unapproachable in his way, has that way apart; 
 and when Peter, on receiving his final commission, 
 turned about and saw his best loved friend following, 
 and ventured to ask, “ Lord, and what shall this man 
 do ?” our Lord replied with something like a reproof, 
 “ What is that to thee ? Follow thou me.” These 
 distinct preferences of the two Apostles were indicated 
 by Tertullian, when he wrote, “ Was anything con¬ 
 cealed from Peter, who was named the Rock on which 
 the Church should be built, who received the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose 
 in heaven and on earth ? Was anything, too, con¬ 
 cealed from John, the most beloved of the Lord, who 
 lay upon his breast, to whom alone the Lord fore- 
 signified the traitor Judas, whom he committed in his 
 own place as Son to Mary P ” 1 
 
 1 De Praesc., c. 22. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 103 
 
 But to return. Our Lord, after encompassing Peter 
 during his whole ministry with such tokens of pre¬ 
 ference, and a preference specially belonging to his 
 office, and designating it, appears to him first of all 
 the Apostles after his resurrection. And yet all the 
 proofs which we have been here summing up of Peter’s 
 pre-eminence are but collateral and subordinate: 
 though by themselves tenfold more than any other 
 can claim, yet Peter’s authority does not rest mainly 
 on them. And this likewise is true of another class 
 of facts concerning Peter, which yet carries with it 
 much force, and when once remarked, never leaves the 
 thoughtful mind. It is his great predominance in the 
 sacred history over the rest of the Twelve. A single 
 incident or expression distinguishing him is perhaps 
 all that falls to the lot of another Apostle, as when 
 “ Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father and 
 it sufficeth us and the Lord replies, “ Have I been 
 so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known 
 me, Philip ?” Or as Thomas, at a moment of danger, 
 “ said to his fellow-disciples, Let us also go that we 
 may die with him .” 1 But Peter’s name is wrought into 
 the whole tissue of the Gospel history; he is perpetually 
 approaching the Lord with questions: “ Lord, how oft 
 shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him ? 
 until seven times ?” The rest suffer the Lord in 
 silence to wash their feet, but Peter is overcome at the 
 sight. “ Lord, dost thou wash my feet ? Thou shalt 
 never wash my feet;” “ Lord, not my feet only, but 
 also my hands and my head .” 2 Thus in the whole 
 New Testament, John, who is yet mentioned oftener 
 
 1 John xiv 8, xi 16. 2 Matt, xviii 21; John xiii 6. 
 
104 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 than the rest, occurs only thirty-eight times; but in the 
 Gospels alone, omitting the Acts and the Epistles, 
 Peter is mentioned twenty-three times by Matthew, 
 eighteen by Mark, twenty by Luke, and thirty by John . 1 
 More especially it is the custom of the Evangelists, 
 when they record anything which touches all the 
 Apostles, almost invariably to exhibit Peter as singly 
 speaking for all, and representing all. Thus when 
 Christ asked them all equally, “ But whom say ye that 
 I am ? Simon Peter answered and said.” He told 
 them all equally “ That a rich man shall hardly enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven ,” 2 whereupon “Peter 
 answering said to him, Behold, we have left all things, 
 and followed thee: what therefore shall we have ?” 
 And when“ Jesus said to the Twelve, Will you also go 
 away ?” 3 at once we hear “ Simon Peter answered and 
 said, Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
 words of eternal life.” And a very remarkable occasion 
 occurs where our Lord had been telling to his disciples 
 the parable of the watchful servant, upon which Peter 
 said to him, “ Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, 
 or likewise to all ?” 4 And the reply seems by anti¬ 
 cipation to express the very office which Peter was to 
 hold. “ Who, then, is the faithful and wise steward, 
 whom his lord setteth over his family, to give them 
 their measure of wheat in due season ?” Now it looks 
 not like an equal, but a superior, to anticipate the rest, 
 to represent them, to speak and act for them. St 
 Chrysostom drew the conclusion long ago. “ What, 
 then, says Peter, the mouthpiece of the Apostles ? 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 134. 2 Matt. xix. 23. 
 
 3 John vi 67. 4 Luke xii 41. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 105 
 
 Everywhere impetuous as he is, the leader of the band 
 of the Apostles, when a question is asked of all, he 
 replies .” 1 No other cause can be assigned for the care 
 of the Evangelists in setting before us so continually 
 his words and acts, in bringing him out, as the second 
 object, after Christ. But though his future place in 
 the Church is a reason for this, and this, again, a token 
 of that singular pre-eminence, its decisive proof rests 
 on declarations from our Lord’s own mouth, expressly 
 circumscribed to him, of singular lucidity, and of force 
 which nothing can evade. These declarations set 
 forth, under different yet coincident images, a power 
 supreme and without equal, and of its own nature 
 belonging to one alone. The proofs which we have 
 hitherto mentioned take away all abruptness from these 
 declarations, and show that they embody a great design 
 which runs all through the Gospel; but the office itself 
 rests upon these, and by these is most clearly and 
 absolutely defined. 
 
 Thus, when our Lord, in answer to a great con¬ 
 fession of his Apostle, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son 
 of the living God,” replies, “ And I too say unto thee, 
 Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
 Church ”: every one must feel how it adds to the 
 cogency of the reply, that the name, which he is ex¬ 
 plaining, was not the person’s natural name, but first 
 promised, and then given, by that same Lord, who now 
 attaches other promises and prophecies to it. This 
 fact serves, among others, to fix the whole which follows 
 to Peter individually, and to introduce what follows 
 as part of a design which before had been intimated. 
 
 1 In Matt. Horn. 54. 
 
106 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 What follows no more belongs to the other Apostles 
 than the name Peter belongs to them: and a name, on 
 the other hand, so promised, and so given, naturally 
 looks, as it were, to such a result. To say solemnly 
 of a man, when first seen, “ Thou art called Simon, 
 but thou shalt be called the Rock,” and to make nothing 
 of him when so called, would be, if ascribed to any one, 
 a dull and pointless thing; but what shall we say when 
 the speaker is God ? It is a new thing for God the 
 Word to speak with little meaning, or to speak and not 
 to do: and so now he does what he had long designed. 
 And what is it that he does ? He sets up a governor 
 who is never to be put down. He inaugurates a 
 Church against which hell shall rage in vain: he 
 establishes a government at which the nations shall 
 rage, the kings of the earth set themselves, and the 
 rulers take counsel together, for ever, but to their own 
 confusion. He does what he alone could do, and so 
 the answer is worthy of the confession, “ Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God.” 
 
 “ Blessed 1 art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and 
 blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
 who is in heaven. And I too say unto thee , in return 
 for what thou hast said to me, and to show, like my 
 Father, my good will towards thee, and what I say, 
 as the Almighty Word of the Father, by my power I 
 fulfil, that thou art Peter, the Rock, and so partaker with 
 me of that honour whereby I am the chief Rock and 
 Foundation; and upon this Rock , which I have called 
 thee, I will build my Church. Therefore, with me for 
 its architect, it shall rest on thee, to thee adhere, and 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 510. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 107 
 
 from thee derive its conspicuous unity: and the gates 
 of hell, even all the powers of the enemy, shall not 
 prevail against it, nor take that which, by my Godhead, 
 is established upon thee. And to thee , whom, as 
 Supreme Architect, I have marked out for the Rock 
 and Foundation of my Church, as king and lord I 
 will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the 
 supreme authority over my Church, and will make 
 thee sharer with me in that dignity, by which I hold 
 the keys of heaven and of earth. And whatsoever , in 
 virtue of that authority and as associated in my dignity, 
 thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, and 
 there shall be no matter relating to my Church, and the 
 kingdom of heaven, but shall be subject to thy legisla¬ 
 tive and judicial power, which shall reach the heaven 
 itself. It is a power at once human and divine; 
 human, as entrusted to a man, and administered by 
 a man; divine, as a participation of that right by which 
 I am, in heaven and on earth, supreme lawgiver and 
 judge; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall 
 be loosed in heaven” 
 
 Thus it is that the most famous Fathers and Bishops, 
 the most distinguished Councils, the most various 
 nations, have understood our Lord’s words, and this is 
 their meaning, according to the fixed laws of grammar, 
 of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of logic, as well as by 
 the testimony of history, and in accordance with the 
 principles of theology. Let us mention certain con¬ 
 sequences which follow from them. 
 
 These words 1 of Christ are, in the most marked 
 manner, addressed to Peter only among the Apostles, 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 518. 
 
108 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 and are, therefore, with their meaning, peculiar to him. 
 And they designate pre-eminence in the government 
 of the Church. They have, therefore, the two quali¬ 
 ties which render them a suitable testimony to establish 
 his Primacy among the Apostles. 
 
 Now, if persons differ in rank and pre-eminence, 
 they must be considered not equals, but absolutely 
 unequal. And such pre-eminence Peter had, deriving 
 from Christ, the Founder, a superior rank in the 
 Church’s ministry. Therefore, the college of the 
 Apostles must be termed absolutely unequal, and all 
 the Apostles, compared with Peter, absolutely unequal. 
 
 But as inequality may be manifold, as of age, 
 calling, honour, order, jurisdiction, and power, its 
 nature and its degree must be sought in that property 
 which belongs to one over the rest. So that we must 
 determine, by the authority of the Scriptures, from 
 those gifts which were promised to Peter alone, the 
 nature and the degree of that inequality which sub¬ 
 sisted between him and the other Apostles. 
 
 The gifts promised to Peter alone are contained 
 in these words of Christ, recorded by Matthew: and 
 therefore, from their nature and inherent qualities, 
 we must judge of the sort and the extent of inequality 
 put by Christ between Peter and the rest. 
 
 These are summed up in the four following: I. That 
 Peter is the Rock, on which the Church was to be 
 built by Christ, the Chief Architect. II. That the 
 impregnable strength which the Church was to have 
 against the gates of hell depended on its union with 
 Peter, as the divinely laid foundation. III. That by 
 Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Peter 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 109 
 
 is marked out as next to him, and after him, the bearer 
 of the keys in the Church’s heavenly kingdom. 
 IV. And that, accordingly, universal power of binding 
 and loosing is promised to him, leaving him responsible 
 to Christ alone, the supreme Lawgiver and Judge. 
 Therefore the nature of the prerogatives expressed in 
 these four terms must be our standard both of the 
 character and degree of inequality between the Apostles 
 and Peter, and of the power of the Primacy promised 
 to Peter. 
 
 But these terms mark authority, and plainly express 
 jurisdiction and power; the inequality, therefore, is 
 one relating to jurisdiction and power; and Peter’s 
 pre-eminence likewise such. 
 
 That these terms, which contain Peter’s preroga¬ 
 tives, really do express jurisdiction and authority, may 
 be thus very briefly shown. The first, “ Thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” 
 is drawn from architecture, exhibiting between Peter 
 and the Church, which includes also the Apostles, the 
 relation which exists between the foundation and the 
 superstructure. This is one of dependence, by which 
 accordingly the Apostles must maintain an indivisible 
 union with Peter: which relation of dependence, again, 
 cannot be understood without the notion of superior 
 jurisdiction in Peter, for these are correlative. The 
 second term corroborates this; for it is a plain duty, 
 and undoubted moral obligation, to be united to him 
 whom if severed from, the words of Christ do not 
 entitle you to expect stability or victory over the gates 
 of hell. Now, “ the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it ” most plainly express that perseverance and 
 
no 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 victory are promised to no one, by Christ, who does not 
 remain joined with Peter. So much for the duty which 
 binds all Christians, and the Apostles among them, 
 to avoid separation from Peter as their destruction. 
 But such duty involves the faculty and authority on 
 Peters part of enjoining on all without exception the 
 maintenance of unity, and of keeping from the whole 
 body the sin of schism, which, again, expresses his 
 superior jurisdiction. Yet plainer and more striking 
 is the third; for in the words, “ And I will give to thee 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’’ it is foretold that 
 Peter, in regard to the kingdom of heaven, and there¬ 
 fore to all Christians, whether teachers or taught, 
 subjects or prelates, shall discharge the office of the 
 bearer of the keys; with which jurisdiction and 
 authority are indivisibly united. Now in the fourth> 
 there is no matter relating to the heavenly kingdom, 
 which is not subjected by this promise to Peter’s 
 authority. “ Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” “ what¬ 
 soever thou shalt loose but this is in its own kind 
 without limit, a full legislative and judicial power. 
 Thus these four terms exactly agree with each other, 
 and express, severally and collectively, prerogatives 
 by which Peter is admitted to a singular and close 
 association with Christ; and therefore is pre-eminent 
 among the Apostles by his Primacy, and his superior 
 authority over the whole Church. 
 
 They also show, with no less clearness, that Christ 
 in bestowing these prerogatives and Primacy on Peter, 
 designed to produce the visible unity of his kingdom 
 and Church; and this in two ways, the first typically 
 prefiguring the Church’s own unity in Peter, the single 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 III 
 
 Foundation, Bearer of the keys, and supreme Legislator 
 and Judge; the second efficiently , as by a principle and 
 cause, forming , holding together , and protecting , visible 
 unity in that same Peter, as he discharged these func¬ 
 tions. For just as the building is based on the founda¬ 
 tion, and by virtue of it all the parts are held together, 
 so a kingdom’s unity and harmonious administration 
 are first moulded out and then preserved , in the unity 
 of its supreme authority. 
 
 And this Primacy may be regarded from three 
 different points of view; as it is in itself , and as it 
 regards its efficient and its final cause. As to the first, 
 it consists in superior jurisdiction and authority; as 
 to the second, it springs from Christ himself, who 
 said to Peter alone, “ And I too say unto thee,” etc.; 
 as to the third, it prefigures , forms , and protects the 
 Church’s visible unity. 
 
 But to prefigure, to form, and to protect the Church’s 
 unity being distinct functions, care must be taken 
 not to confuse them, the former concerning the 
 Primacy as a type, the two latter as the origin and 
 efficient cause; and also not to concede the former 
 while the latter are denied, which latter make up the 
 Primacy as jurisdictional and the instrument effecting 
 unity. Now, Peter is both the type of unity, its origin, 
 and its efficient cause. 
 
 A long line 1 of Fathers, from the most ancient down¬ 
 wards, regards Peter as at once the type, and the origin, 
 and efficient cause of unity; setting it forth as a prero- 
 
 1 These testimonies have been set forth at length in 
 another work, The See of St Peter , the Rock of the Church , 
 etc., pp. 97-118. 
 
112 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 gative of his headship that no one, whether Apostle, 
 or Prophet, or Evangelist, or Doctor, or Teacher, might 
 separate from him without the crime of schism. In 
 this consists his Primacy, and in this the famous phrase 
 of St Cyprian finds its solution, that “ the Episcopate 
 is one, of which a part is held by each without division 
 of the whole.” 
 
 And, what is like to the preceding, they hold that 
 Peter is the continuous source of all power in the Church, 
 and that while its plenitude dwells in his person, a 
 portion of it is derived to the various prelates under 
 him. No one has set this forth more fully than St Leo, 
 in the middle of the fifth century, as where he says, 
 that “ if Christ willed that other rulers should enjoy 
 aught together with him (that is, Peter), yet never did 
 he gi ve,save through him, what he denied not to others .” 1 
 
 All these consequences seem to result from the 
 words of our Lord, here solemnly addressed to Peter. 
 
 But, recurring to our general view, we find our Lord 
 three several 2 times appealed to by the Apostles to 
 declare who should be the greatest in the kingdom of 
 heaven. While on neither of these occasions does he 
 declare to them that there should be no “ greater one ” 
 among them, though such a declaration would have 
 terminated their rivalry, on the last and most urgent, 
 at the very eve of his departure from them, he sets 
 forth in vivid words what ought to be the character 
 and deportment of the one so to be placed over them. 
 Then turning his conversation from them in a body to 
 Peter in particular, he charges him, at a future time, 
 when he shall obtain for him the gift of a faith that 
 
 1 Serm. 4. 2 Matt, xviii 1, xx 20; Luke xxii, 24. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 113 
 
 could not fail, to “ confirm his brethren.” Having 
 before dwelt on the full meaning of these words, we 
 need only remark how marvellously they coincide in 
 force with the prophecy which we have just been con¬ 
 sidering, while they differ from it in expression. They 
 convey as absolutely a supreme authority as the former; 
 an authority independent of others, and exclusive of 
 participation; and one which is given for the main¬ 
 tenance of the faith and of visible unity in that faith. 
 Nor can we imagine a more fitting termination to the 
 whole of our Lord’s dealing with his disciples before 
 his Passion, than that, when about to be taken from 
 them, he should designate, in words so full of affection 
 and provident care, one who was presently to take his 
 own place among them. “ Simon, Simon, I have 
 prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou in thy 
 turn one day confirm thy brethren.” 
 
 Now, our Lord’s preference of Peter, as to rank 
 and dignity in the Church, was during his lifetime 
 consistent and uniform. He made to him, twice, 
 promises so large as to include and go far beyond all 
 that he said to the Apostles in common. He took out, 
 as it were, of what he had first promised to Peter a 
 portion which he afterwards promised as their common 
 inheritance to the rest. His dealing with Peter and the 
 Apostles after his resurrection is the exact counter¬ 
 part to this. The fulfilment is equivalent to the 
 promise. In the fourfold prophecy to Peter, in 
 Matt, xvi, the last member is, “ 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.” That this is a grant of full 
 
 8 
 
1 14 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 legislative and judicial power, given to one, we have 
 seen. Now on a later occasion it is repeated to the 
 Twelve together, Matt, xviii 18. But the other three 
 members of the prophecy made to Peter are never repeated 
 to the Twelve. In the fulfilment the same distinction 
 takes place. To the Twelve in common our Lord 
 communicates the power contained in the fourth 
 member of his original promise, saying, John xx 21, 
 “ As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. Re¬ 
 ceive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye shall forgive, 
 they are forgiven them: and whose sins ye shall retain, 
 they are retained:” to which the other forms contained 
 in Matt, xxviii 18, Mark xvi 15, Luke xxiv 49, Acts i 
 4, 8, of preaching the Gospel to every creature, of 
 waiting for the power of the Holy Ghost wherewith 
 they should be endued, of teaching men to observe 
 all things which he had commanded, are equivalent, 
 though less definite. But nowhere are the powers con¬ 
 tained in the first three members of the prophecy to Peter 
 communicated to the Twelve. As the promises were 
 made to Peter alone originally, so to Peter alone are 
 they, as we shall see, fulfilled. Indeed, it could not 
 be otherwise, for the promises to be the rock of the 
 Church, by coherence with which the Church should 
 be impregnable, and the bearer of the keys, are in their 
 own nature confined to one, and exclusive of partici¬ 
 pants ; and once made by the very truth himself to one 
 man, they ranged under his power all his brethren: 
 “ For the promises of Jesus Christ, as well as his gifts, 
 are without repentance; and what is once given inde¬ 
 finitely and universally is irrevocable.” 1 Besides that, 
 
 1 Bossuet, Sermon sur VUnitd. 
 
ST peter: his name and his OFFICE 115 
 
 another indisputable principle must be taken into 
 account—viz., “ that power given to several carries its 
 restriction in its division ”: just as if a king before his 
 death bequeaths the whole administration of his sove¬ 
 reignty to a board of twelve councillors, though the 
 sum of authority so conveyed be sovereign, yet the 
 share of each individual in the college will be restricted 
 by the equal right of his colleagues. Whereas “ power 
 given to one alone, and over all, and without exception, 
 carries with it plenitude, and, not having to be divided 
 with any other, it has no bounds save those which its 
 terms convey.” Such was the power originally 
 promised to Peter; and such, no less, that which was 
 ultimately conveyed. He stands apart and alone no 
 less in the fulfilment than in the promise. And under 
 another image, but one equally expressive with the 
 first, the Lord conveys an authority as absolute and 
 as exclusive. The “ bounds which its terms convey ” 
 are the whole fold of Christ: “ the sheep ” no less then 
 “ the lambs ”: to “ govern ” no less than “ to feed.” 1 
 The great Architect of the heavenly city said to Peter, 
 “ Thou art the Rock and “ the King of kings,” who 
 “ hath the key of David,” and “ on whose shoulder is 
 the government,” “ To thee will I give the keys of the 
 
 1 Tloi/juxiveiv, gubernare , to govern, the particular word 
 which our Lord employs to convey his powers to Peter, is 
 also the particular word which gives such offence to temporal 
 governments, when acted on by Peter: pbcnceLv, pascere , to 
 feed, they find more endurable, and probably they would 
 all be content, from the heathen Roman emperors to the 
 present day, to allow the Church to feed, so long as they are 
 allowed to govern the faithful. The objection on the part 
 of the Church is, that our Lord gave both to Peter. 
 
Il6 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 kingdom of heaven.” He “ who upholdeth all things 
 by the word of his power,” and “ in whom all things 
 consist,” said to Peter, “ Confirm thy brethren.” To 
 the same Peter, the same “Great Shepherd of the sheep” 
 said, “ Feed my lambs, be shepherd over my sheep,” 
 thus committing to him the chief Apostles themselves 
 who heard this charge, and causing there to be for 
 ever “ one fold and one shepherd,” on earth as in 
 heaven. 
 
 It remains briefly to consider these three palmary 
 texts in their reciprocal relations to each other, by 
 which the fullest light is thrown upon the Scriptural 
 prerogatives of St Peter. 
 
 1. First, then, all these texts are in the most marked 
 manner circumscribed to Peter alone. In all he is 
 addressed by name; in all he is distinguished by other 
 circumstances from his brethren at the time present 
 with him; in all a special condition is attached belong¬ 
 ing to him. In the first, it is Superior faith—in the 
 second, faith, which, by a particular gift, the fruit of 
 Christ’s own prayer, should never fail—in the third, 
 superior love. So that, without an utter disregard 
 of the meaning of words, and the force of the context, 
 and every law of grammar and philology, no one of 
 these texts can be extended from its application to 
 Peter alone, and made common to the other Apostles. 
 
 2. Secondly, the note of priority in time is secured 
 to Peter by the first text, to which the other two 
 correspond. Even if the promise in Matt, xviii 18, 
 made to all the Apostles, were of equal latitude with 
 that previously made to Peter, which it is so very far 
 from being that it contains one point only out of four, 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 117 
 
 yet, the fact that they had been already ranged by the 
 former under him, and that he had been promised 
 singly what they afterwards were promised in common , 
 would make a vast difference between them; indeed, 
 the difference of the Primacy. But, as it is, the very 
 first mention of the Church is connected with a promise 
 made to Peter of the highest authority in that Church, 
 and a perpetual relationship, entering into its inmost 
 constitutions between it and his person. Before the 
 Church is formed, it is foretold that Peter shall rule 
 her; before she is set up against the gates of hell, that, 
 by virtue of her coherence with him, she should prevail 
 over them. And the germ of her Episcopate, on 
 which she is to grow, is sown in his person, just as, 
 in the last act of our Lord, that Episcopate is delivered 
 over to him, universal and complete. 
 
 3. Thirdly, these 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 
 
Il8 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 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 of 
 souls 1 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. Here the 
 Apostle observes, that the whole ministry, from the 
 highest to the lowest, is organized “ 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 together 2 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 in¬ 
 dwelling of the Three Persons. Now, something 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 591. 
 
 2 '0 KarapTurnos tQu ayiuv, Eph. iv 12. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 119 
 
 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, on which all others depend; sym¬ 
 bolizing power from above, whilst claiming obedience 
 from below; immutable in itself, by which all the rest 
 are made proof against change. It is not, indeed, 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. He bore this authority in 
 his own body, and 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 key¬ 
 stone 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 
 
120 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 jurisdiction in the Church 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 intro¬ 
 duced, 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.” 1 
 
 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 harmonized 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. 
 This promise, which is the most distinct made to them, 
 has been already gathered up into the hands of one, 
 
 1 Petavius, de Ecc. Hier., lib. iii, c. 14. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 121 
 
 and in its practical issue is limited by the necessity 
 of co-operating 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: (i) 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 govern¬ 
 ment 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, Metro¬ 
 politan, 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 
 
122 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 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 St Cyprian and St Augustine, as well 
 as by Pope St Innocent, 1 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 there is in the Apostolic 
 see a great unfailing fountain, pouring forth waters 
 for all Christians, whence rich streams proceed, bounti¬ 
 fully irrigating the whole Christian world.” 2 
 
 8. And, lastly, in these great promises Peter is 
 specially set forth as the type and the efficient cause 
 
 1 St Cyprian, de Unitate, c. 3. St Aug. to Pope Innocent, 
 Ep. 177, n. 19. Pope Innocent to the Councils of Carthage 
 and Numidia. • 2 Mansi, x 919. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 123 
 
 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 St Augustine, “ He entrusted his sheep to Peter, 
 as to another self, he willed to make him one with him¬ 
 self and in the words of St Leo, “ He assumed him 
 into the participation of his indivisible unity.” 1 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 con¬ 
 flicting 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,” 2 a more im¬ 
 perative 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, inter¬ 
 preting the above texts as we have done. Take one 
 
 1 St Aug., Serm. 46. St Leo, Epistle 10. 
 
 2 St Optatus, cont. Parm., lib. ii, c. 6. 
 
124 ST PETER: his name and his office 
 
 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 himeslf 
 acquainted with its most distinguished religious men, 
 went to Constantinople, and was ordained deacon by 
 St Chrysostom, 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 In¬ 
 carnation he says, 1 “ Let us ask him who is supreme, 
 both as disciple among disciples and as a 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, 
 “ As 2 the Good Shepherd he received the defence of 
 1 Lib. iii, c. 12. 2 De Petro Apostolo, Horn. 4. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 125 
 
 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 short, 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 immovable 
 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, St Isidore, Bishop of Seville, from 
 598 to 636, the very highest of the ancient Spanish 
 doctors, wrote thus explicitly to his colleague at 
 Toledo: 1 “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 
 
 1 Ad Eugenium Toletanum. 
 
126 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 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 St 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, un¬ 
 worthy 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.” 1 
 
 1 Mansi, Concil., tom. xii 972. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 ST PETER’S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE 
 
 ACTS 
 
 The purpose 1 of St 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 St Paul, “ the vessel of election,” in 
 spreading the faith among the Gentiles, and so con¬ 
 tains 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 St Chrysostom, 2 
 “ 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 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 138. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 140. St Chrys. in Acta, Horn. 1. 
 
 127 
 
128 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 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 that descent of the Holy Ghost, whereby Christ 
 was conceived, and “ the race 1 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, and every holy person. 
 Therefore, says Paul, 2 ‘ 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.” 3 For “ the Spirit works in us by his proper 
 
 0 
 
 1 St Chrys. Horn, in Ascens., and in Acta, tom. iii, p. 773. 
 
 2 Acts xvii 28, 29, and compare 1 Cor. xii 12-17 with 
 Eph. iv 16. 
 
 3 Dionys. de Ccel. Hier., cap. 1, § 3. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 129 
 
 power, truly sanctifying and uniting us to himself 
 into one frame, and making us partakers of the divine 
 nature ”: x “ becoming, as it were, a quality of the 
 Godhead in us, and dwelling in the saints, and abiding 
 for ever. ,, 
 
 Now it is 2 manifest 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 ? That he 
 
 1 St Cyril. Thes., lib. xxxiv, p. 352, and lib. ix, on John, 
 p. 810. 2 Passaglia, p. 143. 
 
 9 
 
130 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 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 
 judgement 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 con¬ 
 dition. But this they do, and accordingly are moved 
 by gravitation.” Or absolutely, “ Bodies left to them¬ 
 selves 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 preordained 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,” etc. Or again, “ No one 
 would expect certain acts from Peter, unless he were 
 the head of all the Apostles; and all would fairly expect 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 131 
 
 those acts of Peter, if they recognized 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, 1 then, 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 singly 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 St Paul, leaving aside the rest of the Church. What 
 then is the reason that Peter, in a general history, is 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 144. 
 
132 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 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; be¬ 
 cause 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, Luke 1 shows yet more clearly, when¬ 
 ever 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.” 2 
 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 
 
 1 Acts i 13; ii 14; iii 1-3; iv 19; viii 14. 
 
 2 Acts i 15; ii 14, 37; iii 4; v 29. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 133 
 
 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; yet 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.” 1 Fresh instances may be found in chaps, iv 
 6, 7, and v 2, 3. The result of the whole is that Peter 
 is continually “ the mouthpiece of the Apostles,” 2 
 always takes the lead, and gives his own mind, as 
 conveying that of the rest. 
 
 On what ground does he do this ? Was it from 
 natural fervour of disposition ? But it was the same 
 after he was filled with the Holy Spirit as before. Was 
 it the result of superior age, or first calling ? No ! facts 
 refute this. What other cause can be suggested save 
 that Primacy which the Gospels record and the Acts 
 confirm ? 
 
 5. To this we must likewise refer it that Luke, while 
 
 1 Acts ii 13, 37, 38; iii 11, 12. 2 St Chrysostom. 
 
134 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 he amply describes actions which belong to Peter, 
 rather hints at than narrates what concerns the other 
 Apostles. Thus he leaves it to be understood that 
 the others spoke, while he gives Peter’s discourses 
 entire, and seems to have chosen them as the principal 
 material of his history. He simply suggests that 
 miracles were wrought by the rest, but records par¬ 
 ticularly what Peter did for the establishment of the 
 faith. He relates very little of those who became 
 Christians by the exertion of others, but notes at large 
 the abundant fruit of Peter’s teaching. Take an ancient 
 author’s summary of the Acts, “ this whole volume 
 is about the ascension of Christ after the resurrection, 
 and about the descent of the Holy Spirit on the holy 
 Apostles, and how and where the disciples announced 
 Christ’s religion, and all the wondrous deeds which 
 they did by prayer and faith in Him, and about Paul’s 
 divine calling from heaven, his apostleship, and fruitful 
 preaching, and in a word about those many great 
 dangers which the Apostles underwent for Christ.” 1 
 Follow, out of this, all which concerns the universal 
 Church in the first twelve chapters, and Peter will be 
 found not only the principal, but wellnigh the only, 
 figure in the foreground. 
 
 6 . Hence, as the Gospels may be called the history 
 of Christ, so this first part of the Acts may be called 
 the history of Peter; for as Christ occupies each page 
 of the Gospels, so Peter here. Nothing can be more 
 emphatic or more just than St Chrysostom’s words: 
 “ Behold him making his rounds on every side, and the 
 first to be found; when an Apostle was to be chosen, 
 1 Euthalius, apud Zaccagnium, p. 410. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 135 
 
 he was the first; when the Jews were to be told that 
 they were not drunken; when the lame man was to be 
 healed; when the multitude was to be addressed, he is 
 before the rest; when they had to do with the rulers, 
 it is he; when with Ananias, when healings took place 
 from the shadow, still it is he. Where there was 
 danger, it is he, and where there was dispensation; 
 but when all is tranquil, they act in common. He 
 sought not the greater honour. But again, when 
 miracles are to be worked, he comes forth before the 
 rest.” 1 What can prove Peter’s pre-eminence if this 
 does not ? His words on another occasion deserve 
 mention. Alluding to the title “ Acts of the Apostles,” 
 which seems to promise their common history, he ob¬ 
 serves, “ Yet if you search accurately, the first part of 
 the book exhibits Peter’s miracles and teaching, but 
 little on the part of the other Apostles; and after this 
 the whole account is spent on Paul.” But he adds, 
 “ How are they the Acts of all the Apostles ? Because, 
 according to Paul, when one member is glorified, all 
 the members are glorified with it; the historian did not 
 entitle them the Acts of Peter and of Paul, but the 
 Acts of the Apostles; the promise of the writer includes 
 them all.” 2 Now, every one must feel the very high 
 distinction given to Paul in the latter part of the book, 
 when the historian turns away from the general history 
 of the Church to record his particular labours, in 
 which, no doubt, the object was to show the progress 
 of the Church among the Gentiles; but with regard 
 to the part which is common to the whole Church, 
 
 1 In Acta, Horn. 21, n. 2. 
 
 2 Horn, in Acta, n. 8, tom. iii 764. 
 
136 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 another thought is suggested. The history of what 
 Peter taught and did, to build up and extend the 
 Church, is considered the common history of the 
 Apostles, and so inscribed as their Acts. But can this 
 be called an accurate expression, unless Peter had been 
 the head of the Apostles ? It is very plain that the 
 acts of a head are imputed to the whole body; to a 
 college of brethren, what its chief executes; to a city 
 or kingdom, the deeds of its prince. But it is not plain 
 how this can be, if the actor be one of a number, and 
 do not exceed his brethren in honour or dignity. 
 Therefore the Acts of Peter could be called, generally, 
 the Acts of the Apostles, only because they were 
 considered the Acts of their head. 
 
 Now let us pass from the general view to that in 
 detail. 
 
 I. After 1 the Lord’s ascension a most important 
 point immediately arose, whether, that is, the number 
 of the Twelve was to be filled up by the election of a 
 new Apostle to take the place of Judas. The will of 
 Christ on this matter was to be learnt; a witness was 
 to be chosen who should participate in the mission of 
 Christ Himself, according to the words, “As the Father 
 hath sent me, I also send you,” and carry the light of 
 the Gospel to the ends of the world; and one was to 
 be elected to the dignity of the Apostolate, the highest 
 rank in the Church. It was, therefore, so important 
 a matter, that no one could undertake it save he who 
 had received the vicarious headship of our Lord him¬ 
 self. Now, the history in the Acts tells us that Peter 
 alone spoke on the subject of substituting a fresh 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 148. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 137 
 
 Apostle for Judas; Peter alone proved from Scripture 
 the necessity of the election, defined the conditions of 
 eligibility, and appointed the mode of election, and 
 presided over and directed the whole transac¬ 
 tion. 
 
 For Luke begins thus; “ In those days,” the interval 
 between the Ascension and Pentecost, “ Peter rising 
 up in the midst of the brethren, said.” Here the 
 important prerogative of initiation is shown to belong 
 to Peter, and by the phrase, “ in the midst of the 
 brethren,” or “ disciples,”—which is often used of 
 Christ in respect of the Apostles—his pre-eminence 
 over the disciples is shown. “ Brethren, it behoved 
 that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy 
 Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David, concerning 
 Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended 
 Jesus, who was numbered with us, and had obtained 
 part of this ministry ”—that is, of the Apostolate. 
 Then having mentioned the miserable end of the 
 traitor, he applies to him the prophecy: “ For it is 
 written in the Book of Psalms, ‘ Let his habitation 
 become desolate, and let there be none to dwell there¬ 
 in’: and,” adding another prophecy from another 
 Psalm, “ ‘ his bishopric let another take.’ 5,1 Whence 
 he concludes, “ Wherefore of these men who have 
 companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus 
 came in and went out among us, beginning from the 
 baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken 
 up from us, one of these must be made a witness with 
 us of his resurrection.” In these words Peter plainly 
 points out the necessity of the matter in question, con- 
 
 1 Ps. lxix 26; cviii 8. 
 
138 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 firms it by the Holy Scriptures, speaking in the char¬ 
 acter of their highest interpreter, and as the appointed 
 teacher of all; and, while proposing it to their delibera¬ 
 tion, yet requires their consent; for the phrase, “ where¬ 
 fore, one must” means, “ I am not proposing what 
 may be done or left undone, but declaring and pre¬ 
 scribing what is to be done.” So he determines the 
 conditions of eligibility and the form of election. 
 Whereupon his hearers—“ the number of persons 
 together about an hundred and twenty ”—instantly 
 agree unanimously to Peter’s proposition, follow its 
 conditions, and complete the election. 
 
 No one can reflect on the above without concluding 
 that if Peter presided over the rest by the authority 
 of a divinely chosen headship, no course could be more 
 becoming, both for Peter and for the disciples, than 
 this; and if, on the contrary, Peter was only one out 
 of many, not having yet even received the Pentecostal 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit, and had been entrusted by 
 Christ with no pre-eminent office in the ministry, 
 nothing could be more unfitting for both. We have 
 therefore to infer that Peter “ stood in the midst of his 
 disciples,” as a superior among inferiors, not as an 
 equal among equals, and conceived that the charge of 
 supplying an Apostle, and filling up the Apostolic 
 college, belonged in chief to himself, because he and 
 they alike were conscious that he was the steward set 
 in chief over the Lord’s family. 
 
 But, clear as this is on the face of the narration 
 itself, fresh light is shed on it by the fact that St 
 Chrysostom observed and recorded this very conclu¬ 
 sion. For why did Peter alone arise ? Why was he 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 139 
 
 the first and the only one to speak ? “ Both 1 as fervent, 
 
 and as one entrusted by Christ with the flock, and as the 
 first of the choir , he ever first begins to speak.” Why 
 does he allege prophecy ? First, that he might not 
 seem with human counsel “ to attempt a great matter, 
 and one fitted for Christ ”: next to imitate his Master, 
 “ he always reasons from the Scriptures.” “ Why 
 did he not singly ask of Christ to give him some one 
 in the place of Judas ?” Because “ Peter had now im¬ 
 proved,” and overcome his natural disposition. But 
 “ might not Peter by himself have elected? Certainly: 
 but he does not so, that he may not seem partial.” 
 “ Why does he communicate this to them,” the whole 
 number of the names ? That the matter may not be 
 contested, nor they fall into strife: “ for ” (he alludes 
 to the contention of the Apostles for the primacy), 
 “ if this had happened to themselves, much more 
 would it to the others ”—that is, the candidates to 
 succeed Judas. Then he points out to our admira¬ 
 tion “ Peter doing this with common consent, nothing 
 with authority, 2 nothing with lordship,” where we 
 must note that the abuse of a power is only to be feared 
 from one who really has that power. For again he 
 says, “ he first acts on authority 3 in the matter, as 
 having himself all put into his hands , for to him Christ 
 said, 4 And thou, in thy turn, one day confirm thy 
 brethren.’ ” 
 
 The college of the Apostles completed, it followed 
 that the head, if such there were, would, on every 
 occasion of danger, be the first to protect it and to 
 defend its reputation. Now there ensues the miracle 
 
 1 Horn. 3, in Act., n. 1-2. 2 MOevriKus. 3 A vdevrei. 
 
140 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 of the Holy Spirit’s descent, and the gift of tongues, 
 whereupon Luke describes the various opinions of the 
 astonished multitude, some of whom “ mocking, 1 said, 
 These men are full of new wine.” That is, they 
 blasphemed the working of the Spirit, and by the most 
 monstrous calumny were destroying the good name of 
 the Apostles. Whereupon, “ Peter, standing up with 
 the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them: Ye 
 men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be 
 this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. 
 For these are nor drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but 
 the third hour of the day: but this is that which was 
 spoken of by the prophet Joel.” Now here, both the 
 form of the words , and the matter , establish Peter’s 
 Primacy. For the phrase, “ Peter standing up with 
 the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them,” 
 portrays Peter as the leader of the band, the master 
 of the family. So St Chrysostom, 2 “ What means with 
 the Eleven? They uttered a common voice, and he 
 was the mouthpiece of all. And the Eleven stand 
 beside him, bearing witness to his words.” And as to 
 the matter , Peter alone fulfils the part of teacher, by 
 interpreting Scripture, and declaring the agreement 
 of both covenants: Peter alone maintains the common 
 cause; Peter alone, representing all, addresses the 
 multitude in the name of all. “ Observe, too, the 
 harmony of the Apostles: they gave up to him the office 
 of speaking:” 3 that is, they yielded to him who was the 
 head, and who, as he says, showed here “ the courage,” 
 as before “ the providential care ” of the head. 
 
 1 Acts ii. 2 In Acta, Horn. 4, n. 3. 
 
 3 St Chrysostom, as before. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 141 
 
 After refuting the calumny, Peter goes on in a noble 
 discourse to explain prophecies, and then coming to the 
 dispensation of Jesus, gives the strongest proofs of 
 his resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of the 
 Father, and finally sums up with great force and 
 authority. “ Therefore, let all the house of Israel 
 know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord 
 and Christ this same Jesus whom you have crucified.” 
 
 Now, what 1 is here to our purpose ? It is this, that 
 Luke seems only to dwell on what concerns Peter: that 
 Peter, first of all, and in the name of all, performs the 
 office of a witness, laid both on himself and the rest 
 (“ ye shall be witnesses to me ”; “ and you shall give 
 witness ” 2 ), saying, “ This Jesus hath God raised up, 
 of which we all are witnesses.” Peter first of all 
 publicly and solemnly discharges the duty of in¬ 
 struction with authority: first of all, he fulfils the charge 
 set by Christ on all the Apostles, “ make disciples— 
 teach ”: and, first of all, he promulgates the necessity 
 of believing in Jesus as the divinely appointed Lord 
 and Christ. Now these are things which, so far from 
 allowing an equality between Peter and the rest of the 
 Apostles, point out in him a headship over them. 
 
 Thereupon, the hearers, struck with compunction 
 for having crucified, not merely a just man, but the 
 Anointed of the Lord, “ said to Peter and the rest of 
 the Apostles ”—here again he alone is singly named— 
 whilst of all alike they asked, “ Men and brethren, 
 what shall we do ?” Whereupon, St Chrysostom 
 notes, 3 “ Here again, where all are asked, he alone re- 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 153. 2 Acts i 8; John xv 27. 
 
 3 In Acta, Horn, 7, n. 1. 
 
142 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 plies.” For, as Luke goes on, “ Peter said to them 
 as the leader, he performs what belongs to all: he 
 alone sets forth the law of Christ. “ Do penance, and 
 be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, for the remission of sins.” He alone en¬ 
 courages them with the promised gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit, “ and you shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost.” He alone continues at length the instruction 
 of the hearers, “ and with very many other words did 
 he testify and exhort them.” He alone declares the 
 fruit of Christian profession, “ save yourselves from 
 this perverse generation,” and he alone it is, of whose 
 ministry Luke adds, “ They, therefore, that gladly 
 received his word were baptized, and there were added, 
 in that day, about three thousand souls.” 
 
 And here we see how fitting it was that Peter, whom 
 Christ had set as the foundation and rock of the 
 Church, should labour with all his might, as the chief 
 architect after him, to build up the structure. But 
 what, in the meantime, of the other Apostles ? Were 
 not they also architects ? Yes, but with and under 
 Peter, whom accordingly they attend and support. 
 The subsequent additions to the Church’s structure 
 and the course consistently pursued by Peter will bring 
 this out yet more clearly. For of fresh accretions, 
 Luke writes, “ Many of them who had heard the word, 
 believed, and the number of the men was made five 
 thousand.” 1 Now, whose word was this ? Still the 
 word of Peter, who speaks for the third 2 and fourth 
 time, as he had for the first and second. 
 
 For, as to the third 3 occasion, Luke, after mentioning 
 
 iActsiv4. 2 Acts iii 12-26; iv 8-19. 3 Acts iii 11,12-26. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 143 
 
 Peter and John together, introduces Peter alone as 
 urging the children of Abraham to embrace the faith 
 of Christ, and persuading them that Jesus is the 
 Prophet promised by God through Moses in 
 Deuteronomy. And as to the fourth, 1 he writes, 
 “ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to 
 
 them-” But was he alone present ? Not so, for 
 
 the council “ setting them,” John as well as Peter, “ in 
 the midst, they asked,” on which Chrysostom 2 observes, 
 “ See how John is on every occasion silent, while Peter 
 defends him likewise.” That is, John was silent, as 
 knowing that the lead belonged to Peter, and Peter 
 spoke, because the head defends not himself only, 
 but the members committed to him. 
 
 Now, reviewing these first four chapters of the 
 Acts, let us ask these questions. Had Peter held the 
 authority of head among the Apostles, what would he 
 have done ? He would have filled up the Apostolic 
 college, carefully watched over it, protected its several 
 members. But this is just what he did. Again, had 
 Christ made him the slipreme teacher and doctor, what 
 would he have done ? He would have disclosed, first 
 to the Apostles themselves, and to the disciples, and 
 then to the multitude, who were to be converted, the 
 secrets of the divine will laid up in the Scriptures; he 
 would have shown the agreement between the dis¬ 
 pensation of Christ and the oracles of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment, and so have proved that Jesus was the Messias. 
 But this he repeatedly did. Once more, had Christ 
 made him the chief among the builders of the Church, 
 what would have been his office ? He would have 
 1 Acts iv 7, 8. 2 In Acta, Horn. 8, n. 2. 
 
144 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 been the very first to set his hand to the work, and to 
 construct the building with living stones; he would 
 have held the other workmen under his control, so that 
 the edifice might rise worthy of Christ, and exactly 
 answering to his promises. But does not the history 
 give precisely this picture of him, and does not the 
 Church which Peter raised answer exactly to the 
 archetype prescribed by the Lord ? “ All they that 
 
 believed were together, and had all things common:” 
 “ the multitude of believers had but one heart and one 
 soul:” what is this but the counterpart of that divine 
 prayer, “ that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art 
 in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, 
 that the world may believe that thou hast sent me ’’P 1 
 
 II. To take another point. The office 2 of authori¬ 
 tative teaching is in the New Testament closely con¬ 
 nected with the power of working miracles. Christ 
 said, “ If I had not come and spoken to them, they 
 would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for 
 their sin ”: and he likewise added, “ If I had not done 
 among them the works that no other man hath done, 
 they would not have sin: but now they have both seen 
 and hated both me and my Father.” 3 He shows that, 
 while faith depended on preaching and authoritative in¬ 
 struction, these also needed the power of works to 
 conciliate conviction. In accordance with which, 
 when he first sent out his Twelve to preach, he not only 
 charged them what to say, “ The kingdom of heaven is 
 at hand,” 4 but added the fullest miraculous power, 
 “ heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast 
 
 1 Acts ii 44; iv 32; lohn xvii 21. 2 Passaglia, p. 157. 
 
 3 John xv 22-24. 4 Matt, x 7. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 ws 
 
 out devils.” And when more solemnly sending them, 
 not to one people, but to all nations, “ Go ye into the 
 whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature,” 
 he adds their warrant, “ these signs shall follow them 
 that believe. In my name they shall cast out devils, 
 they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take 
 up serpents:” and the Evangelist subjoins, “ They 
 going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working 
 withal, and confirming the word with signs that 
 followed.” 1 
 
 Remembering, then, this very close connection be¬ 
 tween the authority of Apostolic teaching and the power 
 of working miracles, we may fix a criterion for recog¬ 
 nizing the exercise of the supreme office in teaching. 
 Suppose any one of the Apostles to have been invested 
 at the beginning of the Church with this office, how 
 may he be ascertained ? If any one is found in¬ 
 variably the first to announce the word of truth, and 
 likewise to confirm it with miracles, you may suppose 
 him to be that one. Suppose, again, that Luke in¬ 
 tended to represent one of the Apostles as the supreme 
 teacher. How may it be safely inferred ? If, in the 
 course of his narration, he continually exhibits one 
 as eminent above all the rest in preaching the Gospel 
 and guaranteeing it by signs. These are not tests 
 arbitrarily chosen, but naturally suggested. And both 
 exactly fit to Peter, and to Peter alone. For he, in this 
 history of the universal Church, is the first, nay, well- 
 nigh the only one, both to preach and to support his 
 preaching by miracles. And Luke takes pains to 
 relate no less his miracles than his discourses, and 
 
 1 Mark xvi 15-17. 
 
 10 
 
146 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 scarcely describes with any detail either the one or 
 the other, of any but Peter. 
 
 Nay, his mode of writing suggests a parallel between 
 himself and St John in his Gospel, as if it were no less 
 Luke’s intention to show Peter invested with the 
 supreme office, than John’s to set forth Christ as the 
 head and teacher of the Apostolic college; and no less 
 Luke’s purpose to accredit the Church by Peter’s 
 miracles, than John’s 1 by the miracles of Christ to 
 establish faith in him as the true son of God. For the 
 circumstances of each narration point to this similarity 
 of design. As St John subordinates the group of 
 Apostles entirely to the figure of Christ, so Luke, very 
 slightly sketching the rest, is profuse in detail of what 
 concerns Peter, and marks him as set over all. As 
 John in recording the miracles of Christ dwells on the 
 points which prove his divine mission and origin from 
 the Father, so Luke directs his narration to exhibit 
 the beginning, the growth, and the authority of the 
 Church as due to Peter’s miracles. We will mark 
 two further resemblances. First, the miracles which 
 Luke records of Peter seem cast in the same type as 
 those of Christ. Compare the first one with that told 
 by John, ch. v: 
 
 John v 5-9: “ There was Acts iii 2-8: “ And a cer- 
 a certain man there that had tain man, who was lame from 
 been eight and thirty years his mother’s womb, was 
 under his infirmity. Him carried, whom they laid 
 when Jesus had seen lying, every day at the gate of the 
 and knew that he had been temple, which is called 
 now a long time, he saith to Beautiful. He, when he had 
 
 1 John xx 21. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 147 
 
 him, Wilt thou be made 
 whole ? The infirm man 
 answered him, Sir, I have 
 no man, when the water is 
 troubled, to put me into the 
 pond. For whilst I am 
 coming another goeth down 
 before me. Jesus said to 
 him, Arise, take up thy bed, 
 and walk. And immediately 
 the man was made whole, 
 and he took up his bed and 
 walked.” 
 
 seen Peter and John about to 
 go into the temple, asked to 
 receive an alms. But Peter, 
 with John, fastening his eyes 
 upon him, said, Look upon 
 us. But he looked earnestly 
 upon them, hoping that he 
 should receive something of 
 them. Peter said, Silver and 
 gold I have none, but what 
 I have, I give thee. In the 
 name of Jesus Christ of 
 Nazareth, arise and walk. 
 And taking him by the right 
 hand, he lifted him up, and 
 forthwith his feet and soles 
 received strength, and he, 
 leaping up, stood, and 
 walked.” 
 
 How often had the hand of the Lord—as here that 
 of Peter—healed the sick, given the blind sight, cured 
 the leper, and raised the dead ! But if Peter’s miracle 
 in healing .Eneas of the palsy carries 1 one back im¬ 
 mediately to the poor man let down through the roof 
 before our Lord, there is a yet more exact identity 
 between the great miracle of Christ raising Jairus’ 
 daughter and Peter raising Dorcas. In the one case, 
 the Lord “ having put them all out, taketh the father 
 and the mother of the damsel, and them that were 
 with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying, 
 and taking the damsel by the hand, he said to her, 
 Talitha cumi, which, is, Damsel, arise, and im¬ 
 mediately the damsel rose up and walked.” In the 
 
 1 Compare Acts ix 33, with Mark ii 3-11. 
 
148 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 other case, Peter came into the upper chamber, “ and 
 all the widows stood about him weeping—and they 
 being all put forth, Peter, kneeling down, prayed, and 
 turning to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. And she 
 opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up, 1 and 
 giving her his hand he lifted her up.” But how perfect 
 the resemblance of the following: 
 
 Luke iv 40: “ And when 
 the sun was down, all they 
 that had any sick with divers 
 diseases brought them to 
 him. But he, laying his 
 hands on every one of them, 
 healed them. And devils 
 went out from many.” 
 
 Acts v 15: “ Insomuch 
 that they brought forth the 
 sick into the streets, and laid 
 them on beds and couches, 
 that, when Peter came, his 
 shadow, at the least, might 
 overshadow any of them, and 
 they might be delivered from 
 their infirmities. And there 
 came also together to Jeru¬ 
 salem a multitude out of the 
 neighbouring cities, bringing 
 sick persons, and such as 
 were troubled with unclean 
 spirits, who were all healed.” 
 
 The second point of resemblance is, that the multi¬ 
 tude • regarded Peter among the Apostles as before 
 they had regarded Christ: for, putting the rest of the 
 Apostles in the second place, they flocked to him, 
 and besought his aid. So that Luke, briefly saying 
 of them, that “ by the hands of the Apostles were many 
 signs and wonders wrought among the people,” 2 goes 
 on to Peter, and of him relates the unheard-of wonders 
 just described, assigning to the miracles wrought by 
 him, “ that the multitude of men and women who 
 
 1 Mark v 40; Acts ix 39. 
 
 2 Acts v 13-14. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 149 
 
 believed in the Lord was more increased.” It is just 
 as when “ there came to Jesus great multitudes, having 
 with them the dumb, the blind, the lame, the maimed, 
 and many others; and they cast them down at his feet, 
 and he healed them.” 1 And the fuller the resemblance 
 these incidents show between Peter and Christ, the 
 more evident their proof that Peter’s ministry must be 
 considered a continuation of that which Christ began. 
 
 III. We proceed 2 to the order predetermined by 
 our Lord in the propagation of his Church. 
 
 Of himself he had said, though the Redeemer of all, 
 that he was not sent—that is, as an Apostle—actually 
 to preach, “ save to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel ”: and on first sending his Apostles, he gave 
 them this commission, “ Go ye not into the way of the 
 Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye 
 not, but go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel.” But when about to ascend to the Father, he 
 tells them, “You shall receive the power of the Holy 
 Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses 
 unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, 
 and even to the uttermost part of the earth ” : 3 —that is, 
 that they should set up his kingdom through all the 
 world, proceeding by gradual steps, from Jerusalem 
 to Judea, thence to Samaria, and at length “ to every 
 creature ” in the whole world. 
 
 Now, the history of the Acts shows the exact accom¬ 
 plishment of this order, and it likewise shows that 
 Simon Peter was the one elected chief instrument for 
 carrying out these successive propagations of the 
 
 1 Matt, xv 30. 2 Passaglia, p. 163. 
 
 3 Matt, xv 24; x 5; Acts i 8. 
 
150 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Church. What we have said already shows this as to 
 the mother Church of Jerusalem, and, before pro¬ 
 ceeding to the Gentile Churches, we will trace the same 
 instrumentality as used to bring the Samaritans into 
 the universal kingdom. 
 
 The persecution ensuing on the proto-martyr 
 Stephen’s death caused, by our Lord’s providence, the 
 dissemination of many believers through Judea and 
 Samaria, while the Apostles alone remained at 
 Jerusalem. Amongst those who thus “ went about 
 preaching the word of God,” Philip the deacon came to 
 Samaria, and many of the people, hearing his words 
 and seeing his miracles, were converted and baptized. 
 But the Church thus begun by the preaching of the 
 deacon would have dried up without hope of progress, 
 had it not received the assistance of those whom Christ 
 had set in the place of fathers, and who could bestow 
 the gifts of the Holy Ghost. For “ the Church is 
 in the bishop,” 1 and, as St Jerome said of a faction 
 which had a deacon for its author, “ With the man the 
 sect also perished, because a deacon could ordain no 
 clerk after him. But it is not a Church which has no 
 priest.” Accordingly when “ the Apostles, who were 
 in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the 
 word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John,” 2 
 who “ laid their hands upon them, and they received 
 the Holy Ghost.” The providence of Christ, then, so 
 ordered the propagation of his kingdom as to choose 
 Peter and John to complete and perfect the Samaritan 
 
 1 St Cyprian, Ep. 69. St Jerome, Dialogue con. Luci- 
 ferianos. 
 
 2 Acts viii 14. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 151 
 
 Church. But was this on equal terms, or is no superior 
 dignity and authority apparent in Peter over John ? 
 A regard to the words of Luke, and the series of acts 
 recorded, will prevent such a misconception. For he 
 mentions Peter and John, but he sets Peter first; and in 
 his record of what happened to Simon, John acts the 
 second part, and it is Peter alone who teaches, com¬ 
 mands, judges, and condemns, with authority, as the 
 head and supreme ruler. Simon Magus, tempted by 
 beholding the gifts of the Holy Spirit visibly bestowed 
 by imposition of the Apostles’ hands, “ offered them 
 money,” to both Peter and John. But Peter alone 
 replies, and condemns his profaneness, enlarges on his 
 guilt, and solemnly declares that the gifts of God are 
 not purchasable with money. “ Keep thy money to 
 thyself to perish with thee, because thou hast thought 
 that the gift of God may be purchased with money;” 
 he discloses Simon’s secret thoughts, “ for thy heart 
 is not right in the sight of God.” He inflicts on him 
 excommunication, “ thou hast no part nor lot in this 
 matter”; he exhorts him to repent, “do penance 
 therefore from this thy wickedness, and pray to God, 
 if perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven 
 thee.” Now here John, the next of the Apostles in 
 rank, is with Peter, yet he does not speak, teach, or 
 enjoin: Peter does all this singly. He answers Simon’s 
 question, lances and probes the most secret wound of 
 his conscience, declares how divine gifts are given, 
 proscribes the plague of simony, orders penance, and 
 inflicts excommunication on a scandalous public 
 offender. Thus the twenty-second of the Apostolic 
 Canons runs, “ If any bishop, priest or deacon, hath 
 
152 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 obtained this dignity by money, let him and his ordainer 
 be deposed, and altogether be deprived of communion, 
 as Simon Magus was by Peter.” Nothing but an 
 inequality of rank between Peter and John will account 
 for Luke’s narration here. Now, if John was inferior 
 to Peter, much more the rest. 
 
 But there is another proof of his superiority here, 
 in that God caused Simon Peter to engage Simon 
 Magus. Thus, by his providence, “ reaching from 
 end to end mightily, and ordering all things sweetly,” 
 the first-born of Christ is brought to conflict with the 
 “ first-born of the devil,” the chief of teachers with the 
 earliest of heretics, and prime of that long brood of 
 the evil one, who are to persecute “ the seed of the 
 woman.” Thus ancient writers record that Peter 
 afterwards went to Rome on purpose to expose the 
 acts of this same Simon. Thus they mention his 
 engaging with the famous Alexandrine Apion, the 
 enemy of the Jewish and the Christian faith alike. 
 And thence, too, probably the very ancient writer 
 (whoever he was) of the Epistle of Clement to St James, 
 begins it by recording how “ Simon, for his true faith 
 and his firm grounding in doctrine, was appointed to 
 be the foundation of the Church, and for this very 
 reason by Jesus Himself with most true augury had his 
 name changed to Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the 
 first of the Apostles, to whom first the Father revealed 
 the Son, whom Christ with reason blessed . . . he 
 who , as the most able of all , was commanded to illuminate 
 the West , the darker quarter of the world , and who was 
 enabled to succeed.” 
 
 But as to what is said, that “ the Apostles who were 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 153 
 
 in Jerusalem sent to the Samaritans Peter and John,” 
 it must be remembered, that at the head of those thus 
 sending was Peter himself, and that next to him John 
 was the most distinguished of the Apostolic college. 
 And since it is evident from all that we have hitherto 
 seen, that in whatever concerned the Apostles equally, 
 Peter took the leading part, and in their common de¬ 
 liberations exercised the initiative, it must be con¬ 
 cluded that he was likewise the first author of this 
 resolution, to send himself and John to the Samaritans. 
 And this is confirmed by our seeing that in the fulfil¬ 
 ment of this mission he discharges the offices, and acts 
 with the authority of head. To none else could the 
 execution of a fresh advance in the propagation of the 
 Church be committed; and so great, besides, were the 
 jealousies between the Jews and Samaritans, that it 
 needed no less than Peter’s authority to induce the 
 Jewish converts to receive them into the bond of the 
 same society. 
 
 IV. But now we 1 draw nigh to the revelation of that 
 great “ mystery which in other generations was not 
 known to the sons of men—that the Gentiles should be 
 fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and co-partners of 
 his promise in Christ Jesus by the Gospel,” whereby 
 was brought to pass the prophecy, “ from the rising 
 of the sun even to the going down my name is great 
 among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, 
 and there is offered to my name a cleano blation .” 2 
 The hour was come “ when the true adorers were to 
 adore the Father in spirit and in truth ” throughout 
 every region of the world purchased with the blood of 
 1 Passaglia, p. 174. 2 Eph. iii 5; Mai. i 11. 
 
154 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 the Son of God, and of this event, expected during 
 four thousand years, God, by an unexampled honour, 
 disclosed to Peter, and through Peter, the time and 
 the manner. This greatest of purposes, after his own 
 ascension, Christ left to be revealed through him to 
 whom he had committed the feeding of his sheep. 
 
 While Peter 1 was “ passing through all”—that is, 
 exercising his general supervision as primate of the 
 Church—God sent his angel “ in a vision manifestly ” 
 to “a certain man in Cesarea named Cornelius, a 
 centurion of that which is called the Italian band, a 
 religious man, and fearing God with all his house, 
 giving much alms to the people, and always praying to 
 God.” And the angel says to him: “ Thy prayers and 
 thine alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of 
 God, and now send men to Joppa, and call hither one 
 Simon, who is surnamed Peter: he will tell thee what 
 thou must do.” Though God then sends an angel, it 
 is left to Simon , who is surnamed Peter , to declare his 
 counsel, in what affected the salvation of innumerable 
 souls. Other Apostles there were to whom had been 
 said equally, “ Go ye into the whole world and preach 
 the Gospel to every creature,” and “ Ye shall be wit¬ 
 nesses to me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and 
 Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth ”; 
 and “ as the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” 
 Yet putting aside all these, as on so many other oc¬ 
 casions, Peter is preferred, and that because to him 
 alone was said, “ on this rock I will build my Church,” 
 and again, “ Feed my lambs, be shepherd over my 
 sheep.” Fitting it was that, when the wall between 
 
 1 Acts ix 32. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 155 
 
 the Jews and Gentiles should be taken away, by him 
 specially all should be collected into one, on whom, 
 as the divinely laid foundation, all were to rest. 
 Fitting, again, that the Lord’s prdphecy, “ Other sheep 
 I have which are not of this fold; those also I must 
 bring; and they shall hear my voice; and there shall 
 be one fold and one shepherd,” should be fulfilled 
 chiefly by his ministry to whom the Lord had com¬ 
 mitted his own office of universal visible pastor. For 
 the Church, in her very birth, and in the whole pro¬ 
 cess of her growth, bore this upon her forehead, that 
 universality as well as unity belonged substantially to 
 Peter, and that.it was no less his function to gather up 
 all nations into the mould of unity by his ministration 
 as the one chief shepherd, than to embrace them all 
 in the wide circuit of his love. Therefore it is a 
 marvellous agreement in which the institution of the 
 Primacy has a corresponding execution; and as the 
 latter confirms the former, so from the former you 
 might anticipate the latter before it was recorded in 
 the sacred history. 
 
 But in the meantime, while the messengers of 
 Cornelius were approaching the house in which Peter 
 was a guest, “ there came upon him an ecstasy of mind, 
 and he saw the heavens opened, and a certain vessel 
 descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down 
 by the four corners from heaven to the earth, wherein 
 were all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping 
 things of the earth, and fowls of the air.” While Peter 
 is fixed in contemplation, “ there came a voice to him, 
 Arise, Peter, kill and eat,” that he might understand 
 how “ by his preaching he was to make a sacrifice to 
 
156 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 the Lord of those who were represented by these 
 animals, bringing them into the divine service through 
 the mysteries of the Lord’s passion .” 1 And Peter, not 
 yet understanding, replies, “ Far be it from me, for I 
 never did eat anything that is common or unclean.” 
 Then the heavenly “ voice spoke to him again the 
 second time, That which God hath cleansed, do not 
 thou call common. And this having been done thrice, 
 presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.” 
 
 Here three things are set forth: first, that as the ark 
 of Noe contained all sorts of animals, clean and un¬ 
 clean, so the fold of Christ was to gather from Jews 
 and Greeks and barbarians “ a great multitude, which 
 no man could number, of all nations and tribes and 
 peoples and tongues ”; 2 secondly, that the blessings 
 of Christ concerned all who did not reject the proffered 
 grace; thirdly, that the elaborate system of Mosaic 
 ordinances concerning meats, rites, and ceremonies, 
 had fallen to the ground. But to whom is disclosed, 
 first and immediately, this whole dispensation of the 
 first principles on which the Church was to be pro¬ 
 pagated ? To none other than Peter, “To me hath 
 God shown to call no man common or unclean.” Now, 
 the undoubted knowledge of this dispensation must 
 appear of the greatest moment, whether in itself, or 
 as concerns the Jews, of whom the earliest Church 
 consisted, or the Apostles, by whose ministry it was 
 to be extended. And yet, by that providence which 
 is ever over his Church, the wisdom of God so ruled 
 it that through Peter alone the Apostles should be 
 taught when they were first to approach the Gentiles, 
 
 1 Bede on this text. 2 Apoc. vii 9. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 157 
 
 and discharge their office of witnesses before all nations 
 without distinction. And that because he had made 
 Peter “ the greater one ” and “ the leader ” of all, and 
 put him in his own place, and constituted him supreme 
 teacher in these words, “ Confirm thy brethren.’* 
 Thus Epiphanius , 1 in the fourth century, says that the 
 charge of bringing the Gentiles into the Church was 
 laid upon all the Apostles, “ but most of all on holy 
 Peter.” Why this most of all? Because, while he 
 had heard with the rest, “ Make disciples of all nations,” 
 he had singly and peculiarly received the charge of 
 the whole fold, and of the Apostles as part of it. 
 
 But Peter, still pondering on the vision, hears a 
 fresh voice from the Spirit, “ Behold, three men seek 
 thee. Arise, therefore, get thee down, and go with 
 them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them.” He 
 accompanies the messengers and finds Cornelius, “ his 
 kinsmen and his special friends.” He asks why they 
 have sent for him, whereupon Cornelius informs him 
 of what had passed, and concludes, “Now therefore 
 all we are present in thy sight, to hear all things what¬ 
 soever are commanded thee by the Lord.” Peter in 
 reply sets forth to them the heads of Christian doctrine, 
 and as he comes to the words “ to him all the prophets 
 gave testimony, that by his name all receive remission 
 of sins, who believe in him,” “ the Holy Ghost fell 
 upon all them that heard the word ” of life and truth 
 from his lips. And the Jewish Christians who were 
 with him, being astonished at this reception of Gentiles 
 into the Church by the Holy Spirit’s visible descent, 
 Peter cries, “ Can any man forbid water, that these 
 
 1 Haer. 28, s. 3. 
 
158 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 should not be baptized, who have received the Holy 
 Ghost as well as we ?” “ Words,” says St Chrysos¬ 
 
 tom , 1 “ of one almost assaulting any that would forbid, 
 and say that should not be,” and so “he commanded 
 them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus 
 for Peter also, like his Lord , 2 preached in person, but 
 baptized by the hands of others. 
 
 Are not then the prerogatives of Peter written 
 legibly on this whole narration ? First, among all the 
 Apostles he alone is chosen to consecrate to God the 
 first-fruits of the Gentiles. Again, through him, as the 
 teacher of all, God makes known to the Apostles them¬ 
 selves when the door was to be opened to the Gentiles. 
 Thirdly, without advising with the rest, he enlarges 
 the fold of Christ, which in Christ’s place he ruled, 
 with the accession of the Gentiles. Fourthly, the 
 building of the Church is thus referred to him alone. 
 Further, he gathers up to himself the Church which 
 is made out of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles: as the 
 foundation he sustains the whole; and when con¬ 
 structed, he binds it together. Lastly, Luke, without 
 having recorded a single speech of any other Apostle, 
 has given five of Peter, thus showing that Peter’s words, 
 as well as his actions, had a higher importance than 
 theirs in the history of the Church’s birth and growth; 
 for, indeed, in the history of the head that of the body 
 is included. 
 
 On Peter’s 3 return to Jerusalem, “ the Apostles and 
 brethren who were in Judea, having heard that the 
 Gentiles also had received the word of God ,” 4 “ they 
 
 1 Horn. 24 in Acta, n. 1. 2 John iv 2. 
 
 3 Passaglia, p. 181. 4 Acts xi 1-4. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 159 
 
 that were of the circumcision contended with him,” 
 because he had “ gone in to men uncircumcised, and 
 ate with them.” Hereupon Peter set forth to them 
 the whole series of events, upon which “ they held 
 their peace and glorified God, saying, God then has 
 also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life.” Now, 
 some in late times have attempted to derogate from 
 Peter’s authority on the strength of this incident. On 
 the other hand, St Chrysostom, not satisfied with 
 setting forth Peter’s rank, and assigning his whole 
 apology to a most gracious condescension, continues, 
 “ See how he defends himself, and will not use his 
 dignity as the Teacher, for he knew that the more gently 
 he spoke with them, the surer he was to win them .” 1 
 And what expression can signify Peter’s rank more 
 markedly than the Teacher? And Gregory the Great 
 sets forth Peter’s distinctions, how he alone had re¬ 
 ceived the keys, walked on the waters, healed with his 
 shadow, killed with his word, and raised the dead 
 by his prayer. Then, he continues, “ and because 
 warned by the Spirit, he had gone in to Cornelius, 
 a Gentile, a question was raised against him by the 
 faithful, as to wherefore he had gone in to the Gentiles, 
 and eaten with them, and received them in baptism. 
 And yet the same first of the Apostles, filled with so 
 great a grace of gifts, supported by so great a power of 
 miracles, answers the complaint of the faithful by an 
 appeal not to authority but to reason. ... For if, 
 when blamed by the faithful, he had considered the 
 authority which he held in holy Church, he might have 
 answered, that the sheep entrusted to the shepherd 
 
 1 In Acta, Horn. 24, n. 2. 
 
160 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 should not venture to censure him. But if, in the 
 complaint of the faithful, he had said anything of his 
 own power, he would not have been the teacher of 
 meekness. Therefore he quieted them with humble 
 reason, and in the matter where he was blamed even 
 cited witnesses. If, therefore, the Pastor of the Church , 
 the Prince of the Apostles , having a singular power to 
 do signs and miracles, did not disdain, when he was 
 censured, humbly to render account, how much more 
 ought we sinners, when blamed for anything, to disarm 
 our censurers by a humble defence .” 1 
 
 Here it occurs to observe with what different eyes 
 Holy Scripture may be read, for just where persons 
 determined to deny Peter’s authority find an excuse 
 for their foregone conclusion, the Fathers draw 
 arguments to praise the moderation with which he 
 exercised that same superior authority. 
 
 V. But 2 founded as we have seen the Church to 
 have hitherto been, and at each step of its course 
 advanced, mainly by the authority of Peter, it could not 
 hope to remain in a vigorous and united state without 
 the continual exercise of judicial and legislative power, 
 and diligent inspection . Nor is there, in fact, one of 
 these which Peter did not exercise, and that in a 
 manner to indicate the ruler set over all. For as to 
 the judicial power, do we not hear him saying, “ Tell 3 
 me whether you sold the land for so much and 
 “ Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that 
 thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep 
 part of the price of the land ? Whilst it remained 
 did it not remain to thee ? And after it was sold, 
 1 Lib. 9, Ep. 39. 2 Passaglia, p. 188. 3 Acts v 8, 3. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 161 
 
 was it not in thy power ? Why hast thou conceived 
 this thing in thy heart ? Thou hast not lied to men 
 but to God.” And presently the sentence comes forth 
 from him who binds in heaven as well as on earth. 
 “ Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband 
 are at the door, and they shall carry thee out.” Here, 
 then, we have Peter, in the midst of the Apostles, yet 
 acting singly as the supreme judge, and defender of 
 ecclesiastical discipline, on which St Chrysostom says, 
 “ For Peter was terrible, punishing and convicting the 
 thoughts, to whom they adhered the more both for the 
 sign, and his first speech, and his second, and his third. 
 For he it was who did the first sign, and the second, 
 and the present, which seems to me double, one to 
 convict the thoughts, and another to kill with his com¬ 
 mand.” Then, asking why nobody had announced 
 her husband’s death to Saphira, “ This was fear of the 
 Teacher, this respect of the disciples; this obedience :” 1 
 where he is mentioned not as a teacher, but the supreme 
 and chief one. 
 
 Yet though the other Apostles were judges, with 
 power to bind and to loose, though they were present, 
 and concerned, for “ Ananias bringing a certain part, 
 laid it at the feet of the Apostles,” not of Peter only, 
 it was not they, but Peter, who entered on the cause of 
 Ananias and Saphira, passed sentence, and inflicted 
 punishment. Why did he judge singly a cause which 
 was brought before the common tribunal of the 
 Apostles ? Because Peter was to have the Primacy in 
 all things; because from him the model of ecclesiastical 
 judgements was to be taken; because the charge of 
 
 1 In Acta, Horn. 12. 
 
 11 
 
162 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 maintaining ecclesiastical discipline belonged in chief 
 to him as the head. 
 
 VI. But no less 1 markedly does Luke represent 
 Peter as everywhere visiting the Churches, providing 
 for them as universal pastor, and exercising herein the 
 administrative Primacy. “ The Churches,” he says, 
 “ throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, had 
 peace, being edified and walking in the fear of the 
 Lord, and were mtiltiplied by the consolation of the 
 Ploly Ghost. And it came to pass that Peter , as he 
 passed through , visiting ally came to the saints who 
 dwelt at Lydda .” 2 In illustration of this we may 
 remember Paul’s charge to Titus : 3 “ For this cause 
 I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the 
 things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests 
 in every city, as I also appointed thee.” And again, 
 what Luke writes of Paul himself: “ After some days 
 Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return and visit our 
 brethren in all the cities wherein we have preached 
 the word of the Lord, to see how they do .” 4 And 
 what Eusebius , 5 from St Clement, relates of St John, 
 that he visited with authority the Churches of Asia, 
 which he had either founded, or specially attended to. 
 By these passages we see the nature of Peter’s visita¬ 
 tion, that it was pastoral, and likewise the difference 
 between his and these others, for they were local , but 
 his universal . Titus acted in Crete, the special sphere 
 of his labour, to which St Paul the founder of that 
 Church had appointed him. Paul and Barnabas pro¬ 
 pose to visit “ our brethren in every city in which we 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 190. 2 Acts ix 31. 3 Titus i 5. 
 
 4 Acts xv 36. 5 Hist. Ecc. Lib. 3, ch. 2. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 163 
 
 have preached the word of the Lord ”; St. John exerts 
 visitatorial power over the Churches of that province 
 wherein he dwelt, and that too, apparently, when he 
 was the sole survivor of the Apostolic college, yet did 
 not go into other parts. But Peter’s charge is oecu¬ 
 menical, and therefore his visitation universal. He 
 inspects the labours of others, as well as his own. 
 For he was not the only Apostle at Jerusalem, nor had 
 he singly built up all the Churches of Judea, Galilee, 
 and Samaria, yet he alone makes a progress from 
 Jerusalem to all these Churches. Though not the 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, over which the Apostle James 
 presides, he goes everywhere, as “ the Bishop of 
 Bishops .” 1 No other reason coherent with Scripture 
 can we find for this universal inspection of Peter; for 
 all the Apostles were indeed pastors, but he alone set 
 over the whole fold; he alone not limited, like Paul, 
 “ to the brethren in every city wherein he had 
 preached.” He differs from all others as the universal 
 from the particular, and so St Chrysostom says of him 
 in this very passage, “ Like a general he went round 
 surveying the ranks, seeing what portion was well 
 massed together, what in order, what needed his 
 presence. Behold him making his rounds in every 
 direction .” 2 
 
 VII. Further , 3 we may see the deference paid to 
 this supreme authority of Peter by the Apostles and 
 Ancients at Jerusalem, on occasion of that severest 
 dissension which threatened the unity of the Church, 
 and kindled the greatest agitation, the question whether 
 
 1 So called by Arnobius, on Psalm cxxxviii. 
 
 2 In Acta, Horn. 21, n. 2. 3 Passaglia, p. 192. 
 
164 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Gentile converts should be bound to obey the Mosaic 
 ritual law. For “ the 1 Apostles and Ancients having 
 assembled to consider of this matter/’ after “ there 
 had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to 
 them.” But why does Peter first rise and decide the 
 cause ? Because he was first of the Apostles, and as 
 such supreme arbiter in controversy. But consider 
 what he says: “ Men and brethren, you know that in 
 former days God made choice among us, that by my 
 mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel, 
 and believe.” By my mouthy he appeals to their know¬ 
 ledge of his election by God to the singular privilege 
 of receiving the Gentiles: in virtue of that election he 
 claims and exercises authority. “ And God, who 
 knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them 
 the Holy Ghost, as well as unto us, and put no 
 difference between us and them, purifying their hearts 
 by faith.” God, therefore, has already decided this 
 controversy, by my ministry, whom he especially called 
 thereunto, and by the effects which he caused to 
 accompany it. Then, using words full of force, being, 
 indeed, very like those in which he had answered to 
 Ananias and Saphira, he continues, “ Now, therefore, 
 why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the 
 disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been 
 able to bear ? But by the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, we believe that we shall be saved, in like manner 
 as they also.” “ How full of power are these words,” 
 is the comment of Chrysostom ; 2 “ he says here what 
 Paul has said at great length in the Epistle to the 
 Romans.” And then, speaking of the heads of Paul’s 
 1 Acts xv 6. 2 Horn. 32, n. 1. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 165 
 
 doctrine, he adds, “ The seeds of all this lie in Peter’s 
 discourse.” This, then, is a decision , and given in no 
 hesitating manner, but with severe censure of those 
 who maintained the opposite, as “ tempting God,” 
 words suitable for him only to use who had authority 
 over all. But how did the Council receive them ? 
 Though “ there had been much disputing before,” 
 though the keenest feelings had been excited, and the 
 point involved the strongest prepossessions of the 
 Jewish converts, “ all the multitude held their peace.” 
 They acquiesced in Peter’s judgement, and now readily 
 “ heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs 
 and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles 
 by them.” It follows, then, that on a capital point, 
 and in the first Council of the Church, Peter occupied 
 a position which befits only the supreme judge of con¬ 
 troversies, so that had we no other evidence than this 
 place whereby to decide upon his rank and office, his 
 pre-eminence would be evident. “ See,” says St 
 Chrysostom, “ he first permits a discussion to arise in 
 the Church, and then he speaks .” 1 
 
 But is this affected by other persons likewise speak¬ 
 ing and voting, as Paul and Barnabas ? or by St James 
 likewise giving his sentence, as an Apostle ? or by the 
 whole matter being settled by common consent ? As 
 little as to be head involves being all; as to preside 
 over the rest takes from them the power of deliberation 
 and resolution. Rather it is the office of the head 
 and the president to take the initiative, and point out 
 the course which others are to follow. 
 
 For those here present were teachers, and had the 
 1 Horn. 32, tom. ix, p. 250. 
 
 t 
 
166 st peter: hisTname and his office 
 
 ,lujk 
 
 prerogative of hearing and judging, as well as Peter; 
 they were bound to weigh the matter in controversy 
 to the best of their power, and to decide on it according 
 to the proportion of faith. They stood to Peter in 
 a relation, not of simple obedience, as the ordinary 
 members of the flock, but of judges, who, though 
 responsible to his superintendence, yet are really 
 judges, pass sentence, and decree by inherent authority. 
 It is no part of the idea of a judge, that he should be 
 supreme and irresponsible: this is the special privilege 
 of the one supreme judge. Objections such as these, 
 therefore, do not take from Peter his Primacy and 
 quality of head, but claim for Paul, Barnabas, James, 
 and other Apostles, the judicial authority and office, 
 which they undoubtedly possessed. 
 
 Nor again, that not Peter only, but all, passed the 
 decree in common, as it is written: “ It seemed good 
 to the Holy Ghost, and to us and as Paul and 
 Timothy “ delivered to the cities the decrees to keep 
 that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients .” 1 
 For a decree made in common by many shows not an 
 equality of power in each, but a competent authority 
 to join in that decree. Such acts proceed, not only 
 from equal, but from unequal assemblies. A question, 
 therefore, terminated by common decision, and laws 
 established by common consent, do indeed prove a 
 power to deliberate and decree common to all partici¬ 
 pating, but do not prove that all and every of the 
 judges were equal in their privileges, for who 
 gives to the Ancients the same authority as to the 
 Apostles ? 
 
 1 Acts xv 28; xvi 4. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 167 
 
 This inequality is elsewhere established, and rests 
 on its own proof, but bearing it in mind, we shall see 
 that Peter is the first and chief author of this common 
 decree, and that laws passed by common consent depend 
 on him primarily as head. Most unsuspicious wit¬ 
 nesses of this are the ancient writers, and this is the 
 very conclusion which they drew from the account 
 of this Council. Thus, Tertullian, in the second 
 century, speaking of Peter’s singular prerogatives, says, 
 “ On him the Church was built—that is, through him; 
 it was he who handled the key. This is it. ‘Ye men 
 of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man 
 approved of God among you,’ etc. He, too, first by 
 Christian baptism opened the approach of the heavenly 
 kingdom, by which offences, heretofore bound, are 
 loosed, and those not loosed are bound, according to 
 true salvation. And Ananias he bound with the chain 
 of death: and him that was weak in his feet he delivered 
 from his disease. But likewise, in that discussion as 
 to maintaining the law, Peter, first of all, instinct with 
 the Spirit, and preluding with the vocation of the 
 Gentiles, says, “ And now why tempt ye the Lord 
 by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which neither we 
 nor our fathers have been able to bear ? But by the 
 grace of Christ we believe that we shall be saved, as 
 also they.* This sentence both loosed what was given 
 up of the law and kept binding what was reserved A 1 
 As clearly, St Jerome, in the fourth century, writes, 
 that Peter “ used his wonted freedom, and that the 
 Apostle James followed his sentence , and all the Ancients 
 at once acceded to it , and that the decree zvas drawn up on 
 
 1 De Pudicitia, c. 21. 
 
168 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 his wording ” l A little later Theodoret wrote to 
 St Leo, thus: “ If Paul, the preacher of the truth, the 
 trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, 
 to carry from him the solution to those at Antioch, at 
 issue about living under the law; much more do we, 
 poor and humble, run to your Apostolic throne, to re¬ 
 ceive from you healing for the wounds of the Churches . 5 ’ 2 
 Why does he here call Peter the great , or say that Paul 
 hastened to him for solution of a grave contention ? 
 Did not Paul go to all the Apostles ? But Peter was 
 the head among them, and had a power in chief—a 
 power above the rest, a “ more special ” power—of 
 binding and loosing. 
 
 VIII. One other 3 instance there is of Peter’s superior 
 dignity, and therefore importance, in the Apostolic 
 college, which if, perhaps, less direct than some of the 
 foregoing, is even more persuasive. For there was an 
 Apostle associated, as we have seen, by our Lord with 
 Peter and John in several favours not granted to the 
 rest; one who with John received from him the name of 
 Boanerges; the elder brother of John, who with him 
 had once asked to sit on the Lord’s right hand and on 
 his left in his kingdom. Now, Luke is led in the 
 course of his narrative to mention the martyrdom of 
 this great and favoured Apostle; the first likewise of the 
 Apostolic choir who drank, as he had promised, of his 
 Lord’s chalice, and sealed his labours and trials with his 
 blood. The occasion was a great and striking one. 
 It is thus recorded by Luke: “ And at the same time 
 
 1 St Jerome, Ep. 75, inter Augustinianas, tom. ii, p. 171. 
 
 2 Theodoret, Ep. 113, tom. iii, p. 984. 
 
 3 Passaglia, p. 197. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 169 
 
 Herod the King stretched forth his hands to afflict 
 some of the Church. And he killed James, the brother 
 of John, with the sword.” This is the first and the 
 last time that he is mentioned by himself in Luke’s 
 inspired history of the universal Church. Great as 
 he was, so eminently favoured by his Lord, the elder 
 brother of John, nothing is said of the Church’s anxiety 
 for his danger, her prayers for his release, her sorrow 
 at his loss, or her exultation at his triumph by witness¬ 
 ing unto blood. He passed to his throne in heaven 
 with this short record. The more emphatic is the 
 contrast following: “ And seeing that it pleased the 
 Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was 
 in the days of the azymes. And when he had appre¬ 
 hended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him 
 to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending after the 
 pasch to bring him forth to the people. Peter there¬ 
 fore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without 
 ceasing by the Church unto God for him” That is, by 
 the instinct of self-preservation she prayed for her 
 head. A few years later another Apostle, after 
 glorious labours by land and sea, and missions of un¬ 
 rivalled success, was seized and imprisoned in this 
 same city of Jerusalem, and in danger of his life. But 
 we do not hear of prayers being offered up without 
 ceasing even for Paul, the doctor of the nations. The 
 Church’s safety was not bound up with his, any more 
 than with that of James, and therefore not even of the 
 great preacher “ in labours more abundant than all,” 
 are we told that in the hour of danger “ prayer was 
 made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him.” 
 James and Paul were most distinguished members , but 
 
170 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Peter was more. This was an honour reserved for 
 the head alone, as the life of the head was peculiarly 
 precious to the whole body. Thus St Chrysostom 
 explains it: “ The prayer is a proof of affection: they 
 all sought for a Father, a kind Father .” 1 And then 
 Luke proceeds to give at length Peter’s delivery out 
 of prison by the angel, and his departure in safety to 
 another place. But there is no other solution of such 
 a difference in recording what happened alike to James, 
 to Peter, and to Paul, but that Peter held the place of 
 father in the Lord’s family, of commander in his army, 
 of steward in his household, delivering to each of his 
 servants their measure of wheat in due season. 
 
 The result , 2 then, of our particular inquiry in the 
 Acts is to demonstrate two things, that Peter dis¬ 
 charged the office of Father and Head in the Lord’s 
 family, and that the Church received and admitted him 
 when so acting, with a consciousness that such was the 
 will of Christ. 
 
 Now, this office did not consist in “ lording it ” over 
 his brethren, in assuming high titles, and interfering 
 with the ministry of others when exercised in its due 
 course, in rejecting their assistance, or impeding the 
 unanimous exercise of their counsel. On the contrary, 
 the Lord had before prescribed that “ the greater ” 
 among them should be as the younger, and “ the 
 leader ” as he that ministers, proposing to them him¬ 
 self as the great model, who had exercised the highest 
 power with the utmost gentleness, and, being “ the 
 Lord,” had become “ the servant of all.” What, then, 
 did this office of Primate consist in ? We must say 
 
 1 In Acta, Horn. 26, n. 2. 2 Passaglia, p. 198. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 171 
 
 that Peter was undoubtedly such, if he constantly 
 exercised the power of a head in building up the Church, 
 in maintaining discipline, in reconciling dissensions, 
 and in general administration. Now, it would be 
 doing Peter wrong to suppose that he usurped as 
 peculiar to himself what equally belonged to all the 
 Apostles; or that, having received the special power 
 of the Holy Ghost, he did not fulfil his own advice to 
 others, “ not to lord it over the clergy, but to be made 
 a pattern of the flock .” 1 And the four points just 
 mentioned may be reduced to a triple authority, a 
 Primacy magisterial , judicial , and legislative . Let us 
 take in at one glance what has been said of Peter in 
 regard to each of these. 
 
 As to the magisterial , or power of authoritative 
 teaching and general administration, Peter is con¬ 
 stantly taking the lead, he is the mouthpiece of the 
 Apostles: he alone, or he first, by teaching plants the 
 Churches; he alone, or he in chief, completes them 
 when planted. He it is who by divine revelation given 
 to himself discloses to the rest the dispensation of 
 God; and he in words full of power sets forth to these 
 assembled in council the course which they are to 
 pursue. 
 
 As to the judicial , none other judgements are found 
 in that portion of the Acts which contains the history 
 of the whole Church, save those of which he was either 
 the sole or the chief author. Alone he took cognizance 
 of Ananias and Saphira, and alone he punished them. 
 And Simon he censured in chief, and excommuni¬ 
 cated. 
 
 1 1 Pet. v 3. 
 
172 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 As to the legislative , Peter alone promulgated the 
 law as to receiving the Gentiles; alone he prescribed 
 that for abrogating the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances. 
 He was the chief author of the decree which expressed 
 in terms his own previous act, and was put forth in 
 common by the Apostles and Ancients. 1 
 
 Again, compare the institution of the Primacy with 
 its exercise. Its institution consisted in three things: 
 (1) That Peter was named by Christ the foundation 
 of the Church, with whom its whole fabric was most 
 intimately to cohere, and from whom it should derive 
 visible unity and impregnable strength; (2) that the 
 authority of universal pastor, and the care of the whole 
 fold, was committed to him; (3) that to him belonged 
 the confirmation of his brethren, and a power of the 
 keys to which all were subject. Now consider the 
 execution. 
 
 As foundation of the Church, he gathers up to him¬ 
 self congregations from the Jews, the Samaritans, and 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 As universal pastor, he collects from these three the 
 flock, nourishes, defends, inspects it, and fills up one 
 place of highest rank in the ministry forfeited by the 
 traitor. 
 
 As confirmer of the brethren, he disclosed to them 
 the heavenly vision signifying the universal calling of 
 the Gentiles and the abrogation of the Mosaic law. 
 He acts in the Lord’s household as the bearer of the 
 keys, going to all parts, defending and inspecting all. 
 By himself he binds and looses, calling Ananias and 
 
 1 “ Princeps hujus fuit decreti,” says St Jerome to St 
 Augustine, Ep. 75, n. 8, inter Augustinianas. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 173 
 
 Saphira to his tribunal, and excommunicating the 
 first heretic. 
 
 So exactly, then, do the institution of the Primacy 
 and the acts of Peter fit into each other, that from the 
 former you may predict the latter, and from the latter 
 prove the former. They are like cause and effect, or 
 an a priori and an a posteriori argument. They are a 
 reciprocal confirmation to each other; just as if by time 
 you calculate the sun’s rising, and see the diffusion 
 of his light, from his having risen you infer his light, 
 and from his light conclude that he has risen. 
 
 Nor in the Apostolic Church does any one appear 
 to resist or question this office of Peter. Rather upon 
 him all eyes are fixed, for him all are anxious; no 
 Abiram rises up against him with the words of re¬ 
 bellion: “ Thou takest too much upon thee, seeing all 
 the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the 
 Lord is among them: wherefore then liftest thou up 
 thyself above the congregation of the Lord P” 1 No 
 Aaron in a moment of delusion cries, “ Did the Lord 
 speak by Moses only ? Hath he not spoken also 
 by us ?” 
 
 Yet Peter acts not like one out of a number, and 
 occasions of contention are not wanting, strong pre¬ 
 possessions and keen feelings. 2 He is everywhere; 
 his pre-eminence and his control are universal: he can 
 act with severity, and there are some impatient even 
 of a just control. When Ananias and Saphira fell 
 dead at his feet, none murmured. When he exclaimed, 
 in full council, “ Now, therefore, why tempt you 
 God ?” the whole multitude was silent. When he 
 1 Num. xvi 3; xii 2. 2 Acts vi 1; xv 2; xi 2. 
 
174 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 explained the reception of the Gentiles, those who had 
 murmured “ held their peace, and glorified God.” 1 
 
 But had Peter not possessed, by divine commission, 
 the authority which he exercised, it is clear, from the 
 conduct of Paul, that he would have met with op¬ 
 position from each in proportion of his advance in 
 Christian perfection. Paul’s censure to his indulgence 
 to the prejudices of the circumcision, proceeding as it 
 did from charity, shows this. But what would Paul, 
 and what would the other Apostles have done, had 
 they seen Peter perpetually taking the lead, and 
 exercising the power of a head, without any special 
 title thereto ? Would they not have resisted him. to 
 the face and before all, and declared that there was 
 no difference of authority between them ? Yet not 
 a trace of such resistance appears, while on number¬ 
 less occasions the Apostles, and the whole assembly 
 of the faithful, yield to him the Primacy, a sign truly 
 that they recognized in him one who had received 
 the place of Christ as visible head among them. 
 
 Infinite indeed is the distance between Christ and 
 Peter, as to the headship of mystical influx and the 
 source of grace. Neither he nor any creature has part 
 with Christ as to this latter, of which Paul writes, 
 44 that God had set all things under his feet, and given 
 him to be head over all to the Church, which is his 
 body, the fulness of him who filleth all in all.” Again, 
 “ the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the 
 head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of his body ”: 
 and all this “ to present it to himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” 2 In 
 1 Acts xi 18. 2 Eph. i 22; iv 15; v 23, 27. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 175 
 
 this sense headship belongs to Christ, not only first 
 and chiefly, but absolutely and solely. As to the 
 headship of external government and visible unity, 
 to this Christ himself has in a measure associated 
 Peter by saying to him specially, “ Feed my sheep— 
 follow thou me.” 
 
 And observe how that divine injunction was ful¬ 
 filled. For as, following our Lord with loving gaze 
 through the Gospels, we see every object grouped 
 about that heavenly figure of his; as our eyes rest ever 
 upon him in the synagogue, in the market-place, among 
 the crowd, before the Pharisees, the elders, the chief 
 priests, healing the sick, raising the dead, supporting 
 and animating his disciples—so turning to the Acts we 
 see a human copy indeed of that divine portrait, but 
 still one wrought by the Holy Spirit out of our re¬ 
 deemed flesh and blood. We see the fervent Apostle 
 treading in his Master’s steps, the centre and the 
 support of his brethren, the first before the Council 
 and before the people, ready with his words and his 
 deeds, uttering to the dead, as the echo of his Lord, 
 “ Arise,” and healing the sick with his shadow. With 
 reason, then, do the inspired writers use of Peter and 
 of Christ similar forms of speech, and as they write, 
 “ Jesus and his disciples,” “ there went with him his 
 disciples,” “ there he abode with his disciples,” so 
 they write, “ Peter standing up with the Eleven,” 
 “ they said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles,” 
 “ Peter and the Apostles answering.” What, above 
 all, is remarkable is to observe the same proportion 
 between the figure of Peter and the Apostles in the 
 first twelve chapters of the Acts, as between the figure 
 
176 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 of our Lord and the Apostles in the Gospel. Such 
 was the power and the will of the Divine Master when 
 he said, “ Feed my sheep; follow thou me.” Such 
 the truth of the disciple, answering, “ Lord, thou 
 knowest all things, thou knowest that I love 
 thee.” 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 TESTIMONY OF ST PAUL TO ST PETER’S 
 
 PRIMACY 
 
 In leaving the Gospels and the Acts we quit those 
 writings in which we should expect, beforehand, that 
 divine government to be set forth, which it pleased our 
 Lord to establish for his Church. In exact accordance 
 with such expectation we have seen the institution 
 of the Apostolic college, and of St Peter’s Primacy 
 over it, described in the Gospels, and the history in 
 the Acts of its execution and practical working. Both 
 institution and execution have been complete in their 
 parts, and wonderfully harmonious with each other. 
 But in the other inspired writings of the New Testa¬ 
 ment, comprising the letters of various Apostles, and 
 specially St Paul, we had no reason to anticipate any 
 detailed mention of Church government. The 
 fourteen Epistles of St Paul were written incidentally 
 on different subjects, no one of them leading him to 
 set forth, with any exact specification, that divine 
 hierarchy under which it was the pleasure of the Lord 
 that his Church should grow up. Moreover, it so 
 happened that 1 the circumstances of St Paul’s calling 
 to be an Apostle, and the opposition which he some¬ 
 times met with from those attached to Jewish usages, 
 caused him to be a great defender of the Apostolic 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 206. 
 
 177 
 
 12 
 
178 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 dignity, as bestowed upon himself, and continually 
 to assert that he received it not of men, but of God. 
 Had there, then, been no recognition at all of St Peter’s 
 superior rank in the Apostolic college to be found 
 in his writings, it would not have caused surprise to 
 those who consider the above reasons. And pro- 
 portionably strong and effective is the recognition of 
 that rank, which, though incidental, does occur, and 
 that several times. If, then, St Paul, being so cir¬ 
 cumstanced, selected expressions which seem to 
 indicate a distinction of dignity between the Apostles 
 and St Peter, they claim a special attention, and carry 
 a double force. Now, on putting these together, we 
 shall find that they show not merely a distinction of 
 dignity, but a superior authority in Peter. 
 
 The first are four several passages in the first Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, in all of which St Peter holds the 
 higher place, and in two is moreover mentioned singly, 
 whilst the rest are mentioned only in mass. These 
 are the following: “ Now this I say, that every one of 
 you saith, I indeed am of Paul; and I of Apollo; and I 
 of Cephas; and I of Christ.” Again: “ All things are 
 yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or 
 the world, or life, or death, or things present or things 
 to come, for all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and 
 Christ is God’s.” Again: “ Have we not power to 
 carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the 
 Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas ?” 
 And once more: “ That he was seen by Cephas, and 
 after that by the Eleven .” 1 First, we may remark that 
 the place of dignity in a sentence varies 2 according to 
 1 1 Cor. i 12; iii 22; ix 5 ; xv 5. 2 Passaglia, pp. 124-126. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 179 
 
 its nature: if it descends, such place is the first; but if 
 it ascends, it is the farthest point from the first. Now 
 in the first instance the discourse ascends, for what 
 can be plainer than that it terminates in Christ, as 
 in the supreme point ? “ Every one of you saith, I 
 
 indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and 
 I of Christ;” so St Chrysostom observes, “ It was not 
 to prefer himself before Peter that he set him last, 
 but to prefer Peter even greatly before himself. For 
 he speaks in the ascending scale:” and Theodoret, 
 “ They called themselves from different teachers; now 
 he mentioned his own name and that of Apollo; but 
 he adds also the name of the chief of the Apostles .” 1 
 As plain is this in the second instance, where St Paul, 
 developing his thought, “ all things are yours,” adds, 
 “ whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas,” or if that be not 
 sufficient, “ the world ” itself, which, carried away 
 in a sort of transport, he seems to divide into its parts, 
 “ or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, 
 all,” I repeat, “ are yours ”: but only, you are not your 
 own, “ you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” In 
 all which, from human instruments who plant and 
 water, he rises up to God, the ultimate source, the 
 beginning and the end. Stronger yet is the third 
 passage, for being in the very act of setting forth the 
 dignity of his own Apostolate, “ Have we not power,” 
 he says, “ to lead about a sister, a woman, as well as 
 the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, 
 and Cephas ?” Now, whether “ the rest of the 
 Apostles ” here means those who in the looser signi¬ 
 fication are so called, as “ the Apostles of the Churches,” 
 1 St Chrys. in 1 Cor., Horn. 3, n. 2. Theodoret on text. 
 
180 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 and “ Andronicus and Junias—who are of note among 
 the Apostles ,” 1 or the original Twelve, the ascending 
 scale is equally apparent. For why is Peter distin¬ 
 guished by name from all the rest ? Why alone termed 
 by his prophetical name ? St Chrysostom, again, tells 
 us why. “ Look at Paul’s wisdom. He puts the chief 
 the last. For there he puts that which was strongest 
 among the principal. For it was not so remarkable to 
 show the rest doing this, as him that was chief , and had 
 been entrusted with the keys of heaven. And he puts 
 not him alone, but all, as if he would say, whether you 
 look for inferiors, or superiors, you have examples of 
 all. For the brethren of the Lord, being delivered 
 from their first unbelief , 2 were among the principal, 
 though they had not reached the height of Apostles, 
 and, therefore, he put them in the middle, with the 
 highest on the two sides :” 3 words in which he seems 
 to indicate that Peter was as excellent among the 
 Apostles, as they among the rest of the disciples, and 
 the Lord’s brethren. 
 
 Of the superiority contained in the fourth passage, 
 we have spoken above, under another head, and 
 therefore proceed to much more remarkable testi¬ 
 monies of St Paul. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Galatians, St Paul has occasion 4 
 to defend his Apostolic authority and the agreement 
 of the Gospel which he had preached with that of the 
 original Apostles. After referring to his marvellous 
 conversion, he continues, “ immediately I conde¬ 
 scended not to flesh and blood; neither went I to 
 
 1 2 Cor. viii 23 ; Rom. xvi, 7. 2 John vii 5. 
 
 3 In 1 Cor. Horn. 21, n. 2. 4 Passaglia, p. 208. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 181 
 
 Jerusalem to the Apostles, who were before me, but 
 I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. 
 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to visit 
 Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other 
 of the Apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother 
 of the Lord.” At length, then, St Paul goes to 
 Jerusalem, and that with a fixed purpose, “ to visit 
 Peter.” But why Peter only, and not the rest of the 
 Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord P 1 Why 
 speaks he of these, and of James himself besides, as if 
 he would intimate that he had little care of seeing 
 them ? No other answer can be given to such queries 
 than is shadowed out in the prophetic name of Peter, 
 and contained in the explanation of it given by Christ 
 himself, “ Upon this Rock I will build my Church.” 
 
 For, to prove this, let us go back once more to 
 witnesses beyond suspicion, who wrote a thousand 
 years before the denial of Peter’s Primacy began. 
 The Greek and Latin Fathers see here a recognition of 
 his chief authority. Thus Theodoret, “ Not needing 
 doctrines from man, as having received if from the God 
 of all, he gives the fitting honour to the chief.” Theo¬ 
 doret follows St Chrysostom, who had said, “ After 
 so many great deeds, needing nothing of Peter, nor of 
 his instruction, but being his equal in rank, for I will 
 say no more here, still he goes up to him as to the 
 greater and elder ”; his equal in the Apostolic dignity 
 and the immediate reception of his authority from 
 Christ, but yet his inferior in the range of his juris¬ 
 diction, Peter being “ greater and elder.” And he 
 goes on, “ He went but for this alone, to see him and 
 
 1 Gal. i 16-19. 
 
182 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 honour him by his presence. He says, I went up to 
 visit Peter. He said not to see Peter, but to visit Peter, 
 as they say in becoming acquainted with great and 
 illustrious cities. So much pains he thought it worth 
 only to see the man.” And he concludes, “ This I 
 repeat, and would have you remember, lest you should 
 suspect the Apostle, on hearing anything which seems 
 said against Peter. For it was for this that he so 
 speaks, correcting by anticipation, that when he shall 
 say, I resisted Peter, no one may think these words of 
 enmity and contention. For he honours the man, 
 and loves him more than all. For he says that he came 
 up for none of the Apostles save him.” Elsewhere, 
 St Chrysostom, commenting on the charge, Feed 
 my sheep, asks, “ Why, then, passing by the rest, does 
 he converse with him (Peter) on these things ?” And 
 he replies, Peter “ was the one preferred among the 
 Apostles, and the mouthpiece of the disciples, and the 
 head of the band: therefore , too, Paul then went up to 
 visit him rather than the rest ” 1 Tertullian, the most 
 ancient of the Latins, says, “ Then, as he relates him¬ 
 self, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of be¬ 
 coming acquainted with Peter—that is, according to 
 duty and the claim of their identical faith and preach¬ 
 ing ”: 2 the duty which Paul had to Peter; the claim 
 which Peter had on Paul. In the fourth century Marius 
 Victorinus observes: “ After three years, says he, I 
 came to Jerusalem: then he adds the cause, to see Peter. 
 For if the foundation of the Church was laid in Peter, 
 
 1 Theodoret and Chrysostom on the text, and on John, 
 Horn. 88. 
 
 2 De Praesc., c. 23. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 183 
 
 as is said in the Gospel, Paul, to whom all things had 
 been revealed, knew that he was bound to see Peter, as 
 one to whom so great an authority had been given by 
 Christ, not to learn anything from him.” 1 The writer 
 called Ambrosiaster, as his works are attached to those 
 of St Ambrose, and contemporary with Pope Damasus 
 (a.d. 366-384), remarks, “ It was proper that he should 
 desire to see Peter, because he was first among the 
 Apostles, to whom the Saviour had committed the care 
 of the Churches.” St Jerome, more largely, says, 
 
 4 Not to behold his eyes, his cheeks, or his countenance, 
 whether he were thin or stout, with nose straight or 
 twisted, covered with hair, or as Clement, in the 
 Periods, will have it, bald. It was not, I conceive, in 
 the gravity of an Apostle, that after so long as three 
 years’ preparation, he could wish to see anything human 
 in Peter. But he gazed on him with those eyes with 
 which now he is seen in his own letters. Paul saw 
 Cephas with eyes such as those with which all wise 
 men now look on Paul. If any one thinks otherwise, 
 let him join all this with the sense before indicated, 
 that the Apostles contributed nothing to each other. 
 For even in that he seemed to go to Jerusalem, in order 
 that he might see the Apostle, it was not to learn, as 
 having himself too the same author of his preaching, 
 but to show honour to the first Apostle .” 2 Our own 
 St Thomas sums up all these in saying, “ The doctor of 
 the Gentiles, who boasts that he had learnt the Gospel, 
 not of man, nor through man, but instructed by Christ, 
 went up to Jerusalem,, conferred concerning the faith 
 
 1 Comm, in Gal. i 18. Mai nova collectio, tom. 3. 
 
 2 Ambrosiaster and St Jerome on the text. 
 
184 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 with the head of the Churches , lest perchance he might 
 run, or had run, in vain.” 1 
 
 These last words lead us attentively to consider 
 the passage which follows in St Paul. At a subsequent 
 period the zealots of the law had raised against him 
 a report that the Gospel which he preached differed 
 from that of the Twelve. At once to meet and silence 
 such a calumny, he tells us that “ after fourteen years, 
 I went up again to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking 
 Titus also with me. And I went up according to 
 revelation, and,” assigning the particular purpose, 
 “ conferred with them the Gospel which I preach 
 among the Gentiles, but apart with them who seemed 
 to be something; lest, perhaps, I should run, or had 
 run, in vain.” Then, having proved the identity of 
 his doctrine with that of those who “ seemed to be 
 something ”—that is, Peter, James, and John—though 
 to him they “ added nothing,” he specifies Peter 
 among these, and proceeds to draw a singular 
 parallel between, on the one hand, Peter, as accom¬ 
 panied by James and John, and himself, as work¬ 
 ing with Barnabas and Titus. If we set the 
 clauses over against each other, this will be more 
 apparent: 
 
 When they had seen that as to Peter was that of the 
 to me was committed the circumcision; 
 
 Gospel of the uncircumcision, 
 
 For he who wrought in wrought in me also among 
 Peter, to the Apostleship of the Gentiles; 
 the circumcision, 
 
 1 St Thomas Cant. Epist., lib. i. 97. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 185 
 
 James, 1 and Cephas, and gave to me and Barnabas 
 John, who seemed to be the right hands of fellow- 
 pillars, ship; 
 
 where it would appear that James and John stand in 
 the like relation to Cephas as Barnabas and Titus, 
 just before mentioned, to Paul. And St Chrysostom, 
 who, it must be remarked, reads Cephas, and not 
 James, first, as do some manuscripts and many Fathers, 
 observes, “ Where it was requisite to compare himself, 
 he mentions Peter only, but where to call a testimony, 
 he names three together, and with praise, saying, 
 ‘ Cephas, and James, and John, who seemed to be 
 pillars.’ ” And further, Paul “ shows himself to be 
 of the same rank with them, and matches himself not 
 with the rest, but with the leader, showing that each 
 
 1 An argument has been drawn by some against St Peter’s 
 Primacy from St Paul here placing St James first. Now as 
 to this we must remark that some most ancient manuscripts, 
 and the original Latin version, read “ Peter, and James, and 
 John,” and that this is followed by Tertullian, Chrysostom, 
 Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Theodoret, Jerome, 
 Irenseus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cassiodorus, of whom 
 Jerome is the more important, in that he had studied so many 
 ancient commentaries before writing his own. But suppos¬ 
 ing that the vulgar reading is the true one, Peter’s being once 
 placed by St Paul between St James and St John will not 
 counterbalance the vast positive evidence for his Primacy. 
 Those who wish to see the probable reasons why St James 
 was here placed first, may consult Passaglia, b. 1, c. 14, who 
 treats of the question at length. Perhaps St Paul, narrating 
 historically a past incident, recalled them to his recollection 
 in the order of time in which they received him: and St James, 
 residing constantly at Jerusalem, might very probably have 
 seen him first. 
 
186 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 of them enjoyed the same dignity ” x —that is, of the 
 Apostolic commission, and the divine co-operation. 
 And Ambrosiaster explains the parallel: “ Paul names 
 Peter only, and compares him to himself, as having 
 received the Primacy for the founding of the Church , he 
 being in like manner elected to hold a Primacy in 
 founding the Churches of the Gentiles , yet so that Peter 
 if occasion might be, should preach to the Gentiles, 
 and Paul to the Jews. For both are found to have 
 done both.” And presently, “ By the Apostles who 
 were the more illustrious among the rest, whom for 
 their stability he names pillars, and who were ever in 
 the Lord’s secret council, being worthy to behold his 
 glory on the mount ” (here Ambrosiaster confuses 
 James the brother of the Lord with James the brother 
 of John), “ by these he declares to have been approved 
 the gift which he received from God, that he should be 
 worthy to hold the Primacy in the preaching of the 
 Gentiles, as Peter held it in the preaching of the 
 circumcision. And as he assigns to Peter for companions 
 distinguished men among the Apostles , so he joins 
 Barnabas to himself: yet he claims to himself alone the 
 grace of the Primacy as granted by God , like as to Peter 
 alone it was granted among the Apostles.” 2 
 
 Now, Baronius proves that the above words cannot 
 be taken of a division of jurisdiction, and that the 
 singular dignity of Peter is marked in them. “For 
 as a mark of his excellence Christ himself, who came 
 to save all men, with whom there is no distinction of 
 Jew and Greek, was yet called ‘ minister of the circum- 
 
 1 St Chrys. in Gal., c. 2. 
 
 2 Comm, on Gal. ii 7, 8. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 187 
 
 cision,’ by Paul (Rom. xv 8), a title of dignity, accord¬ 
 ing to Paul’s own words, for theirs was ‘ the adoption 
 of children, and the glory, and the testament, and the 
 giving of the law, and the service of God, and the 
 promises,’ while ‘ the Gentiles praise God for his 
 mercy.’ But just as Christ our Lord was so called 
 minister of the circumcision, as yet to be the pastor 
 and Saviour of all, so Peter too was called the minister 
 of the circumcision, in such sense as yet to be by the 
 Lord constituted (Acts ix 32) pastor and ruler of the 
 whole flock. Whence St Leo, ‘ Out of the whole 
 world Peter alone is chosen to preside over the calling 
 of all the Gentiles, and over all the Apostles and the 
 collected Fathers of the Church, so that though there 
 be among the people of God many priests and many 
 shepherds, yet Peter rules all by immediate com¬ 
 mission, whom Christ also rules by sovereign power.’ ” x 
 The parallel, then, drawn by Paul between himself 
 and Peter, distinctly conveys that as he was superior to 
 Barnabas and Titus, and used their co-operation, so 
 was Peter among the Apostles, and specially the chief 
 ones, James and John, as their leader and head. For 
 what is the meaning of the words, “ He who wrought 
 in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision ”? 
 Was the Apostleship of the circumcision entrusted to 
 Peter only ? It needs no proof that it was also en¬ 
 trusted to James and John, nay, Paul himself im¬ 
 mediately says so: “ They gave to me and Barnabas 
 the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto 
 the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.” Why, 
 then, does Paul so express himself as to intimate that 
 1 Baron, Ann. a.d. 51, § 29. St Leo, Serm. 4. 
 
188 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 the Gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter 
 only ? For the same reason that he said that to him¬ 
 self “ was committed the Gospel of the uncircum¬ 
 cision,” and that God “ wrought in me also among the 
 Gentiles.” Now Barnabas likewise had been separ¬ 
 ated 1 by the Holy Ghost himself for the Gentile 
 mission; Barnabas, too, and Titus were discharging the 
 office of ambassadors for Christ among the Gentiles: 
 “ that we,” Paul says, not I, “ should go to the 
 Gentiles.” The terms, therefore, used by Paul both 
 of himself and Peter, do not exclude the rest, but 
 express the superiority of the one named singly before 
 the rest, as if he alone held the charge. Their fittest 
 interpretation, then, will be, “ The Apostles saw that 
 the Gospel of the uncircumcision was no less given to 
 me above the rest than the Gospel of the circumcision 
 to Peter above the rest; for he who wrought in Peter 
 above the rest in the Gospel of the circumcision, 
 wrought also in me above the rest in the Gospel of the 
 uncircumcision.” But what can set forth St Peter’s 
 dignity more remarkably than to exhibit him in the 
 same light of superiority among the original Apostles 
 as St Paul was among St Barnabas and his other fellow- 
 workers ? 
 
 Further confirmation of this is given by the argu¬ 
 ment with which he refutes the calumny urged against 
 him of disagreement with the Apostles. For while he 
 appeals to them in general, and to his union with them, 
 he likewise specifies the point which favoured that 
 union. It was the parallel between himself and Peter, 
 as we have seen; it was the exact resemblance between 
 
 1 Acts xiii 2 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 189 
 
 his mission and that of Peter, which was the cause of 
 their joining hands: they approve Paul’s Apostleship 
 because they see that it follows the type of Peter’s. 
 
 And other words of Paul which follow prove not 
 only the point of his own cause, but the source of 
 Peter’s singular privileges. “ But when Cephas was 
 come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because 
 he was to be blamed: for before that some came from 
 James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they 
 were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing 
 them who were of the circumcision. And to his 
 dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that 
 Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. 
 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto 
 the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them 
 all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the 
 Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel 
 the Gentiles to live as the Jews ?” For why did Paul 
 here censure Peter only ? By his own account not only 
 Peter, but the rest, and Barnabas himself amongst them, 
 set apart as he was by the Holy Ghost to preach to the 
 Gentiles, did not defend Christian liberty, as they 
 ought to have done. Why, then, does he single out 
 Peter among all these, resist him to the face, and so 
 firmly censure all, in his person ? No answer can be 
 given but one: that by this dissembling of Peter the 
 zealots of the law gathered double courage to press 
 against Paul their calumny of dissension from Peter, 
 and to infer that he had run in vain, from the indulgence 
 which Peter showed: that Peter’s authority with all 
 was so great that his example drew the pastors and 
 their flocks alike to his side, and that it was requisite 
 
190 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 to correct the members in the head. From this St 
 Chrysostom proves that it was really the Apostle Peter, 
 which some, as we shall soon see, denied: “ For to 
 say that I resisted him to the face, and to put this as 
 a great thing, was to show that he had not reverenced 
 the dignity of his person. But had he said it of 
 another, that I resisted him to the face, he would not 
 have put it as a great thing. Again, if it had been 
 another Peter, his change would have not had such 
 force as to draw the rest of the Jews with him. For he 
 used no exhortation, nor advice, but merely dis¬ 
 sembled, and separated himself, and that dissembling 
 and separation had power to draw after him all the 
 disciples, on account of the dignity of his person ” 1 
 Again, another writer of the fourth century tells us 
 this: “ Therefore he inveighs against Peter alone, in 
 order that the rest might learn in the person of him 
 who is the first.” 2 It was, then, Peter’s Primacy, and 
 the necessity of agreeing with him thence arising, which 
 led Paul to resist him publicly, and disregarding the 
 conduct of the rest, to direct an admonition to him 
 alone. “ So great,” St Jerome tells us, on these two 
 passages, “ was Peter’s authority, that Paul in his 
 epistle wrote, ‘ Then after three years I went to 
 Jerusalem to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen 
 days.’ And again in what follows: ‘ After fourteen 
 years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, 
 taking Titus also with me. And I went up according 
 to revelation, and conferred with them the Gospel 
 which I preach among the Gentiles,’ showing that he 
 
 1 Horn, on “ I resisted him to the face,” n. 15. 
 
 2 Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii 14. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 191 
 
 had no security in preaching the Gospel , unless it were 
 confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those who were 
 with him .” 1 
 
 But this passage, 2 concerning the reprehension of 
 St Peter by St Paul, has afforded so signal an instance 
 “ of the unlearned and unstable wresting Scripture 
 to their own proper destruction,” 3 that we must dwell 
 a little longer upon it. First, the Gnostics and the 
 Marcionites quoted it to accuse the Apostles of 
 ignorance, and to favour their own claim to a pro¬ 
 gressive light. In Peter, they would have it, there 
 was still a taint of Judaism. Next Porphyry, who 
 “ raged against Christ like a mad dog,” 4 tried by this 
 passage to weaken the authority of the Apostles, and 
 to convict Paul of ambition and rashness, who censured 
 the first of the Apostles and the leader of the band, not 
 privately, but openly before all, as St Chrysostom and 
 St Jerome tell us. Julian the Apostate succeeded these, 
 and tried, by means of Paul’s contention with Peter, 
 to bring discredit on the religion itself. For who, he 
 asked, could value a religion whose chief teachers were 
 guilty of hypocrisy, ignorance, and ambition ? And 
 in complete accordance with the spirit of these, all 
 who, since the sixteenth century, have attempted to 
 impugn St Peter’s prerogatives, have rested their chief 
 effort on the exaggeration and distortion of this repre¬ 
 hension. “ This,” says Baronius, “ is the stone of 
 stumbling and rock of offence, on which a great number 
 have dashed themselves. For those, who without any 
 diligent consideration have superficially interpreted a 
 
 1 Epist. inter Augustin., 75, n. 8. 
 
 2 Passaglia, p. 217. 3 2 Pet. iii 16. 4 St Jerome. 
 
192 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 difficult statement, have gone so far in their folly as 
 either to accuse Paul of rashness for having inveighed 
 against Peter not merely with freedom, but wanton¬ 
 ness, or to calumniate Peter as a hypocrite, for acting 
 with dissimulation; or to condemn both, for not 
 agreeing in the same rule of faith.” 1 
 
 In most remarkable contrast with these stand out 
 three several interpretations, which prevailed in early 
 times, all differing from each other in points, but all 
 equally careful to maintain the dignity of Peter, and 
 to clear up the conduct of Paul. First, from St 
 Clement of Alexandria in the second century up to 
 St Chrysostom in the fourth, we find a number of 
 Greek writers asserting that it was not the Apostle 
 Peter, who was here meant, but another; St Jerome 
 gives their reasons thus: “ There are those who think 
 that Cephas, whom Paul here writes that he resisted 
 to the face, was not the Apostle Peter, but another of 
 the seventy disciples so called, and they allege that 
 Peter could not have withdrawn himself from eating 
 with the Gentiles, for he had baptized Cornelius the 
 centurion, and on his ascending to Jerusalem, being 
 opposed by those of the circumcision who said, * Why 
 hast thou entered in to men uncircumcised, and eaten 
 with them ?’ after narrating the vision, he terminates 
 his answer thus: ‘ If, then, God hath given to them 
 the same grace as to us who believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who was I that I should withstand God ?’ 
 On hearing which they were silent, and glorified God, 
 saying: ‘ Therefore to the Gentiles, also, God hath 
 given repentance unto life.’ Especially as Luke, the 
 
 1 Ad. Ann. 51, § 32. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 193 
 
 writer of the history, makes no mention of this dis¬ 
 cussion, nor even says that Peter was at Antioch with 
 Paul; and occasion would be given to Porphyry’s 
 blasphemies, if we could believe either that Peter had 
 erred , or that Paul had impertinently censured the prince 
 of the ApostlesP 1 
 
 But this interpretation, contrary both to internal 
 evidence and to early tradition, and suggested only 
 by the anxiety to defend St Peter’s dignity, did not 
 prevail. Another succeeded, supported by St Chrysos¬ 
 tom, St Cyril, and the greatest Greek commentators, 
 and for a long time by St Jerome, even more remarkably 
 opposed to the apparent sense of the passage, and only, 
 as it would seem, dictated by the same desire to defend 
 the dignity of St Peter and the conduct of St Paul. 
 Admitting that it was really Peter who was here men¬ 
 tioned, they maintained that it was not a real dissension 
 between the two Apostles, but apparent only, and 
 arranged both by the one and the other, to terminate 
 the question more decidedly. St Chrysostom 2 sets 
 forth at great length this opinion: “ Do you see,” says 
 he, “ how St Paul accounts himself the least of all 
 saints, not of Apostles only ? Now, he who was so 
 disposed with respect to all, both knew how great a pre¬ 
 rogative Peter ought to enjoy, and reverenced him 
 most of all men, and was disposed towards him as 
 he deserved. And this is a proof. The whole earth 
 was looking to Paul; there rested on his spirit the 
 solicitude for the Churches of all the world. A 
 
 1 St Jerome on Gal., ch. ii. 
 
 2 Homily on the text “ I resisted him to the face,” n. 8, 
 tom. iii, p. 368. 
 
 13 
 
194 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 thousand matters engaged him every day; he was 
 besieged with appointments, commands, corrections, 
 counsels, exhortations, teachings, the administration 
 of endless business; yet giving up all these, he went to 
 Jerusalem. And there was no other occasion for this 
 journey save to see Peter, as he says himself: ‘ I went 
 up to Jerusalem to visit Peter.’ Thus he honoured 
 him, and preferred him to all men.” Suspecting, too, 
 that an accusation against Peter’s unwavering faith 
 might be brought from the words, “ fearing those of the 
 circumcision,” he breaks out, “ What say you ? Peter 
 fearful and unmanly ? Was he not for this called Peter, 
 that his faith was immovable ? What are you doing, 
 friend ? Reverence the name given by the Lord to 
 the disciple. Peter fearful and unmanly ! Who will 
 endure you saying such things ?” 
 
 Now compare 1 together these two interpretations 
 of the Greek Fathers with that of the reformers and 
 their adherents since the sixteenth century. A more 
 complete antagonism of feelings and principles cannot 
 be conceived. I. There is not a Greek Father who 
 does not infer the singular authority of Peter from the 
 first and second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 There is not an adherent of the reformers who does not 
 trust that he can draw from those same chapters matter 
 to impugn St Peter’s Primacy. II. The Greek Fathers 
 anxiously search out every point which may conduce 
 to Peter’s praise. The adherent of the reformers 
 suppresses all such, and seems not to see them. 
 III. If anything in Paul’s account seems at first sight 
 to tell against Peter’s special dignity, the Greek 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 232. 
 
ST peter: his name and his oefice 195 
 
 Fathers are studious carefully to remove it; the ad¬ 
 herents of the reformers to exaggerate it. IV. The 
 Greek Fathers prefer slightly to force the obvious 
 meaning of the words, and to desert the original 
 interpretation rather than set Apostles at variance with 
 each other, or admit that Peter, the chief of the 
 Apostles, was not treated with due deference. The 
 adherents of the reformers intensify everything, take 
 it in the worse sense, and are the more at home the 
 more bitterly they inveigh against Peter. 
 
 Now turn to the third interpretation, that of the 
 Latin Fathers. They admit both that it was Peter 
 and that it was a real dissension, but they are as anxious 
 as the Greek to defend Peter’s dignity. Thus Ter- 
 tullian: 1 “ If Peter was blamed—certainly it was a 
 fault of conduct , not of preaching .” And Cyprian: 2 
 “Not even Peter,whom first the Lord chose, and upon 
 whom he built his Church, when afterwards Paul 
 disagreed with him respecting circumcision, claimed 
 aught proudly, or assumed aught arrogantly to himself, 
 saying that he held the Primacy, and that obedience 
 rather was due to him by those younger and later.” 
 And Augustine: “ Peter himself received with the 
 piety of a holy and benighted humility what was with 
 advantage done by Paul in the freedom of charity. 
 And so he gave to posterity a rarer and a holier example 
 —that they should not disdain, if perchance they left 
 the right track, to he corrected even hy their youngers — 
 than Paul, that even inferiors might confidently venture 
 to resist superiors , maintaining brotherly charity, in the 
 defence of evangelical truth. For better as it is on no 
 1 De Praesc., c. 24. 2 Cyprian, Ep. 71. 
 
196 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 occasion to quit the proper path, yet much more 
 wonderful and praiseworthy is it, willingly to accept 
 correction, than boldly to correct deviation. Paul, then, 
 has the praise of just liberty, and Peter of holy humility , 
 which, so far as seems to me according to my small 
 measure, had been a better defence against the 
 calumnies of Porphyry than the giving him greater 
 occasion of finding fault: for it would be a much more 
 stinging accusation that Christians should with deceit 
 either write their epistles or bear the mysteries of 
 their God.” 1 
 
 Now, to see 2 the fundamental opposition between 
 the Greek and Latin Fathers and the reformers, let 
 us observe more closely these three ancient inter¬ 
 pretations of this passage. The first denies that 
 Cephas, so reprehended by Paul, was the chief of the 
 Apostles; the second affirms this, but reduces the whole 
 contention to an arrangement of prudence between 
 the two Apostles; and the third maintains the reality 
 of the reprehension. All three, however, have in 
 common the reconciling Peter’s chief dignity with the 
 reprehension of him, and the two latter, besides, are 
 much more careful to admire his modesty than Paul’s 
 liberty, and make the most of every point in the 
 narration setting forth Peter’s Primacy. On the other 
 hand, the reformers use this reprehension as their 
 sharpest weapon against his authority, praise Paul’s 
 liberty to the utmost in order to depress that authority, 
 hunt out everything against Peter, and pass over every¬ 
 thing for him. It is equally evident that their motive 
 in this runs counter to the faith universal in the Church 
 
 1 Ep. 82, n. 22. 
 
 Passaglia, p. 240. 
 
 2 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 197 
 
 during the first four centuries; and that their inference 
 cannot be accepted without rejecting all Christian 
 antiquity, and the very sentiments expressed by Paul 
 himself, as we have seen, towards Peter. 
 
 But as to the reprehension itself, it would seem to 
 have been not on a point of doctrine at all, but of 
 conduct. St Peter had long ago both admitted the 
 Gentiles into the Church, and declared that they were 
 not bound to the Jewish law. But out of regard to 
 the feelings of the circumcised converts, he pursued 
 a line of conduct at Antioch which they mistook to 
 mean an approval of their error, and which needed, 
 therefore, to be publicly cleared up. Accordingly, 
 Peter’s fault, if any there were, amounted to this, that 
 having, with the best intention, done what was not 
 forbidden, he had not sufficiently foreseen what others 
 would thence infer contrary to his own intention. 
 Can this be esteemed either a dogmatic error, or a 
 proof of his not holding supreme authority ? But the 
 event being injurious and contrary to the truth of the 
 Gospel, why should not Paul admonish Peter con¬ 
 cerning it ? Now, very remarkable it is, that he quotes 
 St Peter’s own example and authority, opposes the 
 antecedent to the subsequent fact, and maintains 
 Gospel liberty by Peter’s own conduct. St Chrysos¬ 
 tom remarked this. “ Observe his prudence. He 
 said not to him, Thou dost wrong in living as a Jew, 
 but he alleges his former mode of living, that the 
 admonition and the counsel may seem to come not from 
 Paul’s mind, but from the judgement of Peter already 
 expressed. For had he said, Thou dost wrong to keep 
 the law, Peter’s disciples would have blamed him. 
 
198 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Now, hearing that this admonition and correction 
 came not from Paul’s judgement, but that Peter himself 
 so lived, and held in his mind this belief whether they 
 would or would not, they were obliged to be 
 quiet.” 1 
 
 1 Horn, on text, n. 17. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 ST PETER’S PRIMACY INVOLVED IN THE FOUR¬ 
 FOLD UNITY OF CHRIST’S KINGDOM 
 
 The doctrine 1 of St Paul has brought us to a most 
 interesting point of the subject, what, namely, is the 
 principle of unity in the Church. A short considera¬ 
 tion of this will show us how the office of St Peter 
 enters into and forms part of the radical idea of the 
 Church, so that the moment we profess our belief in 
 one holy Catholic Church, the belief is likewise involved 
 in that Primacy of teaching and authority which makes 
 and keeps it one. 
 
 The principle of unity, then, is no other than “ the 
 Word made flesh that divine Person who has for 
 ever joined together the Godhead and the Manhood. 
 Thus, St Paul speaks to us of God “ having made 
 known to us the mystery of his will, according to his 
 good pleasure, which he purposed in himself, in the 
 dispensation of the fulness of times, to gather together 
 under one head all things in Christ , both which are in 
 heaven and which are on earth at whose resurrection, 
 “ he set all things under his feet, and gave him to 
 be head over all the Church, which is his body, the 
 fulness of him who filleth all in all.” And again, 
 “ the head of every man is Christ; . . . and the head 
 
 1 In this chapter I have availed myself of Passaglia, b. i, c. 
 25, and b. 2, c. 11. 
 
 199 
 
200 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 of Christ is God.” “ And we being many are one 
 body in Christ, and every one members one of 
 another:” 1 as again he sets forth at length in the twelfth 
 chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, calling 
 that one body by the very name of Christ. 
 
 With one voice the ancient Fathers 2 exult in this as 
 the great purpose of his Incarnation. “ The work,” 
 says St Hippolytus, 3 “ of his taking a body, is the 
 gathering up into one head of all things unto him.” 
 “ The Word Man,” says St Irenaeus, 4 “ gathering all 
 things up into himself, that as in super-celestial, and 
 spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is the 
 chief, so also in visible and corporeal things he may 
 hold the chiefship, assuming the Primacy to himself» 
 and joining himself as Head to the Church, may draw 
 all things to himself, at the fitting time.” And again 
 “ The Son of God was made Man among men, to 
 join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God ”; 
 or, as Tertullian says, 5 “ that God might show that in 
 himself was the evolution of the beginning to the end, 
 and the return of the end to the beginning.” And 
 (Ecumenius, “ Angels and men were rent asunder: 
 God then joined them, and made them one through 
 Christ.” St Gregory Thaumaturgus breaks out, 
 “ Thou art he that didst bridge over heaven and earth 
 by thy sacred body.” And Augustine, 6 “ Far off he 
 
 1 Eph. i 9, 22; i Cor. xi 2; Rom. xii 5. 
 
 2 See Petavius, de Incarn., lib. 2, c. 7 and 8, for the follow¬ 
 ing quotations. 
 
 3 Hippolytus, quoted by Anastasius, p. 216. 
 
 4 Irenaeus, lib. iii 18, and iv 37. 6 De Monogamia, c. 5. 
 
 6 Augustine, 21 Tract, in Joannem. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 201 
 
 was from us, and very far. What so far off as the 
 creature and the Creator ? What so far off as God 
 and man ? What so far off as justice and iniquity ? 
 What so far off as eternity and mortality ? See how 
 far off was ‘ the Word in the beginning, God with God, 
 by whom all things were made.’ How, then, was He 
 made nigh, that he might be as we, and we in him ? 
 * The Word was made flesh.’ ” “ Man, being assumed, 
 
 was taken into the nature of the Godhead,” says 
 St Hilary ; 1 and St Chrysostom , 2 “He puts on flesh, 
 that he who cannot be held may be holden “ dwell¬ 
 ing with us,” says Gregory 3 of Nazianzen, “ by inter¬ 
 posing his flesh as a veil, that the incomprehensible 
 may be comprehended.” “ For since,” adds St Cyril , 4 
 “ man’s nature was not capable of approaching the 
 pure and unmixed glory of the Godhead, because of 
 its inherent weakness, for our use the only-begotten 
 one put on our likeness.” “ In the assumption of our 
 nature,” says St Leo , 5 “ he became to us the step by 
 which through him we may be able to mount unto 
 him:” and, “ it is not doubtful that man’s nature has 
 been taken into such connection by the Son of God, 
 that, not only in that man who is the first-born of all 
 creation, but even in all his saints, there is one and the 
 same Christ: and as the head cannot be divided from 
 the limbs, so neither the limbs from the head. For 
 
 1 Hilary on Psalm 68. 
 
 2 St Chrys., tom. 5 (Savile), Horn. 106. 
 
 3 Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. 
 
 4 St Cyril, Dialog. 1, de Trin., p. 399. 
 
 3 St Leo, 5th Serm. on Nativity, c. 4 and 5, 12th Serm. on 
 Passion, c. 3. 
 
202 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 though it belong not to this life, but to that of eternity, 
 that God be all in all, yet even now he is the undivided 
 inhabitant of his temple, which is the Church.” For 
 all the above is contained in our Lord’s own words, 
 “ that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and 
 I in thee,” on which St Athanasius 1 says, “ that all, 
 being carried by me, may be all one body and one 
 spirit, and reach the perfect man —“ for, as the 
 Lord having clothed himself in a body, became man, 
 so we men are deified by the Word, being assumed 
 through his flesh.” And another , 2 interpreting the 
 words, “ that they all may be one,” “ thus I will, that 
 they being drawn into unity, may be blended with each 
 other, and becoming as one body, may all be in me, 
 who carry all in that one temple which I have assumed: 
 the temple, namely, of his body.” And lastly, St 
 Hilary 3 deduces this not only from the Incarnation, 
 but from the blessed Eucharist. “ For, if the Word 
 be really made flesh, and we really receive the Word 
 as flesh in the food of the Lord, how is he not to be 
 thought to remain in us naturally, since, both in being 
 born a man, he assumed the nature of our flesh, never 
 to be severed from him, and has joined the nature of 
 his flesh to the eternal nature under the sacrament of 
 the flesh to be communicated to us ?” 
 
 So deep in the junction of the divine and human 
 natures in our Lord’s adorable person lies the root of 
 unity for that humanity which he purchased with his 
 
 1 St Athanasius, Orat. 3, contr. Arian., tom. 1, p. 572. 
 Oxf. Trans, p. 403. 
 
 2 Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, quoted by Photius, cod. 
 
 3 St Hilary, de Trin., lib. 8, n. 13. 
 
 229. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 203 
 
 blood. It is in virtue of this headship that the whole 
 mystical body is one, and “ we all members one of 
 another.” By this headship our Lord nourishes 
 and cherishes the Church, and communicates to her 
 incessantly that stream of grace by which she lives. 
 And as this headship flows from the union of the 
 Godhead and Manhood, so it is inseparable from his 
 Person, and incommunicable. But he has himself> 
 in his parting discourse, recorded by St John, dwelt 
 upon the great sacramentum of unity, the result of 
 this Headship, and set it forth as the sign and seal of 
 his own divine mission, and the one convincing proof 
 of his religion’s superhuman origin. By following 
 his words we shall see that this unity is not simple 
 but fourfold, and we shall trace the mutual relation 
 and subordination to the divine Headship of its 
 several kinds. 
 
 1. And first, “ In 1 that day,” says he—that is, after 
 his own resurrection—“ ye shall know that I am in 
 my Father, and you in me, and I in you,” whereby 
 he declares that, in the completion of the dispensation, 
 the union between himself and the faithful shall be 
 such as to image out the mutual indwelling of the 
 Father and the Son. Which again is further expressed, 
 “ I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband¬ 
 man. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he 
 will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he 
 will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit. . . . 
 I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in 
 me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for 
 without me you can do nothing. If any one abide 
 
 1 John xiv 20. 
 
204 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall 
 wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him 
 into the fire, and he burneth. If you abide in me, 
 and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever 
 you will, and it shall be done unto you.” 1 In these 
 words he sets forth that union of mystical influx, 
 by co-operation with which his disciples keep his 
 words and abide in his love, and of which he is himself 
 the immediate principle. 
 
 2. But he does not stop at this interior and invisible 
 union between his disciples and himself: he speaks 
 likewise of a new and special command, and of a special 
 gift, by which their union with each other should be 
 known. “ A new command I give unto you, that 
 you love one another: as I have loved you, that you 
 also love one another. By this shall all men know 
 that you are my disciples, if you have love one to 
 another.” 2 And again, “ This is my command, that 
 you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater 
 love than this hath no man, that any one lay down his 
 life for his friends. . . . These things I command 
 you, that you love one another.” 3 But the Holy Spirit, 
 whom our Lord was about to send forth, is the efficient 
 principle of the love here enjoined, by his substantial 
 indwelling, as we are told, “ The charity of God is 
 poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is 
 given to us.” 4 From him, therefore, bestowed by 
 the Head of the Church, springs that unity of charity, 
 which, being itself internal, is shown in outward signs, 
 and constitutes that distinctive spirit of the Christian 
 
 1 John xv 1,2, 5-7. 2 John xiii 34-36. 
 
 3 John xv 12. 4 Rom. v 5. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 205 
 
 people, the spirit characterizing it, and analogous to the 
 national spirit in civil organization. 
 
 3. But our Lord likewise speaks of a third unity, 
 springing from the direction of one and the same 
 Divine Spirit. “ And I will ask the Father, and he 
 shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide 
 with you for ever: the Spirit of truth, whom the world 
 cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth 
 him: but you shall know him, because he shall abide 
 with you, and shall be in you.” “ The Paraclete, the 
 Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, 
 he will teach you all things, and bring all things to 
 your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you.” 1 
 “ It is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the 
 Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send 
 him to you.” “ But when he, the Spirit of truth, is 
 come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not 
 speak of himself, but what things soever he shall hear, 
 he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he 
 shall show you. He shall glorify me, because he shall 
 receive of mine, and shall show it to you.” 2 Of the 
 nature of this unity we may judge by the gifts and 
 offices assigned to that Spirit and Paraclete from whom 
 it springs. Now he is repeatedly termed, “ the Spirit 
 of truth,” and his office, to suggest , to announce , to 
 teach, and to lead into all truth. This unity, therefore, 
 is opposed to the division produced by ignorance and 
 error, and so is the unity of faith, or Christian 
 profession. Thus our Lord promises, besides the 
 unity of charity, that of faith, the efficient principle of 
 
 1 John xiv 16-18, 26. 
 
 2 John xvi 7, 13-15. 
 
206 st peter: his name and his office 
 
 which, as well as of the former, is contained in the 
 communication of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less 
 true in the supernatural order of divine gifts, than in 
 the order of nature, that the first cause produces its 
 effects by means of second causes. And here, as often 
 as the Lord promises the Spirit of truth, he promises 
 him to the Apostles , and assures his perpetual abidance 
 with them and the successors in their charge, thus, 
 “ That he may abide with you for ever “ He shall 
 abide with you, and shall be in you.” “ He shall teach 
 you all things, and bring all things to your mind 
 which I have said unto you “ Whom I will send 
 unto you from the Father “I will send him unto 
 you “ He shall lead you into all truth “ He shall 
 show the things that are to come.” And so the unity 
 of faith may be expected from its supreme cause, the 
 Holy Spirit the Paraclete, through the medium of the 
 Apostles and their legitimate successors: the Holy 
 Spirit is its ultimate , but they its subordinate principle: 
 he is the source , but they the channel. Thus to trust 
 to the invisible action of the Spirit, but to despise the 
 office and direction of the teachers ordained by Christ, 
 in the very virtue of that Spirit, is to reject his divine 
 institution, and to risk a shipwreck of the promised 
 gift of faith and truth. 
 
 For in exact accordance with our Lord’s words 
 here, St Paul has set forth not only the institution, 
 but the source, as well as the end and purpose, of 
 the whole visible hierarchy. It is instituted by our 
 Lord, as an act of his divine Headship; its source is in 
 “ one and the same Spirit dividing to every one accord¬ 
 ing as he will ”; its end and purpose is, “ the edifying 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 207 
 
 the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of 
 faith.” 1 
 
 Each of these points is important. Our Lord’s 
 divine Headship over the Church, all-encompassing 
 as it is, and the spring of all blessing and unity, does 
 not dispense with the establishment of a visible 
 hierarchy, but rather is specially shown therein. And 
 again, the Holy Spirit is the source and superior 
 principle of all spiritual gifts to all, but yet he acts 
 through this hierarchy. He is the Spirit who main¬ 
 tains faith and truth, but it is by the instruments of 
 his own appointing. 
 
 Now these three points, the bestowal of all spiritual 
 gifts and offices by Christ in virtue of his mystical 
 Headship, the Holy Spirit being the one superior 
 principle of such gifts and offices, and his manifold 
 operation therein through the visible hierarchy, are set 
 forth most distinctly in two passages of St Paul, the 
 twelfth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 and the fourth chapter to the Ephesians. “To every 
 one of us is given grace, according to the measure of 
 the giving of Christ. Wherefore he saith, Ascending 
 on high he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men. 
 Now that he ascended, what is it but because he also 
 descended first into the lower parts of the earth ? 
 He that descended is the same also that ascended above 
 all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he 
 gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some 
 evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for 
 the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the 
 ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until 
 
 1 1 Cor. xii 11; Eph. iv 13. 
 
208 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge 
 of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the 
 measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that hence¬ 
 forth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and 
 carried about with every wind of doctrine by the 
 wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which 
 they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in 
 charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the 
 head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, being 
 compactly and fitly joined together, by what every 
 joint supplieth, according to the operation in the 
 measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, 
 unto the edifying of itself in charity.” “ And the 
 manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto 
 profit. To one indeed by the Spirit is given the word 
 of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, 
 according to the same Spirit, to another, faith, in the 
 same Spirit; to another, the grace of healing, in one 
 Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, 
 prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to 
 another divers kinds of tongues; to another, interpreta¬ 
 tion of speeches. But all these things one and the 
 same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according 
 as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many 
 members; and all the members of the body, whereas 
 they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. 
 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, 
 whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free, and in 
 one Spirit we have all been made to drink.” 1 
 
 Thus, then, we have been brought by the words 
 both of our Lord and of St Paul, through an inward 
 1 Eph. iv 7-16; 1 Cor. xii 7-13. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 209 
 
 invisible unity, that of mystical influx from the vine 
 to its branches, and again, that of charity, and that of 
 faith and truth, to an outward and visible unity in 
 social organization. The great Head has created it 
 for the purpose of exhibiting, defending, maintaining, 
 and conveying the former, since it is expressly said that 
 he gave it “ for the perfecting of the saints, unto the 
 work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of 
 Christ,” and in order that “ we may be no more 
 children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every 
 wind of doctrine.” And the inward source and cause 
 of this unity are indeed invisible, being the Holy Spirit 
 of God, sent down by Christ, when he ascended up 
 on high, to dwell permanently among men; but its 
 effects are external and most visible, even the growth 
 of a body “ unto a perfect man, unto the measure of 
 the age of the fulness of Christ,” a body which has an 
 orderly arrangement of all its parts, and a hierarchy 
 of officers to continue till the end of all. And the 
 function of this hierarchy is one never to be superseded, 
 and which none but itself, the organ of the Holy Spirit, 
 can perform—namely, to bring its members “ to meet 
 in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the 
 Son of God.” As our Lord says, in the promise, 
 before his Passion, “ I will ask the Father, and he shall 
 give you (the Apostles) another Paraclete, that he may 
 abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth,” so 
 St Paul of the accomplishment after his ascension, 
 “ He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other 
 some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,” 
 yet “ all these things worketh one and the same Spirit.” 
 For as the divine Head took to himself a body, bridging 
 
 14 
 
210 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 thereby the worlds of matter and of spirit, and as “ in 
 him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead corporally ,” 
 so in his Church, in perfect analogy with the Archetype, 
 the visible is the channel of the invisible, and the 
 outward organization is instinct with inward life, and 
 the hierarchy is the gift of the mystical Head, and the 
 instrument of the one sanctifying Spirit. To think 
 otherwise, to disregard the external framework, under 
 a pretence of exalting the inward spirit, is to undo so 
 far the work of Incarnation, and to renew the insanity 
 of those early heretics who in one way or another would 
 “ dissolve ” Christ; for there is no less “ one Body/* 
 than there is “ one Spirit.” 
 
 But if his headship of mystical influx is alone and 
 immediately sufficient, as is so often objected, for the 
 maintenance of external unity, to what end is the 
 creation of this visible hierarchy ? For the objection 
 that the invisible Headship of Christ renders a visible 
 headship unnecessary, and indeed an infringement on 
 his sole divine prerogative, whatever force it may have, 
 tells not more against an oecumenical head of the Church 
 than against every order and officer of the hierarchy. 
 These all, and with them the whole system of sacra¬ 
 ments as well as symbols, become alike unnecessary 
 and even injurious, if each member of the mystical 
 body be knit to Christ immediately without any outward 
 framework. And with what face especially can those 
 maintain that the bishop is the visible head of each 
 diocese, and in being such does not contradict, but 
 illustrate, the Headship of Christ, who yet deny that 
 there is one in the whole Church put in the like place 
 over bishops, and see in such an appointment an 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 211 
 
 infringement on the office of Christ ? Such an argu¬ 
 ment is so profoundly illogical and inconsistent, that 
 one has difficulty in believing it to be seriously held, or 
 is hopeless of bringing conviction to those who cannot 
 see an absurdity. 
 
 Let those, then, who confound together the supreme 
 Headship of Christ over his Church, whereby he com¬ 
 municates to it life and grace, with the inferior and 
 subordinate headship of external unity, see to what 
 their objection tends. It stops at nothing short of 
 destroying the whole visible hierarchy and the sacra¬ 
 mental grace of which it is the channel. Holy 
 Scripture, on the contrary, tells us in these passages 
 that the providence by which the Church is governed 
 resembles that by which this outward universe is ruled, 
 in the subordination of second causes to the supreme 
 cause. Christ repeats as Redeemer his work as 
 Creator, to give life and force to these second causes, 
 and while he works in the members of his body both 
 “ to will and to do,” bestows on them the privilege 
 of co-operating with him. Thus the dignity of supreme 
 Head which belongs to Christ, and is incommunicable, 
 no more takes away the ministry of the external head 
 who is charged with the office of effecting and main¬ 
 taining unity,*than it impedes the ministry of “ apostles, 
 prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors,” to whom 
 Christ entrusted the Church, that by their means it 
 might be brought to sanctity and perfection. 
 
 4. And these words" bring us to the fourth unity 
 mentioned by our Lord. For not until “ he ascended 
 up on high ” did “ he give gifts to men.” And this 
 visible hierarchy, the sign and token of his mystical 
 
212 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Headship and fostering care, is by him quickened and 
 informed with the Holy Spirit, when he is himself 
 invisible at the right hand of the majesty of God. 
 This absence, too, is what he foretold, saying, “ And 
 now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, 
 and I come to thee; Holy Father, keep them in thy 
 name whom thou hast given me; that they may be one, 
 as we also are. While I was with them, I kept them 
 in thy name. . . . And now I come to thee.” These 
 words of our Lord show that it was his will that his 
 believers should be no less one among each other, by 
 an outward and visible union, than they were one by 
 the internal bond of charity, the guidance of one Spirit 
 of Truth, and the influx of the one Vine. And so far 
 we have seen that to guard and maintain that unity 
 under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, he called 
 forth the visible hierarchy, in all its degrees. But 
 what, then, was the external root and efficient principle 
 of this visible hierarchy, when he was gone to the 
 Father ? Did he not likewise provide for the loss 
 occasioned by his own absence, which he had foretold ? 
 The argument of St Paul proves that he did so provide, 
 as well as his own words. For St Paul declares the 
 Church to be “ one Body.” Was it then a body with¬ 
 out a head, or a body with a head invisible ? Or did 
 the Lord of all, having with complete wisdom framed 
 his mystical body in all its parts and proportions, and 
 having set first Apostles, and then, in their various 
 degrees, doctors and pastors, in one single, and that 
 the main point, reverse the analogy of all his doings ? 
 Did he appoint every officer in his household, except 
 the one who should rule all ? Did he construct the 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 213 
 
 entire arch, save only the keystone ? Did he make 
 a bishop to represent his person, and be the centre of 
 visible unity in every diocese, but none to represent 
 that person in the highest degree and to be the centre 
 of unity to the whole Church ? Was it the end of his 
 whole design “ to gather together in one the children of 
 God, that were dispersed, “ in order that there might 
 be “ One Fold,” and did he fail to add “ One Shep¬ 
 herd ”? Yet St Paul declares that “ there are many 
 members, but one body.” How can the distinct and 
 diverse members be reduced to the unity of a body, 
 but by the unity of the head, as the efficient principle ? 
 In accordance with which we may observe that never 
 is the image of a body used in Scripture to represent 
 the Church, but it is thereby shown to be visible; and 
 never is it compared with a body as a type, unless that 
 body is shown complete with its head. Such are the 
 well-known images of one House, Kingdom, City, 
 Fold, and Temple, to which we have had so often to 
 appeal. Even the unity of things in themselves 
 t dissimilar is derived in Scripture from the unity of 
 the Head. Thus the man and the woman are said in 
 marriage to be one, and that in a great mystery, repre¬ 
 senting Christ and the Church, but this because “ the 
 husband is the head of the wife.” And Christ is said 
 to be one with the faithful, because “ the head of every 
 man is Christ ”: and God one with Christ, because 
 “ the head of Christ is God.” If, then, 1 the Church 
 is one body, it receives, according to the reasoning of 
 Holy Scripture, that property from the unity of its 
 head. 
 
 1 Passaglia, p. 254. 
 
214 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Now, such a one body, while yet militant upon 
 earth, St Paul declares it to be, setting forth at the same 
 time the various orders of its hierarchy. Is it, then, 
 a body complete or incomplete ? With a head or 
 without one ? For it is no reply to say that it has indeed 
 a head, but one invisible. That invisible headship 
 did not obviate, as we have seen, the necessity of a 
 visible hierarchy: why then does it obviate the like and 
 even more striking necessity, that the hierarchy too 
 must have its visible head ? If it was, so to say, the 
 very first act of our Lord’s supreme headship over 
 all to the Church—the very token that he had led 
 captivity captive to quicken the visible ministry which 
 he had established by sending down the Holy Spirit 
 to abide with it for ever, is the one place most necessary 
 in that ministry to be the only one left vacant by him ? 
 Is the one officer most fully representing himself to be 
 alone omitted ? “ The perfecting of the saints ” (a 
 
 metaphor taken, as we have seen, from the exact fitting 
 together of the stones in a building), and “ the edifying 
 of the body of Christ,” are described as the end to be 
 reached by those to whom “ the work of the ministry ” 
 is committed; but as this applies in a higher degree 
 to the bishop than to the priest, so it applies in the 
 highest of all to the Bishop of bishops. 
 
 Again, God’s method of teaching by symbols, which 
 runs through the whole Scripture, and the institution 
 of Sacraments, proves to us his will to lead us on from 
 the visible to the invisible, and to make the former a 
 channel to the latter. For “ we are all baptized into 
 one body,” and the outward act both images and con¬ 
 veys the inward privilege. And again in the highest 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 215 
 
 conceivable instance, “ because the bread is one, we 
 being many are one body, who all partake of that one 
 bread.” 1 In like manner the outward unity of the 
 Church must accurately represent, and answer to the 
 inward, which, we know, is derived from the Person of 
 Christ, who is its Head. And so that Person must be 
 specially represented in the outward unity. 
 
 And this is one reason why no unity of a college, 
 whether of Apostles or of bishops, will adequately 
 express that visible headship of which our Lord’s 
 Person is the exemplar. For the root of all lies in a 
 personal unity, that of the Godhead and Manhood, 
 and therefore a merely collective or representative 
 unity cannot express it. And if the Apostle wrote, 
 “ God hath set in the Church first Apostles,” yet he 
 also wrote that the grand result, “ the perfecting of the 
 saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ,” was 
 due to the ministry, not only of Apostles, but of 
 prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors, each in their 
 degree; they all conspire to a joint action, which does 
 not impede the existence of distinct orders in the 
 hierarchy. And his expression that the Apostles are 
 first in this hierarchy without defining their mutual 
 relations to each other, does not exclude those other 
 passages of Scripture which do define those relations, 
 and which make Peter among the Apostles “ the 
 First,” “ the Ruler,” “ the Greater,” the Judah among 
 his brethren, the foundation of the whole building, and 
 the one shepherd in the universal fold. And the more 
 so because St Paul uses three expressions of the 
 Church, two of which are relative , but one absolute. 
 
 1 1 Cor. x 17. 
 
21 6 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 He calls it “ the body of Christ,” and “ Christ,” which 
 are relative; but he also calls it “ one body,” which is 
 absolute. Now, these expressions are not to be severed 
 from each other, as if each by itself would convey the 
 whole idea of the Church, which rather is to be drawn 
 from them altogether. In answer to what the Church 
 is, we must not say that it is either “ the body of 
 Christ,” or mystically called “ Christ,” or set before 
 us as “ one body,” for it is all of these at once, rela¬ 
 tively “ Christ,” and “ the body of Christ,” and abso¬ 
 lutely “ one body.” 
 
 As, then, the former expressions show that the 
 Church is one in reference to Christ , so the latter shows 
 that it is so in itself and simply. For as the Church 
 is called “ Christ,” and “ the body of Christ,” because 
 it is one with Christ by mystical union, drawing its 
 supernatural life from Christ its Head, so it is called 
 “ one body,” because in the variety of members and 
 parts, of which it consists, no one is wanting to its 
 being one body in itself, and to its being seen to be 
 such. But it would neither be so, nor seem to be so, 
 if it were without a visible head, the origin and principle 
 of its inherent visible unity. And so where the Church 
 is called by St Paul “ one body,” he declares that it 
 has a visible head. 
 
 Thus it is that the inherent notion of the Church, 
 as one visible body, and the whole dispensation by 
 which visible things answer to invisible, as their arche¬ 
 types, demand one visible head. Now to this inherent 
 necessity let us add the force of positive teaching. 
 When our Lord in almost his last words to his Church 
 prays to his Father, “ While I was with them in the 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 217 
 
 world, I kept them in thy name—but now I come to 
 thee,” does he not suggest the appointment of another 
 visible head to take that place which he was leaving ? 
 And further, does he not name one to that high dignity, 
 when he calls him “ the Greater,” and “ the Ruler ” 
 among his brethren, committing them to him to be 
 confirmed by him, and making him the shepherd of the 
 whole flock ? What else had he done but prepare them 
 for such a nomination, when he promised one that he 
 should be the foundation of his Church and the bearer 
 of the keys ? . What else did Christians from the be¬ 
 ginning see in such a one, when they called him the 
 head , the centre , the fountain , the root, the principle , 
 of ecclesiastical unity ? 
 
 Let us remark, once more, as a confirmation of the 
 above, that the archetype of visible unity in the Church, 
 which our Lord sets before us in his prayer to the 
 Father, is no other than that most high and solemn of 
 all things conceivable, the mutual indwelling of the 
 Father and the Son. “ Holy Father, keep them in thy 
 name whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, 
 as we also are;” and again, for all successive generations 
 of the faithful, “ that they all may be one, as thou, 
 Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be 
 one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast 
 sent me.” Now, the relation established by our Lord 
 between Peter and the rest of the Apostles, by appoint¬ 
 ing him the visible head of the Church, and between 
 Peter’s successor and all bishops, does represent, so 
 far as earthly things may, and in a degree which nothing 
 else on earth reaches to, the mutual relation of the three 
 divine Persons to each other. For as these are distinct, 
 
218 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 but inseparable, so, too, are the Apostles. As the 
 fulness of the Godhead is first in the Father and then 
 in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, so the fulness of 
 power first promised and given to Peter, is then pro¬ 
 pagated to the other Apostles united with him. As 
 in the Father the economy of the divine Persons is 
 summed up under one head and gathered into a 
 monarchy, so in Peter is gathered up the fulness of 
 ecclesiastical power, which, through union with him, 
 is one in all, as the Church is one, and the Episcopate 
 one. Moreover, as it is the dignity of the Father to 
 be the exemplar, principle, root, and fountain of unity 
 in the Trinity, so is it the dignity of Peter to be the 
 exemplar, principle, root, and fountain of visible unity 
 in the kingdom of God, which is the Church. This 
 is alluded to by Pope Symmachus, thirteen hundred 
 and fifty years ago: “ There is one single priesthood 
 in the different prelates (of the Apostolic See), after 
 the example of the Trinity, whose power is one and 
 indivisible.” 1 And long before him St Cyprian: 
 “ The Lord says, ‘ I and the Father are one/ And 
 again it is written of the Father and the Son and the 
 Holy Spirit, ‘ And these three are one/ Is there a 
 man who believes that this unity, coming from the 
 divine solidity, cohering by heavenly sacraments, can 
 possibly be broken in the Church, and torn asunder 
 by the collision of adverse wills ? This unity he who 
 holds not, holds not the law of God, holds not the 
 faith of the Father and the Son, holds not the truth 
 unto salvation.” 2 
 
 1 Mansi, Concil,, tom. 8, 208. 
 
 2 St Cyprian, de Unitate. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 219 
 
 Whereas, then, all unity in the Body of Christ, the 
 Church, is derived ultimately from the person of its 
 Head, the Word Incarnate, that unity is yet fourfold 
 in its operation, and the efficient principle of one sort 
 is not to be confounded with that of another. There 
 is the mystical unity, which consists in the perpetual 
 divine influx from the great invisible Head to his 
 members; there is the moral or spiritual unity of 
 charity, consisting in the presence of the Holy Spirit 
 in the hearts of believers, and these two are internal 
 and in closest correspondence. There are two likewise 
 external, which may be called the civil or political 
 unity, consisting in the public profession of the same 
 faith, the same truth, for what the law is to temporal 
 states, the faith is to the great spiritual kingdom of 
 Christ. This unity is indeed inspired by the Holy 
 Spirit, but is maintained by him through the visible 
 hierarchy. Lastly, correspondent to the unity of 
 faith, there is the visible unity of external organization, 
 the immediate or efficient principle of which lies in 
 the visible headship over the Church attached by the 
 Lord to St Peter’s chair. The latter two, while they 
 correspond to each other, are indeed subordinate 
 to the former, the unity of faith to that of charity, 
 as the unity of the visible headship to that of the in¬ 
 visible. Yet the very truth of the Body which the 
 Lord has assumed, and the whole analogy of his 
 dealings with men, and the sacraments whereby he 
 makes us “ partakers of the divine nature,” warn us 
 that it is of the highest importance for us to see how 
 external unity is the channel of internal, and the visible 
 the road to the invisible. No words can be more 
 
220 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 emphatic to this effect than those with which the 
 Apostle introduces the description of the visible 
 hierarchy and the divine headship which called it forth. 
 “ There is one Body and one Spirit, as you are called 
 in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, 
 one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above 
 all, and through all, and in us all.” From which he 
 goes on to say, “ Ascending up on high, he gave gifts 
 to men—some apostles, and some prophets, and some 
 evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.” And 
 lastly, “ the Head over all things to the Church,” is 
 “ the Saviour of the Body .” 1 
 
 But if this be so, we can say nothing more highly 
 to exalt St Peter’s office in the Church, for he is the 
 great bond and stay of this outward unity, as even 
 enemies 2 confess. As surely as in a real monarchy the 
 
 1 Eph. iv 4, 8, 11; i 22; v 23. 
 
 2 That such was the belief of the most ancient Fathers, 
 Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, see a 
 most curious admission of the Lutheran Mosheim in his 
 dissertation, De Gallorum Appellationibus, etc., s. 13. And 
 his way of extricating himself is at least as curious as the 
 admission. His words are, “ Cyprian and the rest cannot 
 have known the corollaries which follow from their precepts 
 about the Church. For no one is so dull as not to see that 
 between a certain unity of the universal Church, terminating 
 in the Roman pontiff, and such a community as we have 
 described out of Irenaeus and Cyprian, there is scarcely so 
 much room as between hall and chamber, or between hand 
 and fingers. If the innocence of the first ages stood in the 
 way of their anticipating the snares which ignorantly and 
 unintentionally they were laying against sacred liberty, those 
 succeeding at least were more sharp-sighted, and it was not 
 long in becoming clear to the pontiffs what force in establish- 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 221 
 
 person of the sovereign ties together every part of the 
 political edifice, and is endued with majesty because 
 he is at once the type of God, and concentrates in one 
 the power and dignity of the whole community, so it 
 is in that divine structure in which “ the manifold 
 wisdom of God ” is disclosed to all creation. The 
 point of strength is felt alike by friend and foe. On 
 the Rock of Peter has fallen every storm which the 
 enmity of the evil one has raised for eighteen hundred 
 years; but yet the gates of hell have not prevailed 
 against it. In the Rock of Peter, and the divine 
 promise attached to it, every heart faithful to God and 
 the Church trusts now, as it trusted from the beginning. 
 Many temporal monarchs in their hour of pride have 
 risen against St Peter’s See, but the greatest of them 
 all * 1 declared that no one had ever gained honour or 
 victory in that conflict, and he lived to be the most 
 signal instance of his own observation. “ God is 
 patient, because he is eternal,” and the Holy See pre¬ 
 vails in its weakness over power, and in its justice over 
 cupidity, because while temporal dominion passes 
 from hand to hand, and stays not with any nation, 
 following the gift of God which the poet calls fortune— 
 
 “Perche una gente impera, e l’altra langue, 
 
 Seguendo lo giudizio di costei 
 
 Che e occulta, come in T erba T angue,”— 2 
 
 ing their own power and authority such tenets possessed.” 
 So the ancient Fathers were not intelligent enough to see 
 that the hand was joined to the fingers. But the other alter¬ 
 native was still harder to Mosheim, that Lutheranism was 
 fundamentally heretical and schismatical. 
 
 1 Napoleon. 2 Dante, Inferno. 
 
222 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 the visible kingdom of Christ, which is his Church, 
 lasts for ever and is built upon the Rock of Peter. The 
 long line of descendants from Constantine and from 
 Charlemagne have in their turn impugned and illus¬ 
 trated this glorious privilege of the Papal See. What 
 is there so stable in an empire of commerce, or so solid 
 in the nicely balanced and delicate machinery of a 
 constitutional monarchy, as to exempt them from the 
 action of a universal law, or to ensure their victory 
 in the doomed contest with the Vicar of Christ ? 
 Mightier things than they have done their worst, have 
 oppressed, triumphed, and become extinct, and if it 
 be allowed them in the crisis of their trial to crucify 
 Christ afresh, he will yet reign from the Cross, and 
 “ draw all men unto him.” 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 SUMMARY OF PROOF GIVEN FOR ST PETER’S 
 
 PRIMACY 
 
 It would now seem to be made clear to all that the 
 controversy on St Peter’s Primacy relates generally to 
 the question of inequality in the Apostolic college, and 
 specially to the question, whether Christ, the Founder 
 of the Church, set any one of the Apostles, and whom 
 of them in particular, over the rest. For as, on the 
 one hand, there would have been no room for the 
 superior dignity of the Primacy, had all the Apostles 
 been completely equal, and undistinguished in honour 
 and authority from each other; so, on the other hand, 
 it is the nature of the Primacy to be incapable of even 
 being contemplated, save as fixed on some certain 
 definite subject. 
 
 But to determine the two questions, whether the 
 Apostles stood, or did not stand, on a complete equality, 
 and whether one of them was superior to the rest in 
 honour and dignity, it seemed requisite to examine 
 chiefly four points. 
 
 First, the words and the acts of Christ respecting 
 the Apostles. 
 
 Secondly, his expressions which seemed to mark the 
 institution of a singular authority. 
 
 Thirdly, the mode of writing and speaking usually 
 
 223 
 
224 ST PETER: his name and his office 
 
 and constantly employed by the Evangelists and other 
 inspired writers. 
 
 Lastly, the history of the Church, from its beginning, 
 from which might be drawn conjectures, or even 
 certain proofs, of the power which either all the 
 Apostles had exercised equally, or one had held above 
 the rest. 
 
 For should it become plain, from the agreement of 
 these four sources, that a certain one of the Apostles, 
 and that one Simon Peter, had been distinguished from 
 the rest by the acts and words of Christ, and set over 
 the Apostles; had been invariably described by the 
 inspired writers as the Head and supreme authority; 
 and, in the history of the rising Church, been portrayed 
 in a way which could only befit the universal ruler, no 
 difficulty would remain, and there would be arguments 
 abundant to prove that Christ was the author both of 
 the inequality among the Apostles, and of Peter’s 
 Primacy. 
 
 Now we seem to have proved absolutely what we 
 proposed hypothetically. For we have shown that 
 Christ declared by his whole method of acting, and by 
 solemn words and deeds, that he did not account Peter 
 as one of the rest, but as their Leader, Chief, and Head. 
 
 We have shown it to have been the will of Christ to 
 concentrate in Peter the distinctions which belong to 
 himself, as Supreme Ruler of the Church. For such 
 must be deemed the properties of being the Founda¬ 
 tion, the Bearer of the keys, the Holder of universal 
 authority, the Supporter, and lastly, the Chief Shep¬ 
 herd. Of these there is no one which he did not 
 promise to Peter singly, and confer on Peter singly: 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 225 
 
 no one with which he did not associate Peter, and Peter 
 only, in making him the foundation of his Church, be¬ 
 stowing on him the keys and universal power of binding 
 and loosing, in setting him over his brethren to confirm 
 them, and over his fold as universal Pastor. 
 
 We have shown that the Evangelists place almost 
 the same distinction between the Apostles and Peter, 
 as between Peter and Christ, while still among us. 
 For as they set forth Peter as second after Christ, so 
 do they subject the Apostles to Peter; as the acts and 
 words of Christ occupy the foreground in respect to 
 those of Peter, so do his in respect to those of the 
 Apostles; as Christ, in their histories, is pre-eminent 
 above Peter, so is Peter more conspicuous than the 
 Apostles; and as the Gospels cannot be read without 
 seeing in them Christ as the prototype, so neither can 
 they without seeing that Peter approaches the nearest 
 to Christ. 
 
 We have shown that St Paul spoke of St Peter in no 
 other way than the Evangelists, and that his pre¬ 
 eminence is evident in St Paul’s Epistles, as well as in 
 the Gospels. 
 
 Lastly, we have shown that Peter shines as the 
 superior luminary in the history of the rising Church. 
 The lustre of his deeds in the Acts recalls that of Christ 
 in the Gospels. In the Gospels Christ is named by 
 far most frequently; in the Acts no one occurs so often 
 as Peter. The discourses, the acts, the miracles of 
 Christ occupy every page of the Gospels; and in that 
 portion of the Acts which embraces the history of the 
 whole Church, a very large part has reference to the 
 discourses, the acts, and the miracles of Peter. In the 
 
 15 
 
226 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Gospels, Christ leads, the Apostles follow; in the Acts, 
 Peter takes the precedence, the Apostles attend him. 
 In the Gospels, Christ teaches, and the Apostles, in 
 silence, consent; in the Acts, Peter alone makes speeches, 
 and explains the doctrine of salvation; the Apostles by 
 their silence consent. In the Gospels, Christ pro¬ 
 vides for the Apostolic college, guards it from injury, 
 defends it when attacked; in the Acts, Peter provides 
 for filling up the place of Judas, determines the con¬ 
 ditions of eligibility, enjoins the election, and defends 
 the Apostles before people, rulers, and chief priests, 
 in quality of their head. 
 
 Moreover, he alone is pre-eminent in exercising the 
 triple power of authoritative Teacher , Judge , and 
 Legislator. Of authoritative Teacher , not only towards 
 Jews and Gentiles, whom he is the first to join to Christ, 
 so that the same person who was the Church’s rock 
 and foundation also became its chief architect; but 
 towards the Apostles likewise. They are taught by his 
 ministry that the time was come for the blessing of 
 redemption to be extended no less to Gentiles than to 
 Jews, and that the burden of legal rites could not be laid 
 on the Gentile converts without tempting God. Of 
 Judge , because, while the Apostles are silent, he is the 
 first to hear the causes of the faithful, to erect a tribunal 
 to examine the accused, to issue sentence, and to 
 support and confirm it by inflicting excommunication. 
 Of Head and Supreme Legislator , both when he singly 
 visits Christians in all parts, and provides for their 
 needs, or when he uses the prerogative of first voting, 
 and draws with authority the wording of the law to 
 which the rest are to give a unanimous consent. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 227 
 
 From this compendious enumeration we draw a 
 multifold proof, both of inequality in the Apostolic 
 college, and of Peter’s superiority at once in rank and 
 in real government. 
 
 I. For, first , a college cannot be considered equal, 
 out of which Christ chose one, Simon Peter, whom, 
 by his words and his actions, he showed to be set over 
 all. Now, Christ’s whole course of speaking and 
 acting, of which the Gospels give us the picture, tends 
 to exhibit Peter as chosen out from the rest and set over 
 them. Accordingly, neither is the college of the Apostles 
 equal, nor can Peter be accounted as one of the rest. 
 
 II. Again, one who has received all in common with 
 the rest, but much besides peculiar to himself, special 
 and distinguishing, must seem to be taken out of the 
 common number. Now, such must Peter have been 
 among the Apostles, since Christ granted nothing to 
 them which he denied to Peter, but did grant to Peter 
 many most distinguishing gifts which he gave not to 
 the rest. 
 
 III. And, further, it is apparent that the Foundation 
 and the Superstructure, the Bearer of the keys, and 
 those who inhabit the house or city whose keys he 
 bears, the Confirmer, and those whom he is to confirm, 
 the universal Pastor, and the sheep committed to his 
 charge, cannot be comprehended under the same order 
 and rank. Now the distinctions expressed by the 
 terms Foundation, Bearer of the keys, Confirmer, and 
 universal Pastor, are Peter’s official insignia in reference 
 to, and over, the Apostles themselves. His distinction 
 from them, therefore, and the inequality of the Apostolic 
 college, are plain. 
 
228 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Perhaps this may be put somewhat otherwise even 
 more clearly. And so, IV. Let it be first considered, 
 what is plain in itself, that a distinction carrying pre¬ 
 eminence depends on distinction in perfection and 
 gifts, and follows in a greater or less degree from the 
 greater or less inequality of these, or in case of their 
 parity exists not at all. Next, be what we hold both of 
 reason and of faith remembered, that “ every best gift 
 and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from 
 the Father of lights,” that God is the fountain-head 
 of all good, and that all gifts whatsoever flow over from 
 him to his creatures. From both points it follows 
 that the amount of the creature’s dignity and perfection 
 lies in the participation of divine goods, and is greater 
 or less in proportion to the participation and associa¬ 
 tion with divine goods. So, then, the controversy 
 on Peter’s Primacy and the inequality of the Apostolic 
 college, comes ultimately to this: whether Christ , the 
 God-man , associated Peter singly , above all , with himself , 
 in the possession of those properties on account of which 
 he stands himself related to the Church as its supreme 
 Ruler. For let it be once evident that Christ did so, 
 and it will of necessity be evident also, not only that 
 Peter was preferred to all, but wherein his leadership 
 and headship consisted. And since we have made 
 the inquiry, there is abundant evidence to prove that 
 Christ really did associate Peter singly in five pro¬ 
 perties, which, belonging to himself primarily and 
 chiefly , contain the special cause for which he is the 
 Prince and Supreme Head of the Church. 
 
 For, in truth, it is specially due to the properties 
 and distinctions of Foundation , Bearer of the keys , 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 229 
 
 Establisher , Chief Shepherd , and Lord , who has received 
 all authority from the Father, that the Church has an 
 entire dependence on Christ, is subject to him, and that 
 he enjoys over the Church the right and authority of 
 Supreme Lord and Ruler. But which of these pro¬ 
 perties did he not choose to communicate to Peter, 
 according to the degree in which they were com¬ 
 municable ? He bestowed them all upon Peter, and 
 upon Peter alone, so that Peter also is termed the 
 Foundation , the Bearer of the keys , the Confirmer , the 
 universal Pastor , and the Chief 1 of the whole Church. 
 We see, therefore, a remarkable proof of Peter being 
 distinguished from the rest of the Apostles, and set 
 over them, in his singular and special association with 
 these gifts. 
 
 Again, V., to this tends that disposition of divine 
 wisdom which provides that Peter holds in the Church, 
 and among the Apostles, a rank of dignity greatly 
 resembling that which Abraham among the Patriarchs, 
 and Judah among his brethren, received from God. 
 The former of these relations has been exhibited, and 
 shown not to be arbitrarily conceived, but grounded 
 on due proof. The latter will be presently further 
 touched upon. Now who shall deny Abraham that 
 superiority whereby he was made the Father and 
 Teacher of all the faithful, or strip Judah of the dignity 
 in which he excelled his brethren, and was in many 
 points preferred to them ? As little may any one strip 
 
 1 riyoti/ievos, Luke xxii 26, the very term still given in 
 the East to the head of a religious community; and also, as 
 has been said, that which marks our Lord in the great 
 prophecy of Micah, recorded in Matt, ii 6. 
 
230 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Peter of his authority as supreme teacher, and take 
 from him those singular endowments which make Irm 
 “ the Greater one ” among his brethren and Apostles. 
 
 Especially as, VI., this authority of Peter is clearly 
 confirmed by the mode of writing usual to the Evange¬ 
 lists. For it is monstrous and preposterous to con¬ 
 found with the rest one whom the Evangelists con¬ 
 stantly distinguish and prefer to all. For what more 
 could they do to show their purpose to distinguish 
 Peter, select him from the rest, and place him at all 
 times before all the Apostles ? We may venture to 
 say that they omitted nothing to this end. And so it is 
 absurd to doubt of Peter’s prerogatives, or set him on 
 the same footing with the rest. 
 
 For, indeed, VII., no one would endure it to be 
 denied, from the usual mode of writing of the Evange¬ 
 lists, that Christ was pre-eminent among the Apostles 
 as their Supreme Head, and was removed from them 
 in dignity by an infinite interval. Now, though the 
 Evangelists do not give Peter all things, nor in the same 
 degree, yet they do give 1dm much, and in a degree not 
 dissimilar, to distinguish him from the rest, showing 
 him, as in a nearer relation to Christ, so proportionably 
 exalted above the other Apostles. 
 
 And this proof, VIII., is the more persuasive be¬ 
 cause St Paul follows the very same mode of speaking 
 as the Evangelists. For in repeatedly mentioning 
 St Peter in his Epistles, he always gives him the place 
 of honour, and joins him as near as may be with Christ. 
 Who, then, can doubt Peter held a certain pre-eminent 
 rank ? 
 
 And the more, IX., because what is read in the Acts, 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 231 
 
 and the view of primitive history therein contained 
 looks the same way, and seems set forth with the same 
 purpose. For if you compare together the Acts and 
 the Gospels, the mind at once suggests that the position 
 of Prototype which Christ holds in the Gospels, belongs 
 to Peter in the Acts, and that Peter seems distinguished 
 above the rest of the Apostles in the Acts, as Christ is 
 pre-eminent far above all in the Gospels. Now what 
 is the result of so apparent a likeness ? What is it 
 fair to deduce from such a bearing in the Evangelical 
 and Apostolical history ? Those who are obedient to 
 reasoning, and follow the bright torch of the Scriptures, 
 must confess with us that in this parallelism of both 
 histories, and so of Christ and Peter, is contained a 
 mark and sign, proving that Peter follows next after 
 Christ in dignity and authority. 
 
 X. In authority, I repeat, and, therefore, in that 
 kind of superiority which very far surpasses the limits 
 of precedence and order. For what are the grounds 
 on which we see Peter’s eminence in the Acts, or a 
 resemblance between the Acts when speaking of Peter, 
 and the Gospels when speaking of Christ ? Chiefly 
 these, that Peter is set forth as remarkable, singly, 
 above all, for the use and exercise of the triple power 
 of Judge, Legislator, and authoritative Teacher. Now, 
 the superiority herein asserted not merely distinguishes 
 Peter from the rest, but attaches to him a greater 
 authority over the rest. 
 
 XI. And, indeed, propose an hypothesis which is 
 necessary to solve a complex and undoubted series of 
 facts; such an hypothesis is thereby made a certainty. 
 At least these are the principles of philosophy, from 
 
232 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 which the laws of reasoning will not allow us to depart. 
 Now, Peter’s pre-eminence and supremacy are such an 
 hypothesis, without which you can render no sufficient 
 cause of the facts narrated in the first twelve chapters 
 of the Acts. Accordingly, this supremacy of Peter 
 may be considered as proved. 
 
 XII. Or to put the argument somewhat differently, 
 thus: As the existence of causes is deduced, a posteriori , 
 from effects, so it is perfectly established, a priori , 
 whenever the series and sum of effects, of which the 
 senses are cognizant, are foretold from it with certainty. 
 We deduce the force of gravity necessarily from its 
 effects, a posteriori , yet we likewise determine it to 
 exist, with a judgement no less invariable, a priori , 
 when it is such that we do not merely guess at, but 
 certainly anticipate its sensible effects. Now, Peter’s 
 supremacy is not inaptly compared with this very force 
 of gravity. For it is a characteristic of each to be, 
 in its proper order of things, the source and principle 
 in which effects are involved which afterwards become 
 apparent, whether in this physical universe, or in the 
 supernatural region of the Church. 
 
 Suppose, then, Peter to have held the dignity which 
 we claim for him. What happens in the Acts which 
 might not, nay, which should not, have been antici¬ 
 pated ? Is it his being mentioned above all, his 
 speaking in the name of all, his constantly taking the 
 lead, and his eminence, as if he were the head ? But 
 it could not be otherwise if he alone received from 
 Christ a higher dignity than all the rest. Is it his 
 discharging the office of supreme Judge, Legislator, 
 Teacher, and Doctor ? Is not this just what was to be 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 233 
 
 expected from the rank of Head and universal Pastor ? 
 The Primacy, then, the large authority, and the un¬ 
 shared majesty of Peter, belong to that class of truths 
 which are indubitably believed on the strength of 
 deduction and rational anticipation. 
 
 Having noted, if not all, at least the greater number 
 of those arguments which we have alleged hitherto in 
 favour of our cause, we approach the question which 
 was secondly to be cleared up, what, namely, is the 
 force and nature of that Primacy , which the same 
 arguments prove to belong to Peter. For I know that 
 all Protestants are possessed with the notion that no 
 other pre-eminence should be ascribed to Peter, on 
 Scriptural authority, than one limited to a certain 
 precedency of honour and order. That precedency 
 should be granted Peter they are not unwilling to admit, 
 but supremacy , they stoutly maintain, must not and 
 cannot be allowed him. As to this opinion I 
 consider that it would be much the shorter way to 
 strip Peter utterly of every prerogative, than to attenu¬ 
 ate the distinctions applied to him in Scripture to a sort 
 of shadowy precedency. I consider that nothing is so 
 foreign to truth and the Scripture, as on their testimony 
 to allow that Peter was distinguished from the rest 
 of the Apostles, but to confine that superiority within 
 the very narrow bounds of honour and order. 
 
 For, first , whence do we most evidently and chiefly 
 draw the greater dignity which Peter clearly possessed 
 above the others ? We draw it from the endowments 
 separately bestowed upon him whereby he became 
 the Foundation of the Church, the Supreme Bearer 
 of the keys, the Confirmer of his brethren, and the 
 
234 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 universal Pastor. But are these names, images, signs, 
 expressing a naked superiority of honour and order, 
 or rather designating an authority of jurisdiction and 
 power ? I cannot hesitate to assert either that these 
 forms are most fitted of all to express a singular 
 authority, or that none such exist in language. For, 
 secondly , their force is to ascribe to Peter the main sway, 
 and to mark him as set for the head and leader of all. 
 Who that hears them can, without perverting the 
 natural force of words, or disregarding the laws of in¬ 
 terpretation, imagine anything merely honorary, or 
 figure to himself Peter with a mere grant of 
 precedency ? 
 
 Especially as, thirdly , he is named in Scripture not 
 only as the First , but, comparatively, the Greater, and 
 absolutely, the Superior . 1 Now these terms do, of 
 themselves, and far more if you consider the context 
 of the discourse in which they occur, express a singular 
 authority, and one without rival. An authority, 
 fourthly , kindred to that with which Christ, while yet 
 in his mortal life, presided over the Apostolic college, 
 and administered as Supreme Head the company which 
 he had formed. For we can never sufficiently urge 
 a point which, being in itself most true, is of it¬ 
 self abundantly sufficient completely to set at rest the 
 present controversy. It is this, that Peter’s Primacy 
 proceeds from a singular association with those dis¬ 
 tinctions in virtue of which Christ is considered the 
 Head and Chief, and Supreme Ruler of the Church. 
 So that the more his Primacy is depressed, the more 
 Christ’s prerogatives and dignity are lowered; nor can 
 1 UpuTos, nelfav, rjyov/xevos. See Chapter II. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 235 
 
 he be confirmed to a precedency of honour and order, 
 without Christ’s superiority being shut within wellnigh 
 the same limits. 
 
 Besides, fifthly, are tokens wanting in Scripture which 
 disclose the. nature of Peter’s Primacy ? Are there 
 not effects which unfold the force and quality of the 
 cause from which they spring ? Such tokens there 
 are in abundance, and such effects manifold. These 
 are, the care with which Peter guarded the Apostolic 
 college; the authority with which he visited Christians 
 in every part; the singular exercise of judicial power, by 
 which he established Church discipline and provided 
 for its maintenance; his acts of authoritative teaching; 
 his drawing the form of laws which were to rule the 
 universal Church; and, in short, the wonderful regard 
 with which that Church followed Peter as its Head, 
 and the Steward of all the Lord’s family. What 
 Primacy is it which these tokens set forth ? What 
 cause wdiich these effects demonstrate ? Is it one 
 limited to a precedency of honour and order ? or one 
 pre-eminent by an inherent jurisdiction and authority ? 
 It is a point which needs no further words. For if 
 any there be whose minds are not struck by a candid 
 and sincere exposition of facts, you will in vain attempt 
 to persuade them by arguments. 
 
 Unless, indeed, sixthly , they allow themselves to be 
 forced out of their prejudice by the Scriptures ex¬ 
 hibiting such a Primacy of Peter as compels all others 
 to profess one and the same faith with him, and to 
 maintain one and the same society. For such an 
 obligation could proceed neither from titles of honour 
 nor from precedency. It demanded a stronger cause 
 
236 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 —none other, in fact, but that supreme authority by 
 which Peter is made head of all. 
 
 But we shall feel much more at home in the truth of 
 this deduction, if we inquire a little more deeply into 
 the reasons for selecting one among the rest—namely, 
 Peter—and instituting the Primacy. For the purpose 
 and end proposed in a work have the force of a negative 
 rule by which we may judge with certainty what ought 
 to be done, or could not be left undone. I know well 
 that it does not follow, if anything has been instituted 
 for a certain purpose, that it ought to be endowed only 
 with those properties which appear necessary for the 
 end to be gained; for it may be much more munificently 
 established than the absolute need required. But at 
 the same time I know that there would be a failure in 
 prudence and wisdom in one who, desiring a certain 
 work for a specific end, did not provide it with every¬ 
 thing that could be deemed necessary. Thus the 
 knowledge of the intention and purpose is equivalent, if 
 not to a positive rule, determining all and singular the 
 powers bestowed on any institution, at least to a 
 negative, ascertaining what must be given to it, and 
 what cannot be denied to it. 
 
 Now, is the purpose for which Christ instituted the 
 Primacy, and honoured Peter with its dignity, unknown, 
 or is it most truly ascertained ? The end which moved 
 Christ to make the college of Apostles unequal, and to 
 set Peter as head over it, is it secret, or very con¬ 
 spicuous ? There are in all three classes of reasons 
 which enable us to form, not a mere guess, but an 
 ascertained judgement, as to the purpose of Christ in 
 instituting the Primacy. There are typical reasons, 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 237 
 
 drawn from previous shadowings forth of it: there are 
 analogical , derived from relations of resemblance; and 
 there are real , inherent in the testimonies themselves 
 and the Church’s endowments. Let us briefly exhibit 
 these in order. 
 
 I. By, then, that signal agreement wherewith the 
 two dispensations, the old and the new, correspond to 
 each other, the first in outline and the last as filled up, 
 this rudimentary and that complete, we are plainly in¬ 
 structed that it was Christ’s purpose for Peter, in the 
 new dispensation, to bear the character whose linea¬ 
 ments had been traced before in Abraham, and to be 
 eminent among the Apostles for the prerogative which 
 Abraham had possessed among the Patriarchs. Now, 
 Abraham’s special prerogative and pre-eminence was 
 this, that no one could share either promise, whether 
 carnal or spiritual, which is expressed in Scripture by 
 “ the Blessing,” who was not joined with Abraham by 
 a double—that is, a carnal and spiritual, a physical 
 and moral—bond. For to him and to his seed were the 
 promises made, with the condition that only by con¬ 
 junction with him, and with his seed, they could flow 
 over to the rest. Since, then, in the new dispensation, 
 Peter was to sustain the character of Abraham in the 
 old, and since the only-begotten Son of the Father, 
 having put on the form of a servant, granted to Peter 
 the prerogative which, in prelude of his future order, 
 he had given to Abraham, it is plain that Simon was 
 chosen, honoured with the name of Cephas, and pre¬ 
 ferred above all, in order that from him as supreme 
 minister of Christ, and by union with him as visible 
 head, all the members of the Church’s body might 
 
238 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 enjoy the blessings and fruits of the Christian institu¬ 
 tion. 
 
 The deductions from this are easy to see. For two 
 things chiefly follow, specially declarative of the nature 
 of the Primacy, and showing its intent to be the cause 
 and efficient principle of that unity by which the Church 
 of Christ is one visible body. First, there follows the 
 duty , laid upon all the faithful, of being joined with 
 Peter, if they would not fall from those promises with 
 which Christ has most bountifully enriched his mystical 
 Body, being no other than that which reverences Peter 
 as its visible head. Secondly, there follows Peter’s 
 jurisdiction , in virtue of which he enjoins all to form 
 one communion and society with him, as well as effects, 
 defends, and maintains it. Now, nothing can be 
 stronger than this ordinance of Christ, either to prove 
 a Primacy of supreme jurisdiction, or to unfold its 
 purpose of effecting and maintaining unity. 
 
 The same is the bearing of another type, no less 
 remarkable and no less adapted to explain the whole 
 matter. For, as Israel, “ according to the flesh,” was 
 the shadow of the “ Israel of God,” which was 
 “ according to promise ”P and as the kingdom of 
 Israel was a type and ensample of the kingdom of 
 heaven, so the twelve sons of Israel, the heads of the 
 Israelitish race, represented and imaged out those 
 Twelve whom Christ chose, made princes in his 
 Church, and endowed with supreme authority to build 
 up that Church’s structure, and enrich it day by day 
 with new accessions of spiritual children. Of this type 
 our Lord’s words are the strongest guarantee: “ Amen, 
 
 1 1 Cor. x 18; Gal. vi 16. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 239 
 
 I say unto you, that you who have followed me in the 
 regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the 
 throne of his Majesty, you also shall sit on twelve 
 thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And, 
 again, in the very discourse where he sets forth the 
 future Superior, “ I dispose to you, as my Father 
 disposed to me, a kingdom: that you may eat and drink 
 at my table, in my kingdom; and may sit upon thrones* 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” 
 
 But now, though all the sons of Israel in the former 
 typical kingdom were chiefs, and heads of tribes, yet 
 one of them, that is, Judah, had a special prerogative, 
 which the Scriptures set forth, and which was called 
 the right of the first-born. In virtue of this, on the one 
 hand, Judah was esteemed the lord of his brethren, 
 whom they were to reverence as the parent of the whole 
 family; and on the other, it was only by union with 
 him, and with the seed that was to spring from him, 
 that the other chiefs could count upon the divine 
 blessing. And so the tribe of Judah had a great pre¬ 
 eminence over the other eleven. It was its prerogative 
 to take the lead: 2 it had received from God the promise 
 of an authority 3 which was not to terminate before 
 the old covenant should be transformed into the new. 
 From it was the seed 3 to be expected, which should be 
 the source of blessing to all nations, prefigured as they 
 were by the twelve tribes. The other tribes were 
 bound 4 to union with it, and to the profession of its 
 religion, on pain of falling into schism and forfeiting 
 
 1 Matt, xix 28; Luke xxii 29. 
 
 2 See Num. ii 3-9; x 14; Judg. i 1-3; xx 18. 
 
 3 Gen. xlix 10; and see John iv 22. 4 3 Kings xii. 
 
240 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 the divine covenant. All this was expressed by Jacob 
 in prophetic inspiration, when he addressed Judah as 
 the head and root of his line: “ Judah (praise) art thou, 
 thy brethren shall praise thee: thy hand is on the neck 
 of thine enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down 
 to thee.” It remains, then, to ask who was to represent 
 Judah’s person in the new kingdom, and on whom 
 Christ bestowed the prerogative, the type and image 
 of which had gone before in Judah. It is most plain 
 that this was Simon Peter, for whom we have, there¬ 
 fore, to claim a double prerogative, the one of being 
 the source and origin, from which no one may be 
 separated without severance from the kingdom and 
 promises of Christ: the other of being the first-born, 
 as betokening excellence, by which he was pre-eminent 
 in the possession of special rights among his brethren, 
 the Apostles. 
 
 The former prerogative was expressed by the Fathers 
 of Aquileia, when, in the words of St Ambrose, they 
 stated their belief in St Peter’s chair: “ For thence, as 
 from a fountain-head, the rights of venerable com¬ 
 munion flow unto all.” 1 The latter is confirmed and 
 illustrated by the solemn expressions so often recurring 
 in Christian records, wherein Peter is called “ the 
 Bishop of bishops,” 2 “ the Pastor of pastors,” 3 
 “ first prelate of the Apostles,” 4 “ Patriarch of the 
 whole world,” 5 “ universal bishop,” 0 “ Father of 
 
 1 St Ambrose, Ep. 11. 2 Arnobius Junior in Ps. cxxxviii. 
 
 3 Eucherius of Lyons, Horn, in Vig. St Petri. 
 
 4 Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, on the Trans¬ 
 figuration. 
 
 5 The Archimandrites of Syria to Pope Hormisdas, 
 
 Mansi, 8, 428. 6 St Bernard, de Cons., lib. 2, c. 8, 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 241 
 
 fathers,” 1 “ having the dignity of pastoral headship,” 
 “ the most divine of all heads, arch-pastor of the 
 Church.” 
 
 II. To these reasons, which, as we think, may be 
 called typical , succeed the analogical, which prove with 
 equal evidence the purpose of the Primacy as instituted, 
 and its inherent powers. If we ask what are these 
 reasons from analogy, and to what they point, one only 
 answer can be given commended by any show of truth, 
 that the Primacy was instituted in order that the Church 
 of Christ might seem to be moulded after the analogy 
 of one human body, one house, one kingdom, one city, 
 and one fold. But whence the need that so very 
 remarkable and clear an analogy should be obtained by 
 the institution of the Primacy ? Doubtless because 
 the Primacy was created as a principle, by whose virtue 
 and efficiency what was various and manifold should 
 be gathered up into unity, because it was to be a head 
 in which all the diverse members of the ecclesiastical 
 body should be joined, the centre of the Church’s circle. 
 
 Therefore the reasons drawn from analogy show that 
 the unity of the Church is to be considered the special 
 end for which the Primacy was instituted, and the 
 Primacy itself a principle abundantly provided with 
 all those means by which so admirable a blessing as 
 unity may be first produced and then maintained. 
 
 And this is confirmed by another analogy, well 
 worthy of close attention. This consists in the double 
 and reciprocal relation in which the universal Church 
 stands to particular Churches, and the institution of 
 the Primacy to the institution of bishops, who, by 
 
 1 S Theodore Studites to Pope Leo III, lib. i, Ep. 33. 
 
 16 
 
242 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Christ’s appointment, govern those particular Churches: 
 an agreement, which ought to have especial force with 
 those who believe in the divine institution of bishops. 
 For as the whole society of true believers, and the 
 particular congregations of which it is made up, are 
 called in Holy Scripture and the Christian records by 
 one and the same name of the Church, so is there the 
 very closest analogy between the bond which connects 
 the universal Church, and that which connects its 
 several parts. 
 
 Exactly, then, as it is asserted with great truth of all 
 these particular Churches that they are one house, one 
 city, and one fold, so must this be repeated of the whole 
 Church, since it is set 'forth in Scripture by no other 
 images, and has no less right to claim the property of 
 unity. Hence St Chrysostom’s golden saying, “ If it 
 is the Church of God, it is united and one, not at 
 Corinth only, but in the whole world. For the Church 
 is a name not of division, but of union and harmony;” 1 
 and St Gregory calls it “ the tunic without seam, 
 woven from the top throughout.” 2 
 
 Now, the same reason which existed for instituting 
 particular bishops to govern and preserve in unity 
 particular flocks, moved Christ to institute a universal 
 Primate, and to set him over the whole fold. If in the 
 former case the best description of a particular Church 
 is that of St Cyprian, “ A people united to its priest, 
 and a flock adhering to its pastor ”; 3 in the latter the 
 form of unity , which Christ established in the universal 
 
 1 In 1 Cor., Horn. I., n. 1. 
 
 2 St Greg. Naz., Orat. 12, alluding to lohn xix 23. 
 
 3 St Cyprian, Ep. 79. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 243 
 
 Primate, no less imposes on all, both taught and teachers, 
 the necessity of saying with St Jerome, “I, following 
 none as the first save Christ, am joined in communion 
 with vour blessedness—that is, with the chair of Peter. 
 Upon that rock the Church is built, I know. Whoever 
 outside of this house eateth the lamb, is profane. If 
 any one was not in the ark of Noe, he shall perish. 
 I know not Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I am ignorant of 
 Paulinus. Whoever gathers not with thee, scatters— 
 that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist.” 1 
 
 III. A great accession of evidence will accrue to 
 what we have said, if we attentively consider the 
 reasons deduced from the texts containing the institu¬ 
 tion of the Primacy, and those proceeding from the 
 inherent properties of the Church. To speak of the 
 texts first: 
 
 1 . Either they carry no meaning with them, or they 
 prove at least this, that Christ, in instituting the 
 Primacy, intended, 2 while exhibiting the whole Church 
 under the usual image of a house and building, to give 
 it a foundation , the bond at once of its strength and 
 unity. Again, while communicating to one the special 
 gift of unwavering faith, our Lord intended to make 
 him the channel for establishing and confirming 3 all 
 the faithful; to render 4 the fold which he had gathered 
 out of all nations one by the unity of a supreme visible 
 pastor , and to constitute 5 one of such eminence as to be 
 the Ruler and the Greater among all. 
 
 But can we, or ought we, to conclude from this as to 
 the purpose of the Primacy, and as to its constituent 
 
 1 St Jerome, Ep. 57. 2 Matt, xvi 18. 3 Luke xxii 31, 33. 
 
 4 John xxi 15. 5 Luke xxii 26. 
 
244 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 force and principle ? Assuredly these texts prove 
 directly and categorically that the Primacy was set up 
 as the efficient principle whereby to mould the Church’s 
 visible unity, and was endowed with all that authority, 
 without which unity could neither have been produced 
 nor maintained in existence. 
 
 2. And in this judgement we shall be confirmed if 
 we investigate the properties of which the Church 
 cannot be deprived, without taking a form and an 
 appearance different from that which it received from 
 Christ. The first which occurs is that identity by 
 which the Church must always be like itself, and 
 cannot be substantially different at its beginning and 
 in its growth; one thing when it had Christ for its visible 
 head, and another when his words had come to pass, 
 “ A little while, and now you shall not see me because 
 I go to the Father.” Now, at its first beginning in the 
 time of our Lord’s mortal life, the Church presented 
 the form of a society governed by the supreme power 
 of one, and deriving its visible unity from one supreme 
 visible head. That it might not subsequently lose this 
 identity, and put on another form, our Lord chose 
 a Primate to be the principle of visible unity, and to 
 have the power of head over the whole body. 
 
 And indeed this was necessary to maintain the double 
 character and test of unity 1 and Catholicity , 2 by which 
 the Church is distinguished in Holy Scripture and in 
 the records of Christian antiquity. As to unity , not 
 
 1 Unity. John x 16; xvii 20-23; 1 Cor. xii 12-31; 
 Eph. ii 14-22; iv 5; 1 Cor. i 10. 
 
 2 Catholicity. Luke xxiv 47; Mark xvi 20; Acts i 8; 
 ix 15; Rom. ix 18; Col. i 8-23. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 245 
 
 only are the expressions in the creeds, and the more 
 ample explanation of them in the Fathers, 1 most clear 
 and emphatic, but likewise what is said in the Holy 
 Scriptures of the end for which the Church was founded 
 by Christ. For the grace 2 of God our Saviour hath 
 appeared to all men, instructing those who had 3 changed 
 the truth of God into a lie, and liked not to have God 
 in their knowledge, that denying 4 all these things they 
 might become an acceptable people, and enlightened 5 
 by Christ, and sanctified in the truth, might by the 
 profession of one faith be one 6 body and one spirit, in 
 the same manner 7 in which the Father and the Son 
 are one, and might be divided 8 by no sects and dissen¬ 
 sions, which are manifestly the works of the flesh, not 
 of God, who is not the God 9 of dissension but of peace. 
 For therefore Christ, 10 the only-begotten of the Father, 
 gave his blood for it, to present it to himself a glorious 
 Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, 
 which would break peace and disturb the agreement 
 of faith. It was to be holy and without blemish, 11 
 immovable through that rock on which it rests, and 
 
 1 For all the Fathers hold the doctrine thus expressed by 
 
 St Hilary of Poitiers on Ps. cxxi n. 5. “ The Church is one 
 
 body, not mixed up by a confusion of bodies, nor by each 
 of these being united in an indiscriminate heap and shapeless 
 bundle; but we are all one by the unity of faith, by the society 
 of charity, by concord of works and will, by the one gift 
 of the sacramentum in all.” No notion of the Church’s unity 
 in England, it may be remarked, outside of Catholicism, 
 goes beyond “ the indiscriminate heap and shapeless bundle.” 
 
 2 Tit. iin. 3 Rom. 125. 
 
 4 Tit. ii 14, with 1 Pet. ii 25. 
 
 6 Eph. iv 4. 7 John xvii 21. 
 
 9 1 Cor. xiv 33. 10 Eph. v 27. 
 
 5 John xvii 17. 
 8 Gal. v 19, 20. 
 11 Matt, xvi 18. 
 
246 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 against which not even the gates of hell shall prevail. 
 It was to be wisely ordered as the house of God, 1 in 
 which 2 all hear his voice, who is set over as the ruler, 3 
 and has received his brethren to be confirmed, 4 and the 
 care 6 of the whole flock. It was to be endued 6 with 
 virtue from on high, and strengthened by the Spirit 
 of truth 7 who proceeds from the Father; possessing 
 the power of authoritative 8 teaching, which if any hear 9 
 not, nor obey, they are to be accounted as heathens and 
 publicans, by a judgement which binds both in heaven 
 and on earth. Are there any who do not see that in 
 this description, which sets forth the Church’s pre¬ 
 ordained end, its proper character and very lineaments, 
 the Primacy itself is included, and exhibited as the 
 principal cause which effects the unity of the whole 
 body ? I hardly think that any such can be, so 
 apparent is the bond which ties these several parts 
 together. 
 
 Yet perhaps this may be more vividly brought out if 
 we shortly mention the common opinions among 
 Protestants on the Church’s unity. For, omitting 
 those who hold an invisible 10 Church, and so expunge 
 visible unity from its attributes, all the other opinions 
 may be reduced to three: 
 
 A. Anglicans, whose belief has been set forth, besides 
 
 1 1 Tim. iii 15. 2 Matt, xviii 17. 3 Luke xxii 26. 
 
 4 Luke xxii 31, 32. 5 lohn xxi 15. 6 Acts i 4-8. 
 
 7 John xv 26. 8 Matt, xxviii 20. 9 Matt, xviii 18. 
 
 10 The first Reformers fell into this grievous error because 
 they had no other way to defend their schism. They may 
 be passed over at present, as in most even of the Protestant 
 confessions visibility is reckoned among the notes of the 
 Church. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 247 
 
 Pearson on the Creed, with more than usual care by 
 Dodwell (in his Treatise on the Bishop as the Principle 
 of Unity, and St Peter’s Primacy among the Apostles 
 as the Exemplar of Unity), begin by noting that the 
 question of visible unity cannot be determined in the 
 same way as it respects the universal Church, or each 
 particular Church. But why ? Because, they say, 
 it was indeed the will of Christ that each particular 
 Church should have a double unity, inward and out¬ 
 ward, but it was not his will that the whole Church, 
 the sum of these particular Churches, should have the 
 same mark and test. Because it was his will that 
 both unities should characterize the particular Churches, 
 to use a school phrase, separately and distributively , but 
 not the whole body and the sum of these taken col¬ 
 lectively. Whence they conclude that bishops were 
 chosen and made, by the command of Christ, to preside 
 over particular Churches, and be in them the source 
 and principle of external unity, but that a Primate was 
 not chosen to whom the whole Church should be 
 subject, and on whom its external unity should depend. 
 
 At this argument one is lost in astonishment, how 
 it could have suggested itself to learned men, and 
 gained their assent. For what had they to prove, or 
 how could they assure themselves, or others, as to 
 either of these two points, that external unity was 
 necessary to particular Churches but not to the whole 
 Church, or that the institution of bishops presiding 
 over particular Churches came from Christ, yet not 
 that of the Primate, whose charge was to rule, ad¬ 
 minister, and maintain in unity the whole Church ? 
 Had they texts wherein to trust ? But as often as the 
 
248 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Bible speaks of the Church’s unity, it means that 
 Church which is called “ the kingdom of God,” “ the 
 kingdom of Christ,” and “ the kingdom of heaven,” 
 which is termed “ the inheritance of the Gentiles,” and 
 embraces with a mother’s bosom and a mother’s love 
 the whole race of man from one end of the earth to the 
 other. Had they creeds to cite ? But in these unity 
 is attributed to that Church only, which is so termed 
 absolutely, and very often has the epithet of Catholic. 
 
 Moreover, is the word Church, in its unrestricted 
 application, of doubtful meaning ? On the contrary, 
 it is specially defined as well in the Holy Scriptures, 1 
 where it expresses of itself the whole society of be¬ 
 lievers, as in the Fathers, such as Irenasus, 2 Tertullian, 3 
 Clement 4 of Alexandria, Origen, 5 Hilary, 6 Jerome, 7 
 and all the rest without exception, who, in using it, 
 express the whole Christian people joined in one sole 
 communion. It is defined also by Councils, as in the 
 Canons of Laodicea, 8 Carthage, 9 and Constantinople, 10 
 where the Church means the whole assembly of 
 orthodox believers, as distinct from heretics and 
 schismatics. It is defined in the most ancient ex- 
 
 1 1 Cor. vi 4; x 32; xi 22; xii 28; Eph. i 22; iii 10-21; 
 v 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Col. i 18-24; 1 Tim. iii 15. 
 
 2 Irenaeus, lib. 1, c. 3; lib. 3, c. 4. 
 
 3 Tertullian, de Praesc., c. 4. 
 
 4 Clement, Stromat., lib. 7, 17. 
 
 5 Origen in Cantic. Horn. 3. 
 
 6 Hilary, de Trin., lib. 7, c. 12. 
 
 7 Jerome, adv. Lucifer. 
 
 8 Concil. Laodic., Can. 9, 10. 
 
 9 Concil. Carthag. 4, Can 71. 
 
 10 Concil Constant. 2, Act 3. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 249 
 
 planation of the creeds, the unanimous meaning of 
 which Tertullian seems to have rendered in saying: 
 “ And, therefore, so many and so great Churches are 
 that first one from the Apostles, whence all come 
 So all are first, and all Apostolical, while all set forth 
 one unity, while they have interchange of peace, the 
 appellation of brotherhood and the common rights of 
 friendship, privileges regulated by no other principle 
 than the tradition of the same sacramentum Lastly, 
 
 the very heretics 2 defined this term, who, in order to 
 make themselves understood, could use the word 
 Church in no other sense than to express the universal 
 assembly of the faithful. 
 
 After this it is not at all necessary to ask Anglicans 
 afresh if they have ancient Fathers whose authority they 
 can quote. What these thought and believed about 
 the Church’s unity is fully shown by those whom we 
 have quoted, and by the words of Irenaeus, “ The 
 Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, 
 yet, as if it were contained in the same house, carefully 
 preserves the rule of faith, and holds it as if she had 
 one soul and one heart, nay, and teaches it with one 
 consent, as if she spoke with one voice. For although 
 different tongues occupy the world, yet, the force of 
 tradition is one and the same, nor do the Churches of 
 Germany, Spain, Gaul, the East, Egypt, Libya, and 
 the middle of the world embrace any other faith. But 
 as there is one and the same sun shining over the whole 
 world, so the preaching of the truth shines every - 
 
 1 De Praesc., c. 20. 
 
 2 See in the sixth act of the second Nicene Council the 
 quotations from the iconoclast synod of Constantinople. 
 
250 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 where and enlightens all men who desire its know¬ 
 ledge.” 1 
 
 What, then, was the motive of Anglicans in main¬ 
 taining the unity of particular Churches, and the in¬ 
 stitution of bishops cohering with it, to be necessary, 
 while they denied the necessity of unity in the Church 
 universal, or of a Primate’s institution, to effect 
 universal unity ? What induced them to assert incom¬ 
 patibilities, and defend them as a matter of life and 
 death ? The evidence of the Scriptures, and the un¬ 
 questionable belief of all Christian antiquity, extorted 
 from them the acknowledgement that unity was a mark 
 of the Church, and the ascription to Christ of the 
 institution of bishops as necessary for the forming and 
 maintaining unity. But the fixed purpose of defending 
 their schism , and their determination to reject the Primacy , 
 urged them to deny that unity in the whole Church was 
 ordered and provided for by Christ. The result of 
 these affirmatives and negatives was a doctrinal 2 
 monster of incomparable ugliness, an outrage on 
 the light both of nature and of revelation, as 
 incapable of defence as abhorrent from reason and 
 from grace. 
 
 B. The second Protestant opinion has been set forth 
 at length by Vitringa, 3 and supported with all his in- 
 
 1 Adv. Haereses, lib. 1, c. 3. 
 
 2 Even the Puritan Cartwright observed, “If it be 
 necessary to the unity of the Church that an Archbishop 
 should preside over other Bishops, why not on the same 
 principle should one Archbishop preside over the whole 
 Church of God ?”—Defence of Whitgift. 
 
 3 Sacred Observations, lib. 5, c. 7, on the hypothetical 
 external communion of Christians. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 251 
 
 genuity. It is that of those who distinguish a twofold 
 unity of the Church, one interior, spiritual, proceeding 
 from union with one and the same invisible Head, Jesus 
 Christ, and completed and perfected by the inhabita¬ 
 tion of the Holy Spirit and the bestowal of heavenly 
 gifts; the other exterior, visible, depending on pro¬ 
 fession of the same faith, participation of the same 
 sacraments, obedience to the same superiors. Having 
 made this distinction, they proceed to argue for the 
 purpose of proving that while the former unity is 
 universal and absolutely necessary, the latter is 
 neither universal nor necessary, save hypothetically 
 (of which hypothesis Vitringa nowhere explains 
 the nature), and so is capable both of extension and 
 restriction. In a word, they attach simple and 
 absolute necessity and universality to the spiritual 
 and invisible unity, but by no means to the external 
 and visible. 
 
 But for this what are their authorities ? Can they 
 allege the most ancient Fathers in unbroken succession 
 from the Apostles ? Nay, they candidly confess that 
 the Fathers thought external and visible unity simply 
 and absolutely necessary, and not those only of the 
 fourth and fifth centuries, but those of the second and 
 third. Witness Vitringa , 1 who says, “ If we consult 
 on this point the doctors of the ancient Christian 
 Church, they seem on all hands to have embraced the 
 view that the communion of believers in holy rites, 
 in the supper of the Lord, and in reciprocal offices of 
 brotherly love, was maintained absolutely, not hypo- 
 
 1 See also the testimony of Mosheim, quoted above, 
 p. 216, note. 
 
252 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 thetically. They supposed, and seem to have per¬ 
 suaded themselves, that all who were joined to the 
 Christian Church by the due rite of baptism after 
 previous preparation, were really regenerated by the 
 grace of the Holy Spirit, and so that the Christian 
 Church was an assembly of men, who in far greater 
 part, saving hypocrites of whom a few might exist in 
 secret, participated in the renewing and sanctifying 
 grace of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, to be joined 
 to the Church was much the same as being joined to 
 the heavenly city; to have one’s name on the Church’s 
 books, much the same as to have it in God’s book of 
 life. On the other hand, to be severed from Church 
 communion, or, to use Tertullian’s words, ‘ to be de¬ 
 prived of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the 
 Lord, and to be debarred from all brotherly com¬ 
 munion,’ was to risk salvation, and incur the danger of 
 eternal death. That is, they supposed that no one 
 was saved out of the external communion of the Church, 
 which they confounded with the mystical and spiritual 
 communion of the saints. And again, kindred points 
 to these and resting on the same principle, that Bishops 
 represent the office and person of Jesus Christ himself 
 in the Christian Church; that those who separated 
 themselves from them when rightly and duly elected, 
 separated themselves at the same time from the com¬ 
 munion of Christ himself; that those who were ab¬ 
 solved by the bishops after penance publicly performed 
 according to the canons of ecclesiastical discipline, 
 restored to their rank, and honoured with the kiss of 
 peace, were absolved in the heavenly court by God 
 himself and Christ the Judge. Lastly, which was the 
 
ST PETER: HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 253 
 
 most audacious 1 of all such hypotheses, that it was all 
 over with the salvation of all who separated themselves 
 in schism from the external communion of the Church 
 and its rites, although hitherto they had neither been 
 tainted with heresy, nor involved in crimes destructive 
 of the Christian 2 profession. It would be easy for me 
 to support at length each one of these particulars by the 
 sentiments and the discipline of the doctors of the 
 primitive Church, were they unknown to the more 
 instructed, or did my purpose allow it. I now only 
 appeal to Cyprian’s letter to Magnus, in the whole of 
 which he supposes and urges the very hypotheses which 
 I have been enumerating; and amongst the rest, speak¬ 
 ing of Novatian’s schism, he writes thus distinctly: 
 ‘ But if there is one Church which is beloved by Christ, 
 and alone is cleansed in his laver, how can he who is 
 not in the Church,’ (that is, in communion with that 
 particular external assembly which makes a part of the 
 external Catholic Church) ‘ be loved by Christ, or 
 washed and cleansed in his laver ? Wherefore as the 
 Church alone possesses the water of life, and the power 
 
 1 Thus the universal belief of the Fathers from the begin¬ 
 ning is charged with audacity. It is difficult not to be struck 
 with the utter antagonism of feeling which separates Pro¬ 
 testants from the whole body of the Fathers. The state¬ 
 ments here ascribed, and truly, by Vitringa to them, would 
 be viewed in modern English society as the very insanity 
 of bigotry. 
 
 2 Because to rend Christ’s mystical body, and to subvert 
 that unity for which He had prayed the Father, was regarded 
 by them as a crime of the deepest dye. In modern England 
 it would be consecrated by the vainglorious plea of “ civil 
 and religious liberty.” 
 
254 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 of baptizing and washing a man, let him who asserts 
 that any one can be baptized and sanctified with 
 Novatian, first show and teach that Novatian is in the 
 Church, or presides over the Church} For the Church 
 is one, which, being one, cannot be at once within and 
 without. For if it is with Novatian, it was not with 
 Cornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who suc¬ 
 ceeded the Bishop Fabian in regular order, and whom 
 the Lord hath glorified with martyrdom over and 
 above the rank of his high priesthood, Novatian is 
 not in the Church .’ 2 It is the precise thing which we 
 have been stating.” 
 
 But where did Vitringa and the supporters of his 
 doctrine get courage to contradict the whole line of 
 Fathers and their unbroken tradition ? You would 
 surely expect from them decisive arguments, and ex¬ 
 pressions from Holy Writ distinctly laying down no 
 other than a hypothetical necessity of visible and 
 external unity. But you may search in vain all over 
 the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Acts, for any such. 
 Not only is there no mention in them of such a dis¬ 
 tinction as that invisible unity is absolutely necessary, 
 while external and visible unity is but hypothetically so; 
 but this latter is plainly enjoined and set forth as the 
 note which the mystical body of Christ, the true Church , 
 cannot be without; and its violation is reckoned among 
 
 1 The unrestricted expression, “ to preside over the 
 Church,” used by Cyprian of Novatian, who claimed to be 
 Peter’s successor, contains a clear indication that the fold 
 entrusted to Peter was as wide as the Church itself. It is 
 the same Church in the two clauses, but in the former it 
 must be understood universally, 
 
 2 Ep. 69. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 255 
 
 those works of the flesh which exclude from the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 How, besides, can that be deemed necessary only 
 under hypothesis, without holding and faithfully main¬ 
 taining which you cut yourself off from the very 
 fountain of blessing, and transgress and subvert the 
 order appointed by God for attaining salvation ? 
 Such an assertion would be senseless. Yet in most 
 of the Protestant professions—the Helvetic, art. xiv, 
 the Gallican, art. xvi, the Scotch, art. xxvii, the Belgian, 
 art. xxviii, the Saxon, art. xii, the Bohemian, art. viii, 
 and that of the Remonstrants, art. xxii—it is laid down 
 as an indisputable principle, “ That the heirs of eternal 
 life are only to be found in the assembly of those 
 called.” What, then, do those who violate outward and 
 visible unity, and withdraw from the outward and 
 visible body of the Church ? They stop up the very 
 way which Providence has opened for their obtaining 
 “ the inheritance of sons.” 
 
 For indeed Christ is the Saviour of his mystical 
 body the Church , 1 which therefore he purchased with 
 his own blood, enriched with promises , 2 provided with 
 all manner of graces, and most nobly dowered with 
 truth, charity, and the Holy Spirit , 3 to give her at last 
 salvation, and “ the weight of eternal glory .” 4 But 
 have these things reference to a visible or an invisible 
 Church ? To a Church one and coherent, or rent 
 and torn by factions ? It is the Church which Christ 
 founded, which he made to be “ the light of the world ,” 6 
 
 1 Eph. v 23-25. 2 Eph. iv 15-17. 
 
 3 John xiv 16-26; xv 26; xvi 7. 
 
 4 2 Cor. iv 17. 5 Matt, v 14. 
 
256 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 bound together by manifold 1 external links, ordered to 
 be one with the unity of a house, a family, a city, a 
 kingdom; with that unity wherewith the Father and the 
 Son are one. In it he placed 2 pastor and doctors to 
 bind and to loose, and to watch over the agreement of 
 all the parts; and he committed to Peter the charge to 
 rule and to feed. Such, then, as fall off from one 
 single visible Church are of the condition of those whom 
 the Apostles of the Lord foretold, that “ in the last 
 time there should come mockers, walking according to 
 their own desires in ungodliness: these are they who 
 separate themselves, sensual men, having not the 
 Spirit ”: 3 these tear themselves from their Saviour, 
 lose the fruit purchased by his blood, and fall from the 
 inheritance which the Head obtained for his body and 
 his members. 
 
 Therefore the necessity of union with the one single 
 visible Church is as great as the necessity of union with 
 Christ the Head, as the necessity of the remission of 
 sins, “ for outside of it they are not remitted: for this 
 Church has specially received the Holy Spirit in 
 earnest, without whom no sins are remitted .” 4 It is as 
 great as the necessity of charity, “ for it is this very 
 
 1 Compare Luke xii 8, 9, with Matt, x 32; Mark viii 38; 
 Rom. x 10; and again, Mark xvi 15, with Matt, xxviii 19; 
 Acts ii 41; viii 36; xix 5; 1 Cor. xii 13; and Matt, xxvi 28, 
 with Luke xxii 19; 1 Cor. x 17; xi 21; and Eph. iv 11, with 
 Acts xx 28; Tit. i 5. 
 
 2 Compare Eph. iv 11-16, with 1 Cor. xii 13-31; and 
 Matt, xviii 18, with John xx 21; Acts xv 41; xvi 4; 2 Cor. 
 x 6; 1 Tim. v 20; Tit. i 93; ii 15. 
 
 3 Jude 18; 2 Pet. iii, 2, 3. 
 
 4 Augustin, in Enchirid., c. 63. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 257 
 
 charity which those who are cut off from the com¬ 
 munion of the Catholic Church do not possess ,” 1 
 whence “ whatsoever rhing heretics and schismatics 
 receive, the charity which covers a multitude of sins is 
 the gift of Catholic unity and peace .” 2 It is as great, 
 in short, as the necessity not to involve oneself “ in 
 a horrible crime and sacrilege ,” 3 “ in the greatest of 
 evils ,” 4 one “ by which Christ’s passion is rendered of 
 no effect, and his body is rent .” 5 Thus 6 the sin is com¬ 
 mitted of which Christ said, “ It shall not be forgiven, 
 neither in this world nor in the world to come,” and one 
 is estranged “ from the sole Catholic Church, which re¬ 
 tains the true worship, in which is the fountain of truth, 
 the home of faith, the temple of God, into which if 
 any one enter not, or from which if any one go out, he 
 loses the hope of life and eternal salvation .” 7 Can any 
 necessity be greater, or less conditional than this ? Or 
 what can be more plain than this statement of the 
 simple and absolute necessity of visible unity and 
 outward communion ? 
 
 Where, then, are we to find the cause which induced 
 so many learned and able Protestants first to imagine 
 this distinction between the necessity of internal and 
 external communion and unity, and then to deceive 
 themselves and others with such a mockery ? The 
 
 1 Aug. in Tract, de Symb., c. 11. 
 
 2 Aug. de Baptismo, cont. Donat., lib. 3, c. 16. 
 
 3 Aug. Cont. Litt. Petiliani, lib. 1, c. 21-22; lib. 22, c. 
 13-23; lib. 3, c. 52. 
 
 4 Optat., lib. 1. 
 
 6 Ambros. de Obitu Satyri Fratris, lib. 1, n. 47. 
 
 6 Idem de Poenit., lib. 2, 4. 
 
 7 Lactant. Div. Instit., lib. 3, c. 30. 
 
 17 
 
258 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 real cause was, as I believe, that having denied the 
 institution of the Primacy, and the authority lodged in 
 it for the purpose of forming and maintaining unity, 
 they were without a criterion or proof in virtue of 
 which, among so many Christian societies divided 
 from and condemning each other, they could safely 
 choose the one with which they were to be joined in 
 communion, and the outward unity of duty and 
 obedience. For they would readily conclude that the 
 unity so often commended in Scripture, and so earnestly 
 enjoined, could not be external, since God, who does 
 not command impossibilities, had instituted no visible 
 sign to mark that company of Christians, which alone 
 among all the rest was the continuation and develop¬ 
 ment of the Church founded by Christ, and built up 
 by the Apostles. 
 
 C. From the same source must the third Protestant 
 doctrine on unity be derived. Jurien 1 filled up the 
 sketch of this, which Casaubon , 2 Claude , 3 and 
 Mestrezat 4 had drawn, and it became so popular as not 
 only to infect a large number of Protestants, but to exert 
 a withering influence on certain unstable members of 
 the Catholic body. It teaches that we must believe not 
 only in an internal and spiritual, but in a visible and 
 external unity, for the Scriptures plainly urge its 
 necessity, and Christian tradition fully describes it, 
 so that there is not a truth more patent or established 
 on greater authority. This unity, however, is restricted 
 
 1 Le vrai Systeme de l’Eglise. 
 
 2 Answer to Cardinal Perron. 
 
 3 Defense de la Reforme, p. 200. 
 
 4 Trait6 de l’Eglise, p. 286. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 259 
 
 within narrow bounds, and confined to the articles 
 called fundamental, though as to how many these are 
 no one defender of the system is agreed with another. 
 For it is sufficient for Christians not to differ in the 
 profession of such articles for them to be deemed 
 members of one and the same Church. Whence they 
 infer that one and the same true Church is made up out 
 of almost all Christian societies, the Roman, the Greek, 
 the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Waldensian, the 
 Lutheran, the Anglican, and the Calvinist; for their 
 differences, important as they are, offer no hindrance to 
 the unity which Christ enjoined, the Apostles preached, 
 the creeds express, and universal tradition demands. 
 
 As Bossuet , 1 the brothers Walemburg , 2 Nicole , 3 and 
 even some Protestants have most fully dealt with this 
 portentous opinion, there is no need to urge much 
 against it here. I prefer repeating the question, What 
 occasion had the Protestants to get up so unheard-of 
 a paradox, and a system so absurd ? It was twofold: 
 one theoretical, and the other practical. 
 
 The theoretical was this. The crime of heresy, de¬ 
 picted in Scripture and Christian antiquity with colours 
 so dark, had gradually lost its foulness and its magni¬ 
 tude in the minds of Protestants, who had, at length, 
 come to the pass of reckoning religious, as well as civil, 
 liberty, among the unquestionable rights of man. As 
 if, all other human acts being subject to a law, those 
 alone which proceed from the intellect are exempt: 
 
 1 Bossuet, writings Against Jurien. 
 
 2 The brothers Walemburg, Treatise on Necessary and 
 Fundamental Articles. 
 
 3 Nicole, de l’Unite de l’Eglise. 
 
260 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 as if the difference between right and wrong, which 
 embraces the whole range of man’s life, did not relate 
 to its noblest part, in the acts of the intellect and the 
 reason: as if God had laid down a law of justice, charity, 
 fortitude, and prudence, but entirely omitted a law 1 of 
 faith: as if the will submitted to a law of good , but the 
 mind owned no law of truth; or as if God cared for the 
 boughs and leaves, but took no thought of the root . 2 
 But what could Protestants do ? Having allowed to 
 all full licence of thought, and overthrown the authority 
 which ruled the mind, they were forced, while they kept 
 the name of heresy, to give up the thing meant by it, 
 and the effects springing from that thing. They were 
 forced to attenuate to the utmost the crime of heresy, 
 and to reduce to the smallest possible number articles 
 necessary to be believed by all; they were forced to 
 extend bevond all measure the Church’s limits, while 
 they contracted beyond all measure the range of 
 necessary unity. 
 
 Besides the theoretical, there was a practical occasion 
 in those schisms which, not merely in later or in 
 mediaeval times, but in the first ages also, rent the 
 Christian society. Jurien and Pfaff appeal to these, 
 pretentiously enumerating those which arose under 
 Popes Victor, Cornelius, Stephen, Urban VI, and 
 Clement VII, and those named from Donatus, Meletius, 
 
 1 See the recognition of this law, Mark xvi 16; Matt, xxvii 
 18-20; Luke xii 8, 9; Rom. x 10. 
 
 2 Such the Fathers call Faith, terming it, “ the beginning 
 and foundation,” “ the greatest mother of virtues,” “ the 
 principle of salvation,” “ the prelude of immortality,” “ the 
 clear eye of divine knowledge,” “ the fountain of all wisdom.” 
 See Suicer, art. -n-U rris. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 261 
 
 and Acacius. Then they ask if the true Church of 
 Christ can be thought to consist in one single society 
 perfectly at union with itself. They allege many con¬ 
 jectures against this, but dwell on the argument that 
 in defect of a visible external test , such an assertion could 
 not be maintained without imposing upon all a most 
 intolerable burden of searching out where the true doctrine 
 is and the legitimate ministerial succession: for it is 
 not until these are found, that one single society will 
 be recognized, with which, as the only true Church, 
 unity of communion is to be kept. 
 
 Now, I confess that I do not see how this argument 
 can be met, if the institution of the Primacy, and its 
 proper function to form and maintain unity, be re¬ 
 jected. For, without this, by what visible token 
 among so many Christian societies, divided by in¬ 
 testine dissension, and condemning each other, can 
 you distinguish the one which has the character of the 
 true Church and the right to exact communion with 
 itself ? There is none to be found; and so, either all 
 hopes of finding the true Church must be relinquished, 
 or an inquiry must be undertaken into purity of doctrine 
 and legitimate ministerial succession, on the termina¬ 
 tion of which the only true Church will at last be found. 
 But as this latter course is to by far the greater number 
 of men impossible, dangerous 1 to all without exception, 
 
 1 After having gone through the search for ten long years, 
 I may be allowed to express how great its danger, and how 
 great, too, the blessedness of those who are not exposed to it. 
 It is worth the experience of half a life to receive the truth, 
 without personal inquiry, from a competent authority. 
 Protestantism begins its existence by casting away one of the 
 greatest blessings which man can have. 
 
262 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 and most foreign to the Christian temper, the only con¬ 
 clusion remaining is, that the selection of a Primacy 
 with the power of effecting unity impressed upon it is 
 most intimately involved and bound up in the visibility 
 and unity of the true Church. 
 
 And quite as closely is it bound up with that other 
 test of the Church, its Catholicism. We are not to 
 believe Voss and King , 1 in their assertion that this 
 test began to be applied first in the fourth century, for 
 the purpose of distinguishing the genuine company of 
 the orthodox, and the true body of Christ, from heretics 
 and schismatics. For we find the Church distin¬ 
 guished by the epithet of Catholic, not merely in the 
 records of the fourth 2 and fifth 3 century, but in those of 
 the third , 4 and the second , 6 at the beginning of which 
 St Ignatius wrote, “ Follow all of you the Bishop, as 
 Jesus Christ the Father; and the body of Presbyters, 
 as Apostles. But reverence deacons, as the command 
 of Christ. Without the Bishop let nothing of what 
 concerns the Church be done by any one. Let that 
 be deemed a proper Eucharist which is under the 
 
 1 De Symbolo, Diss. 1, 39, and Hist. Symb. Apostol., cap. 
 6, 16. 
 
 2 Pacian, Ep. 1, n. 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 18, 
 n. 23. Eusebius in Isa. xxxii 18. Chrysostom in Col., 
 horn. 1, n. 2; in 1 Cor., horn. 32, n. 1. Jerome in Matt, 
 xxiv 26. 
 
 3 Augustine in Ps. xli, n. 7; Epist. 49, n. 3-52, n. 1, and 
 elsewhere. 
 
 4 Council of Antioch, quoted by Euseb. Hist., lib. 7, c. 30. 
 Origen in Rom., lib. 8, n. 1; Cyprian, Epist. 52; Acts of St 
 Fructuosus, n. 3, and of St Pionius, n. 9. 
 
 6 Irenaeus, lib. 3, c. 17, and Epistle on Martyrdom of St 
 Polycarp, n. 19. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 263 
 
 Bishop, or with his sanction. Where the Bishop is, 
 there also let the multitude be; as, where Christ Jesus 
 is, there is the Catholic Church .” 1 As, therefore, that 
 cannot be the Church of Christ, which is not Catholic, 
 we ought to investigate the meaning which is given to 
 this word by the consent of all orthodox believers. 
 
 Now, two points are signified in it, one of which is 
 its material , the other its formal\ or essential , part. 
 Its material part is, that the geographical extension of 
 the true Church be such that its mass be morally 1 
 universal, absolutely great, and eminently visible, but 
 comparatively with all heretical and schismatical sects 
 larger and more numerous. Of this material meaning 
 attached to the epithet Catholic, we find abundant 
 witnesses in all 3 the orthodox writers who defended the 
 cause of the Church against the Donatists, and again, 
 against the Luciferians 4 and Novatians; and likewise, 
 in those who have explained the creeds , 5 and, as 
 occasion offered, have touched on the force of the 
 term Catholic . 6 But the same first-cited witnesses tell 
 us that universal diffusion is not sufficient, and that 
 we require another element to infuse a soul into this 
 universally extended body, and to bring it to unity. 
 
 For two properties are continually recurring in 
 
 1 Epist. to Smyrneans, n. 8. 
 
 2 Augustine, Ep. 52, n. 1, Serm. 238, n. 3. 
 
 3 As Optatus, lib. 2, Aug. de Unitate Ecc., c. 2, etc.; cont. 
 Cresconium, 1 2, c. 63. Contr. Petilian, 12-55, 58-73; 
 in Ps. xxi 47, 147, and in 1 Ep. John Tract. 1, 2. 
 
 4 Pacian, Ep. 3, Jerome cont. Luciferianos. 
 
 6 Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 18. 
 
 6 Irenasus, lib. 1, c. 10; lib. 4, c. 19. Tertullian adv 
 Judasos, c. 7. Bernard in Cantica, serm. 65. 
 
264 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Christian records, one of which may be called negative , 
 the other affirmative. The force of the former is to 
 expel from the circle of the one true Catholic Church all 
 sects of heretics and schismatics; of the latter, that this 
 Church consist in one single communion and society , whose 
 members cohere together by hierarchical subordination. 
 
 But is it true that both these points are so plainly and 
 constantly inculcated ? To remove all doubt we will 
 quote the authors who most distinctly assert the one 
 and the other. As to the first, there are Clement of 
 Alexandria , 1 Tertullian , 2 Alexander of Alexandria , 3 
 Celestine , 4 Leander , 5 the Emperor Justinian ; 6 then 
 again the Councils of Nice , 7 Sardica , 8 and the third of 
 Carthage ; 9 nay, the heretics 10 themselves; and all these 
 agree in asserting that there is one only ancient Catholic 
 Church , outside of which the divine patience endures 
 and bears with heresies, which are as thorns. Thus 
 in language ecclesiastical and Christian nothing can be 
 considered as more certainly proved than that the 
 epithet of Catholic is distinctive , and shows the com¬ 
 munion which rejects from its bosom all heresies and 
 
 1 Clement, Stromat., 1 . 7, §§ 15-17. 
 
 2 Tertullian de Praesc. c. 30. 
 
 3 Alexander, apud Theodoret, H. E., lib. 1, c. 4. 
 
 4 Ccelestinus, Homil. in laud, eccles. 
 
 6 Leander, Cont. Origenistas in Actis Synodi V. 
 
 6 Justinianus, Epist. ad Mennam Constantinopolitanum. 
 
 7 Council of Nice, in the Creed, and Canon 8. 
 
 8 Sardica, in letter to all Bishops, quoted by Athanasius, 
 Apol. 2. 
 
 9 22nd Canon of Codex Africanus. 
 
 10 The Nestorian profession of faith, in fifth act of Council 
 of Ephesus 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 265 
 
 all schisms. It was with great reason, therefore, that 
 Pacian 1 wrote what Cyril of Jerusalem 2 and Augustine 
 very frequently repeated, “ Our people is divided from 
 the heretical name by this appellation, that it is called 
 Catholic .” 3 
 
 Moreover, this unity, which we have said may be 
 called negative, is necessary indeed to the understanding 
 of the Church as Catholic, but is by no means sufficient 
 to complete the idea of Catholicity. To it therefore 
 must be added the affirmative unity, by which Catho¬ 
 licism is not only divided from heretics and schismatics, 
 but becomes in itself a coherent body with members 
 and articulations. That which we so often read in the 
 monuments of antiquity, about the necessity 4 5 of com¬ 
 munion among the members of the Church and the 
 tokens 6 and means of that communion, has reference 
 to the assertion and maintenance of this unity, which 
 is the soul of Catholicity, and without which it cannot 
 even be conceived. There are very distinct and in¬ 
 numerable testimonies about it in the ancient Fathers , 6 
 declaring its necessity and setting forth its mode of 
 composition and coherence. 
 
 1 Pacian, Ep. 1. 2 Cyril, Catech. 18. 
 
 3 Aug. de Vera Relig., c. 6; de Utilit. Credendi, c. 7. 
 
 4 Pacian, Ep. 3, “ The Church is a full and solid body, 
 
 diffused already through the whole world. As a city, I say, 
 whose parts are in unity. Not as you Novatians, an insolent 
 particle, or a gathered wen, separated from the rest of the 
 body.” 
 
 5 Such as are ypa/^aara KOLvwviKa, Euseb., H. E., lib. 7 ) c. 30; 
 eiTLcrToXai KOLvwvLKai, Basil, Ep. 190, or KavwvLKai, Ep. 224, letters 
 of peace commendatory, ecclesiastical, etc. 
 
 G See especially Chrys. Horn. 30 on 1 Cor. 
 
266 
 
 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 For to set forth the mode of this is the plain drift 
 of what Irenaeus 1 writes in confutation of heretics by the 
 tradition of the Apostolical Churches: “ For since it 
 would be very long in the compass of our present 
 work to enumerate the successions of all the Churches, 
 taking that Church which is the greatest, the most 
 ancienr, and well known to all, founded and established 
 at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and 
 Paul, by indicating that tradition which it has from the 
 Apostles, and the faith which it announces to men, 
 which has reached even to us by the succession of 
 Bishops, we confound all those, who, in whatsoever 
 manner, either through self-pleasing, or vainglory, or 
 blindness and evil intention, gather 2 otherwise than 
 they ought. For to this Church on account of its 
 superior principate, it is necessary that every Church 
 should come together 3 —that is, the faithful who are 
 everywhere—for in this Church the tradition which is 
 from the Apostles has been ever preserved by those 
 who are everywhere. ... By this ordination and 
 succession, the tradition and preaching of the truth, 
 
 1 Irenaeus, lib. 3, c. 3. 
 
 2 Compare Jerome’s often-quoted passage, Ep. 15, to 
 Pope Damasus, “ Whoso gathereth not with thee, scattereth; 
 that is, whoso is not of Christ is of Antichrist.” 
 
 3 For the meaning of “ come together,” see further on, 
 
 c. 40. “ God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, 
 
 Doctors, and all the rest of the operation of the Spirit, of 
 which all those are not partakers who do not run together to 
 the Church, but defraud themselves of life by an evil inten¬ 
 tion and a very bad conduct. For where the Church is, 
 there is the Spirit; and where is the Spirit of God, there is 
 the Church and all grace.” 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 267 
 
 which is from the Apostles in the Church, has reached 
 down to us. And this proof is most complete, that it 
 is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been 
 preserved and handed down in truth in the Church 
 from the Apostles to the present day.” 
 
 The Churches, therefore, which are everywhere 
 diffused, derive that strength and harmony of parts, out 
 of which the whole body of the Catholic Church is 
 made up, from the fact of their agreeing in the unity of 
 faith and preaching with that Church of Peter, which 
 is the greatest, the chief, and the more powerful. It 
 follows that the Primacy of Peter, and the authority 
 inherent in it to effect unity, is that principle which 
 Christ selected, that the Church which he had set up 
 might be Catholic, and bear the note of Catholicity on 
 its brow. 
 
 And Cyprian would set forth the same mode of com¬ 
 munion, when he speaks of the coherence of Bishops, by 
 which both the Catholic episcopate is made one, and 
 the Church one and Catholic. For as the several com¬ 
 munities draw the unity of the body from the unity of the 
 prelates to whom they are subject, so all prelates, and 
 the communities subject to them, constitute one Catholic 
 episcopate and one Catholic Church , because they cohere 
 with the principal Church, the root and matrix , which 
 is the Church of Peter, upon whom the Lord founded 
 the whole building, and whom he instituted to be the 
 fountain and source of Catholic unity . 1 
 
 1 See St Cyprian’s letters, 69, 55, 45, 70, 73, 40. Consider 
 the force of the words, “ Peter, upon whom the Church had 
 been built by the ‘ Lord, speaking once for all, and answering 
 with the voice of the Church, says, Lord, to whom shall we 
 
268 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 These words are a clue to understand Tertullian’s * 1 
 meaning, when, already become a Montanist, he called 
 the Catholic Church, whose discipline he was attacking, 
 the Church near to Peter —“ concerning your opinion 
 I now inquire, whence you claim this right to the 
 Church. If because the Lord said to Peter, ‘ Upon 
 this rock I will build my Church/ ‘ to thee will I give 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven/ or ‘ whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or 
 loosed in heaven/ you, therefore, pretend that the 
 power of binding and loosing is derived to you—that 
 is, to all the Church near to Peter—how do you over¬ 
 throw and change the manifest intention of the Lord 
 in conferring this on Peter personally , 2 ‘ Upon thee I 
 will build my Church/ and ‘ I will give to thee the 
 
 go V ” (Ep. 55), on which Fenelon (de sum. Pontif. auct., c. 12) 
 remarks, “ What wonder, then, if Pope Hormisdas and other 
 ancient Fathers say, ‘ the Roman, that is, the Catholic 
 Church/ since Peter was wont to answer with the voice of the 
 Church f What wonder if the body of the Church speaks by 
 the mouth of its head ?” 
 
 1 De Pudicitia, c. 21. 
 
 2 This Montanist corruption (into which Ambrose on 
 Ps. xxxviii, n. 37, and Pacian in his three letters to Sempronius, 
 state that the Novatians also fell) induced some Fathers, and 
 especially Augustine (Enarrat. in Ps. cviii, n. 1, Tract. 118 
 in Joan., n. 4, and last Tract, n. 7), to teach that the keys 
 were bestowed on Peter so far forth as he represented the 
 person of the Church in right of his Primacy. By which 
 mode of speaking they meant this one thing, that the power 
 of the keys, as being necessary to the Church, and instituted 
 for her good, began indeed in Peter, and was communicated 
 to him in a peculiar manner, but by no means dropped, or 
 could possibly drop, with him. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 269 
 
 keys,’ not to the Church, and, whatsoever thou bindest 
 or loosest,’ not what they bind or loose ?” Now, he 
 used this mode of speaking because it was customary 
 with Catholics, who are wont to exhibit nearness with 
 Peter as the characteristic of the Church, and the 
 necessary condition for sharing that power, whose 
 plenitude and native source Christ had lodged in 
 Peter. 
 
 This certain and undoubting judgement of Catholics 
 Tertullian himself, before his error, had clearly ex¬ 
 pressed in his book, De Scorpiace , c. x, where he says, 
 “ For if you yet think heaven shut, remember that 
 the Lord here (Matt, xvi 19) left its keys to Peter, and 
 through him to the Church .” 
 
 Nearness, then, with Peter, and consanguinity of 
 doctrine 1 thence proceeding, are no less necessary to 
 the Church, that it may be the Catholic Church 
 which Christ founded and built upon Peter, than 
 that it be partaker in those gifts which, again, he 
 himself granted only to unity, as it is effected in Peter 
 and by Peter. 
 
 Now, not only the most ancient Fathers, as Irenasus, 
 Tertullian, and Cyprian, but the whole body of them, 
 assign the origin of this to Peter. This they make the 
 vivifying principle of agreement, society, and unity, 
 without which the Church can neither be intrinsically 
 Catholic, nor the mind conceive it as such. It is so 
 stated by Pacian, 2 Ambrose, 3 the Fathers 4 of Aquileia, 
 
 1 Tertull. de Praesc., c. 32. 
 
 2 Pacian, ad Sempronium, Epist. 3, § 11. 
 
 3 Ambrose, de Pcenit., lib. 1, c. 7, n. 33. 
 
 4 Synodical Epistle, among the letters of Ambrose. 
 
270 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Optatus, 1 Gregory Nazianzen, 2 Jerome, 3 Augustine, 4 
 Gelasius, 5 Hormisdas, 6 Agatho, 7 Maximus Martyr, 8 
 and, to shorten the list, by Leo the Great. 9 It is in 
 setting forth the unity of the Catholic episcopate that 
 he writes what ought never to be forgotten by Christian 
 minds: “For the compactness of our unity cannot 
 remain firm, unless the bond of charity weld us into 
 an inseparable whole, because, as we have many 
 members in one body, and all members have not the 
 same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, 
 and every one members one of another. For it is the 
 connection of the whole body which makes one sound¬ 
 ness and one beauty; and this connection, as it requires 
 unanimity in the whole body, so especially demands 
 concord among bishops. For though these have a 
 like dignity, yet have they not an equal jurisdiction; 
 since even among the most blessed Apostles, as there 
 was a likeness of honour, so was there a certain dis¬ 
 tinction of power, and the election of all being equal, 
 pre-eminence over the rest was given to one, from 
 
 1 Optatus, de Schism. Donat, lib. 2, c. 2, and lib. 7, c. 3. 
 
 2 Gregory, de Vita sua, tom. 2, p. 9. 
 
 3 Jerome, adv. Jovin., lib. 1, n. 14. 
 
 4 Augustine, in Ps. Cont. partem Donati, cont. Epist. 
 Fundam., c. 4, de Utilitate Credendi, c. 17, and Epist. 43. 
 
 5 Gelasius, Epist. 14. 
 
 6 Hormisdas, Mansi, tom. 8, 451, in the conditions on 
 which he readmitted the Patriarch of Constantinople and the 
 Eastern Bishops to communion. 
 
 7 Agatho, in a letter to the sixth council, read and accepted 
 at its fourth sitting. 
 
 8 Maximus, Bibl., Patr., tom. 2, p. 76. 
 
 9 Leo, Epist. 10, c. 1. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 271 
 
 which mould, or type, the distinction also between 
 bishops has arisen. It was provided by a great 
 ordering, that all should not claim to themselves all 
 things, but that in every province there should be one 
 whose sentence should be considered the first among his 
 brethren; and others, again, seated in the greater cities, 
 should undertake a larger care, through whom the 
 direction of the universal Church should converge 
 to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree 
 from its head.” 
 
 And, if I do not deceive myself, the direct drift of 
 all this is to answer the question, whether the doctrine 
 of Peter’s Primacy, and its virtue as the constituent 
 of unity and Catholicity, is contained in the most 
 solemn standard of faith, the creed. For although 
 there are unimpeachable testimonies to prove that the 
 creeds were not published and explained to catechu¬ 
 mens, in order to convey to them a full and complete 
 Christian instruction; and though it be proved further 
 to have been the purpose of the Church’s ancient 
 teachers to omit many points in the creeds which were 
 to be set before the initiated at a more suitable season 
 afterwards, it may nevertheless be said that the most 
 commonly received articles of the creeds may be re¬ 
 garded as so many most faithful germs, from which 
 the remaining doctrines would spontaneously spring. 
 And so, to keep within our present point, what is more 
 plain than that the sum of doctrine, concerning Peter’s 
 Primacy, contained in the Bible, illustrated by the 
 Fathers, and defined by Councils, is involved in that 
 article of the creed in which we profess that the Church 
 is one and Catholic ? No doubt there nowhere occurs 
 
272 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 in the creeds, expressed in so many words , mention of 
 Peter, or of the Primacy bestowed on him, or of 
 hierarchical subordination; yet it is most distinctly 
 stated that the Church is one and Catholic. What 
 meaning, then, were the faithful to give to those 
 epithets ? What were they to intend in the words, 
 I believe one Catholic Church ? What but the mean¬ 
 ing of the words themselves which they received from 
 the Church’s teachers together with the creeds ? Now 
 they could not form the conception of one Church and 
 that Catholic, without thinking likewise of one Catholic 
 principle of the Church; nor could they assign the 
 dignity of that one Catholic principle to any other but 
 Peter, whom alone they had invariably been taught 
 to have been set over all. For what St Bernard 1 wrote 
 in mediaeval times, “ For this purpose the solicitude 
 of all Churches rests on that one Apostolic See, that 
 all may be united under it and in it, and it may be 
 careful in behalf of all to preserve the unity of the 
 Spirit in the bond of peace,” must be considered 
 nothing else than a repetition of the faith which 
 resounded through the whole world, from the very 
 beginning of the Christian religion. 
 
 Unless, therefore, any can be found who prefer 
 asserting either that true believers never understood 
 what they believed, in professing the Church to be one 
 and Catholic, or that they understood this otherwise 
 than it had been universally and constantly explained 
 by the Church’s teachers, it must be admitted that 
 faith in Peter’s Primacy, and in the power bestowed 
 upon it for the purpose of making the visible kingdom 
 1 Ep. 358, to Pope Celestine. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 273 
 
 of Christ one and Catholic, is coeval with that pro¬ 
 fession of the creeds which sets forth the Church as 
 one and as Catholic. 1 
 
 1 The above chapter is translated from Passaglia, pp. 
 
 298-336. 
 
 # 
 
 18 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 PETRUS DE PETRA 
 
 The question whether the Roman Primacy be of 
 divine right or not is the hinge upon which all turns. 
 This precedence or prerogative of Rome was shown 
 at the First General Council of Nicaea in 325. To 
 whatever extent it reached, and notwithstanding the 
 famous twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, it certainly 
 was not either claimed or granted, especially in the 
 West, merely because Rome was the imperial city. It 
 was explicitly claimed by the Bishop of Rome himself, 
 and as freely conceded by others to him, as in a special 
 sense successor of St Peter. From the earliest times 
 that the Church comes before us as an organized body, 
 the germ at least of this pre-eminence is observable. 
 From the very first the Roman Pontiff seems possessed 
 himself, as from a living tradition which had thoroughly 
 penetrated the local Roman Church, with a conscious¬ 
 ness of some peculiar influence he was to exercise on 
 the whole Church. This consciousness does not show 
 itself here and there in the line of Roman Pontiffs, but 
 one and all, whatever their individual characters might 
 be, seem to have imbibed it from the atmosphere which 
 they breathed. St Victor and St Stephen, St Innocent, 
 St Leo the Great, and St Gregory are quite of one mind 
 here. That they were the successors of St Peter, who 
 himself sat and ruled and spoke in their person, was 
 
 274 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 275 
 
 as strongly felt and as consistently declared by those 
 Pontiffs who preceded the time of Constantine, and 
 who had continually to pay with their blood the price 
 of that high pre-eminence, as by those who followed 
 the conversion of the empire, when the honour of their 
 post was not accompanied by so much danger. I am 
 speaking now, be it remembered, of the feeling which 
 possessed them. The feeling of their brother bishops 
 concerning them may have been less definite, as 
 was natural; but, at least, even those who were 
 most inclined to dispute the Pope’s authority 
 fully admitted that they sat in the See of Peter, 
 and ordinarily treated them with the greatest 
 deference. 
 
 Going on rather more than a hundred years, we 
 come to St Leo the Great. His long and able Pontificate 
 shows forth what the legitimate power of the Roman 
 See was, and how it tended to the preservation and 
 unity of the whole Church. He lived at an important 
 crisis, when the barbarous tribes of the North were 
 about to burst over the empire and the Church; the 
 system of which, had it not been consolidated by him¬ 
 self, his immediate predecessors and successors, might 
 have been dissolved and broken up into fragments. 
 St Leo had no slight sense of his own duty and 
 dignity among his brother bishops. His words on one 
 particular occasion maybe quoted: “. . . Out of the 
 whole world Peter alone is chosen to preside over the 
 calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the Apostles , and 
 the collected Fathers of the Church: so that though there 
 he among the people of God many priests and many 
 shepherds , yet Peter rules all by personal commission 
 
276 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 whom Christ also rules by sovereign power. Beloved , it 
 is a great and wonderful participation of his own power 
 which the divine condescendence gave to this man: and if 
 he willed that other rulers should enjoy aught together 
 with him , yet never did he give , save through him , what 
 he denied not to others. . . . 
 
 “ Wherefore it is said to most blessed Peter, ‘ I will 
 give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and 
 whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
 heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall 
 be loosed in heaven. . . .’ So then in Peter the 
 strength of all is protected , and the help of divine grace is 
 so ordered , that the stability , which through Christ is 
 given to Peter , through Peter is conveyed to the Apostles. 
 
 “ Since, therefore, beloved, we see such a protection 
 divinely granted to us, reasonably and justly do we 
 rejoice in the merits and dignity of our Chief, giving 
 thanks to the Eternal King, our Redeemer, the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, for having given so great a power to him 
 whom he made chief of the whole Church, that if any¬ 
 thing, even in our time, by us be rightly done and 
 rightly ordered, it is to be ascribed to his working, 
 to his guidance, unto whom it was said, ‘ And thou, 
 when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren 
 and to whom the Lord after his resurrection, in answer 
 to the triple profession of eternal love, thrice said with 
 mystical intent, ‘ Feed my sheep/ And this, beyond 
 a doubt, the faithful shepherd does even now, and 
 fulfils the charge of his Lord, strengthening us with 
 his exhortations, and not ceasing to pray for us, that 
 we may be overcome with no temptation. But if, 
 as we must believe, he everywhere discharges this 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 277 
 
 affectionate guardianship to all the people of God, 
 how much more will he condescend to grant his help 
 unto us his children, among whom, on the sacred couch 
 of his blessed repose, he resteth in the same flesh in 
 which he ruled. To him, therefore, let us ascribe 
 this anniversary day of us his servant, and this festival, 
 by whose advocacy we have been thought worthy to 
 share his seat itself, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 helping us in all things, who liveth and reigneth with 
 God the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever.” 
 
 A Pontiff so deeply and religiously impressed with 
 the prerogative of St Peter’s successor was likely to be 
 energetic in discharging his duties. In truth, we 
 behold St Leo set on a watch-tower, and directing 
 his gaze over the whole Church: over his own West 
 more especially, but over the East too, if need be. 
 He can judge Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, 
 as well as Eugubium, and is as ready, too, wherever 
 canons are broken, ancient customs disregarded, 
 encroachments attempted, where bishops are neglectful 
 or metropolitans tyrannical, where heresy is imputed 
 to patriarchs—in short, wherever a stone in the whole 
 sacred building is being loosened, or threatens to fall, 
 there is he at hand to repair and restore, to warn, to 
 protect, and to punish. 
 
 Now, how did his own contemporaries receive it ? 
 Did they protest that he was assuming a power never 
 given to his see ? Did they declare that in terming 
 himself the special successor of St Peter, who lived 
 and reigned in his see, he was introducing a new and 
 unknown idea ? The (Ecumenical Council of Chalce- 
 don did not think so. It was composed of all the great 
 
278 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 prelates of the East, the Roman legates, who presided 
 in the name of the Pope, being the only Westerns 
 present. The Fathers of Chalcedon, then, call the 
 Pope specially the successor of St Peter, and, as such, 
 the maintainer of the deposit of doctrine descending 
 from Christ and their leader ( apxvx unto good. 
 “ Our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue 
 with joy; grace has fitted this prophecy to us, by whom 
 the restoration of piety has been accomplished. For 
 what can be higher matter of concern for joy than the 
 Faith, or motive for brighter pleasure than the know¬ 
 ledge of the Lord, which the Saviour himself delivered 
 unto us from above for our salvation, when he said 
 ‘ Go ye, and make disciples all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you ’ ? This know¬ 
 ledge descending to us like a golden chain from the 
 command of him who established it, thou hast kept 
 throughout, being set forth to all men as the interpreter 
 of the voice of the blessed Peter , and drawing upon all 
 the blessing of his faith. Whence we also , enjoying the 
 advantage of thee as our leader unto good , have exhibited 
 the inheritance of the truth to the children of the 
 Church, not teaching each by himself in a corner, but 
 making known the confession of the Faith with one 
 Spirit, with one accord and agreement.” 
 
 Speaking of themselves as assembled in CEcumenical 
 Council, they say the Pope presided over them, as the 
 Head over the members: “For if, where two or three 
 are gathered together in his name, there he said he 
 would be in the midst of them, how intimately showed 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 279 
 
 he himself to five hundred and twenty priests, who 
 preferred the declaration of their confession in him 
 before both their country and their toil ? They speak 
 of the Pope as the one to whom the guardianship of 
 his vine was entrusted by the Saviour; saying of 
 Dioscorus, the deposed Archbishop of Alexandria, that 
 he, “ besides all this, turned his madness even against 
 the very one entrusted by the Saviour with the guardian¬ 
 ship of the vine, thy Holiness we mean ” They term 
 themselves the Holy Father’s children. “ We have 
 judged well-timed the confirmation of this honour to 
 it ” (the rank of the second see to the Church of 
 Constantinople), “ by the (Ecumenical Council, and 
 have ratified it with confidence, as if it had been begun 
 by thy Holiness, who art ever ready to cherish them: 
 being aware that every success of the children is reckoned 
 to the parents who own them . 
 
 “We therefore entreat that you would honour our 
 decision with your suffrage likewise: as we have intro¬ 
 duced agreement zvith the head (77 7 KepaXfj) in good things, 
 so let your Highness (fj /copvpfj to£? iraialv) fulfil to 
 your children what is fitting ” Lastly, they leave to 
 him the confirmation of their acts: “ We have left the 
 whole force of the acts to you, that you may approve of us, 
 confirming, and assenting to, what we have done” 
 
 He who rejects the Primacy of the Pope, with this 
 letter of the Council of Chalcedon before him, must 
 be prepared to give up the witness of antiquity, and to 
 reject the authority of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Let us first take particular expressions of early 
 Fathers, and then give a general summary of them. 
 Thus Clement, the disciple of St Peter and St Paul, 
 
280 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 enforces the words of the latter: “ Why do we raise a 
 sedition against our own body,” that body being the 
 body of Christ, because “ there is one God and one 
 Christ and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us ?” 
 So St Hermas sees the Church militant in a tower built 
 upon Christ’s rock, so evenly jointed together that it 
 seemed to be wrought out of one stone, for which 
 especially its Builder rejoiced over it. And Irenaeus, 
 who almost touches St John through his teacher 
 Poly carp, says, that as the natural light is sphered in 
 the sun, so the light of divine truth in the Church; 
 that the Church is the storehouse of truth; that where 
 the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where 
 the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace; 
 but the Spirit is truth; that the Church is the seven- 
 branched candlestick, bearing Christ’s light; that as 
 the sun revolves in its orbit, so there is one tradition 
 of the truth, which the Church presents to the world. 
 Thus richly does Irenaeus unfold the thought of 
 Ignatius of Antioch, the contemporary of Apostles, 
 “ where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church; ” 
 and that as Christ is the mind (71 tco/jurj) of the 
 Father, so the bishops throughout the world are the 
 mind of Christ; and “ haste together then all as to 
 the Temple of God , as to one altar, as to one Jesus 
 Christ;” and “ as many as come to the unity of the 
 Church, these also shall be of God.” And that other 
 thought of another disciple of Apostles: 1 “ This is he 
 who is from the beginning, who appeared as one now, 
 who was found (in time), and is ever being freshly 
 born in the hearts of saints, through whom the Church 
 1 The author of the letter to Diognetus. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 281 
 
 receives her treasure , and grace expanding is midtiplied 
 in the saints; so that the grace of the Church exults , which 
 grace not grieving, you will learn what the Word 
 utters.” 
 
 Human languages are different, says the same 
 Irenaeus, but everywhere throughout the earth, as in 
 one home of faith, “ the power of the tradition is one 
 and the same; ” and Tertullian echoes from Africa, 
 “ No other principle rules these rights than the one 
 tradition of the same sacramentum;” and Cyprian takes 
 up his master’s words: “ This sacramentum of unity, 
 this bond of concord, inseparably cohering together, 
 is shown in the robe of our Lord, possessed unbroken 
 and undividedwhence Augustine and Leo carry it on, 
 and describe “ the firm framework of our unity; and 
 so all of them express that great tower of St Hermas, 
 rising from the rock, as built of one stone. “ The 
 Church,” says Clement, from Alexandria, “ is one alone 
 in her foundation, in her idea, in her origin, in her 
 excellence: she is one because the Godhead is one, and 
 because the Holy Trinity is one.” “ She is,” says 
 Origen, “ the body of Christ, animated by the Son of 
 God, as the soul quickens and moves the human body.” 
 “ She is the fortified, impregnable city,” repeats 
 Eusebius of Cesarea, Hilary, Theodoret, Augustine, 
 from Palestine, Gaul, the Far East, and Africa, because 
 Christ is her founder and inhabitant, which Alexander 
 of Alexandria expresses in almost the same form: “ She 
 is for ever indestructible, though the whole world 
 should choose to war with her, and bears away the 
 victory over every most impious insurrection of heretics, 
 because the Master of the House is the ground of her 
 
282 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 confidence that is, being “ the House of God ” 
 (1 Tim. iv 15% the Master of the House is always in 
 her. “ She is,” says Athanasius, “the manhood of 
 Christ, in him having domination and royal power 
 after his crucifixion, and anointed to be his kingdom.” 
 Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Jerome, all call her the Sun; 
 Irenasus, as moving in one orbit unswervingly, en¬ 
 lightening all the earth; Athanasius, as the faithful 
 witness in heaven, lasting for ever; Jerome, as drying 
 up all the streamlets of error with her single light and 
 heat. No image can more strongly than this represent 
 her unity, universality, and perpetuity, and again her 
 prerogative to be the fountain of grace and truth, as 
 God’s creature, in whom is the Word made Flesh. 
 “ She is,” says Gregory of Nazianzen, “ the great 
 inheritance of Christ,” thus using Augustine’s favourite 
 expression against the Donatists; and he adds, “ the 
 fruitfulness of the Tree that fills the world,” which is 
 St Augustine’s Vine; and St Cyril of Jerusalem 
 specially notes that, “ while the kings of the different 
 nations have territorial limits to their power, the Holy 
 Catholic Church alone has a power throughout the 
 whole world which has no territorial limit.” 
 
 Now, passing from single expressions of particular 
 Fathers, let us see what they all agree in. It may be 
 thus summed up. As there is one only Christ, so there 
 is one only Church; as the Church is one, because 
 Christ is one, so it is one Body, because he has 
 taken a Body; it is therefore the work of his Incarnation, 
 and to dissolve this Body is to dissolve Christ; for as 
 Christ cannot be divided, so neither the Church; the 
 Church, as his Body, is the receptacle of his truth and 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 283 
 
 grace. As the Holy Spirit dwelt in Christ upon earth, 
 so he dwells in the permanent order of the Church’s 
 ministry, the perpetual existence of which, in the unity 
 of his Body, is the safeguard against error. Through 
 this ministry, as the joints and ligaments of this one 
 Body, the life of Christ descends from the Head to the 
 members, and Christ’s life is Truth and Grace. Thus 
 the Holy Ghost dwells in the Church permanently, 
 as in a home, as in a shrine, as in the Body of Christ, 
 as the marriage-ring with which she is espoused as 
 his Bride; but the same Spirit dwells in particular men 
 only as members of the Body, and so long as they con¬ 
 tinue to be members of it; as dwellers in the House, and 
 so long as they continue to dwell in it; as worshippers 
 in the Shrine, and so long as they continue to worship 
 in it. By virtue of this union with Christ, as of the 
 Body with the Head, the Church possesses the great 
 function of receiving, teaching, unfolding, and pre¬ 
 serving the Truth, and of communicating the Grace 
 by which the Truth is held; and the mode of this union 
 is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in her as the Spirit 
 of the Head. Thus, belief in our Lord and his Incar¬ 
 nation is blest and fused throughout with belief in the 
 unity, truth, grace, and stability of the Church: the 
 Head and the Body stand together. 
 
 Having, on the one hand, this vast amount of 
 positive proof, from sources so various, in behalf of 
 Peter’s Primacy, so that without it the whole Christian 
 history of eighteen centuries, in all its manifold blend¬ 
 ings with secular history, becomes unintelligible, a 
 tangle which it is impossible to arrange; when we come 
 on the other hand, to consider what its opponents allege 
 
284 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 as positive argument on their own side, we find nothing. 
 They content themselves with objections to this or that 
 detached point, with historical difficulties, and obscura¬ 
 tions of the full proof, such, for instance, as the con¬ 
 duct of St Cyprian in one controversy, the occasional 
 resistance of a metropolitan, the secular instinct of an 
 imperial government stirring up Eastern bishops to 
 revolt, and fostering an Erastian spirit in the Church, 
 the ambition of thoroughly bad men, such as Acacius or 
 Photius, and the like. But what we may fairly ask of 
 opponents, and what we never find the most distant 
 approach to in them is, if, as they say, St Peter’s 
 Primacy be not legitimate and instituted by Christ 
 for the government of the Church, what counter-system 
 have they, which they can prove by ancient documents, 
 and whereby they can solve the manifold facts of 
 history ? In all their arguments against the Primacy 
 they are so absolutely negative that the grand result, 
 if they were successful, would be to reduce the Church 
 to a heap of ruins, to show that she, who is entrusted 
 with the authoritative teaching of the world, has no 
 internal coherence either of government or doctrine— 
 in fact, no message from God to deliver, and no power 
 to enforce it when delivered. In the arguments of 
 Greeks and Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists, and 
 all the Protestant sects, the gates of hell have long 
 ago prevailed against the Church, and the devil has 
 built up at his ease a city of confusion on the rock 
 which Christ chose for her foundation. If we listen 
 to them, never has victory been more complete than 
 that of the Evil One over the Son of God: the promised 
 unity he has scattered to the winds; the doctrine of 
 
ST PETER* HIS NAME AND HIS OFFICE 285 
 
 truth he has utterly corrupted; the charity wherewith 
 Christians loved one another he has turned into gall 
 and wormwood. That is, the opponents of St Peter’s 
 Primacy are one and all simply destructive; they inspire 
 despair, and are the pioneers of infidelity, but are 
 utterly powerless to build up. Ask the Anglican what 
 is the source of spiritual jurisdiction, and the bond of 
 the episcopate which he affects to defend ? He makes 
 no reply. All he can say is, it is not St Peter. Ask the 
 Greek, if bishops and patriarch disagree, and come to 
 opposite judgements on the faith, or to schisms in com¬ 
 munion, which party make the Church ? He has no 
 solution to offer , save that it is not the party which sides 
 with St Peter’s successor. Ask the pure Protestant, 
 who maintains the sole authority of the written word, 
 if you disagree about the meaning of Scripture in 
 points which you admit to touch salvation, who is 
 to determine what is the true meaning of the word of 
 God ? He has nothing to reply , save that he is sure it 
 is not the Pope. Contrast, then, on the one side, a 
 complete coherent system, fully delineated and set 
 forth in the Bible, attested by the Fathers, corroborated 
 by analogy, and harmonizing the history of eighteen 
 hundred years in its infinitely numerous relations, 
 with, on the other side, a mere heap of objections and 
 denials, with shreds of truths held without cohesion, 
 with analogy violated, history thrown into hopeless 
 confusion, and, to crown the whole, Holy Scripture 
 incessantly appealed to, yet its plainest declarations 
 recklessly disregarded, and its most consoling promises 
 utterly evacuated. Choose upon this, between within 
 and without. 
 
286 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 St Paul 1 taught us to listen to witnesses, and 
 Christendom, whether assembled in council, or every¬ 
 where diffused, was content to depend on them. Most 
 clear is what is said on this point about the Fathers at 
 Nicaea 2 and Ephesus, 3 and no less so the words of 
 Leontius of Byzantium 4 John Cassian, 5 Theodoret, 6 
 Augustine, 7 Jerome, 8 Epiphanius, 9 Basil, 10 Origen, 11 
 Tertullian, 12 Clement of Alexandria, 13 and the oldest 
 of all, Irenaeus. 14 “ The true knowledge,” he says, 
 “ is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state 
 of the Church in the whole world, and the character 
 of the body of Christ, according to the succession of 
 bishops, by which they handed down the Church, 
 which is in every place, which hath reached even to us, 
 being guarded without fiction, with a most full inter¬ 
 pretation of the Scriptures , admitting neither addition 
 nor subtraction, and the reading without falsification, 
 and legitimate and diligent exposition according to 
 the Scriptures, without danger, and without blasphemy, 
 
 1 2 Tim. ii 2. 
 
 2 See Athanas. de decretis Nic. Synodi, and also Hist, 
 tripartit., lib. 2, 3. 
 
 3 See Vincent of Lerins, Commonit., c. 32, 33. 
 
 4 Leontius, contr. Nestorium, lib. 1. 
 
 5 Cassian, de Incarn., lib. 1. 
 
 6 Theodoret, in the three dialogues. 
 
 7 Augustine, cont. Cresconium, 1, c. 32, 33. 
 
 8 Jerome, Ep. 126, and Dialog, adv. Luciferianos. 
 
 9 Epiphanius, Hasres. 61, 75, 78. 
 
 10 Basil, cont. Eunomium, lib. 1; de Spiritu S., c. 29. 
 
 11 Origen in Matt. Tract. 29. 
 
 12 Tertullian, throughout the book De Prescriptionibus. 
 
 13 Clement, Stromatum, lib. 7. 
 
 14 Irenasus, lib. 4, c. 63 and 45. 
 
ST peter: his name and his office 287 
 
 and the chief gift of charity, which is more precious 
 than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, more 
 eminent than all graces.” For, as he says elsewhere, 
 “We ought to learn the truth, where the gifts of the 
 Lord are placed; among whom is that succession of the 
 Church, which is from the Apostles, sound and irre¬ 
 proachable conversation, and discourse unadulterated 
 and incorrupt. For these maintain that faith of ours 
 in one God, who made all things: these increase that 
 love towards the Son of God, who has made for our 
 sake so great dispositions: these explain to us the 
 Scriptures without peril” 
 
 And, besides, where is the Protestant who does not 
 praise the Hebrew illustrations of Lightfoot, Schoettgen, 
 and Meuschen ? or who does not at least make much 
 of the commentaries of Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Jarchi, 
 and others, in the interpretation of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures ? They all see the advantage of approach¬ 
 ing such sources of information, and using them for 
 their own purpose. But are we to refuse to the Fathers 
 and ancient doctors of the Church the deference which 
 we allow to Rabbins and Talmudists ? This is 
 at least a reason for hearing the testimony of the 
 Fathers. 
 
 And if it be concordant, constant, and universal, 
 it most powerfully recommends that scriptural inter¬ 
 pretation which agrees with it. In this, all Catholics 
 without exception, and the most judicious and learned 
 Protestants, are agreed. In good truth, it would be 
 incredible that an interpretation could be false, which 
 was adopted unanimously by the Fathers of every age 
 and country. And it ought to be as incredible to find 
 
288 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 any one so conceited as not to be greatly moved by the 
 witness and consent of Christian antiquity. 
 
 One point of inquiry remains, whether the Fathers 
 have given their opinion, and that unanimously, on 
 Peter and the texts which relate to him. But their 
 words inserted in the foregoing pages entirely terminate 
 this controversy, and show that they were all of the 
 mind expressed by Gregory the Great, in these words, 
 which, it is well to remember, were directed to the 
 supreme civil authority of those days, for he tells the 
 emperor— 
 
 “ To all who know the Gospel, it is manifest that 
 the charge of the whole Church was entrusted by the 
 voice of the Lord to the holy Apostle Peter, Prince of 
 all the Apostles. For to him it is said, ‘ Peter, lovest 
 thou me ? Feed my sheep.’ To him is said, ‘ Behold, 
 Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat, but I have 
 prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not; and do 
 thou, one day, in turn, confirm thy brethren.’ To 
 him is said, ‘ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
 build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and what¬ 
 soever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also 
 in heaven.’ ” x 
 
 1 St Greg. Ep., lib. 5, 20. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abraham and Peter, parallel 
 between, 26, 29, 30 
 Acacius, 284 
 
 Acacius of Constantinople, 284 
 Agatho, 70, 270 
 Alexander, quoted, 264, 291 
 Alexandrine Apion, allusion to, 
 152 
 
 Ambrose, St: on Luke, 12, 18, 
 89, 91; quoted, 70, 257, 281 
 Ambrosiaster, quoted, 182, 196 
 Aquileia, Fathers of, 240 
 Archimandrites of Syria to 
 Pope Hormisdas, 240 
 Arnobius, quoted, 163 
 Arnobius, junior, quoted, 240 
 Athanasius, quoted, 31, 202, 282 
 Augustine, St, quoted, 17, 31, 
 81, 122, 200, 256, 299, 270, 
 286 
 
 Baronius, 187 
 
 Basil, St, quoted, 18, 96, 281 
 Bede the Venerable, quoted, 156 
 Bernard, St: to Innocent II, 
 67; de Con., 240; in Cant., 
 263, 272 
 
 Boanerges, name of, 12 
 Bossuet: Serm., 84, 88, 114; 
 against Jurien, 259 
 
 Cartright, on Whitgift, 250 
 Casaubon, quoted, 258 
 Cassian, John, his testimony, 
 124,286 
 
 Cassiodorus, quoted, 185 
 Celestirxe, Pope, referred to, 272 
 Chrysologus, St Peter, quoted, 
 17 
 
 Chrysostom, St, quoted, 10, n, 
 16, 31, 40, 42,69, 90, 97, 128, 
 133, 135, 140, 143, 158, 164, 
 170, 179, 182, 186, 193, 265 
 
 Claude, quoted, 258 
 Clement of Alexandria, St: his 
 testimony, 279; Strom., 281. 
 286 
 
 Ccelestinus, Horn., 264 
 Council of Antioch, 282 
 
 of Chalcedon, 19, 33, 277, 
 278 
 
 of Carthage, 248, 279; 
 
 Nicene, 249, 264, 274 
 of Constantinople, 248 
 Councils, (Ecumenical, quoted. 
 
 248 
 
 Cyprian: Ep., 17, 22, 51, 62, 
 68, 112, 150, 195, 207, 
 
 262, 291; de Unit. Eccl., 
 218, 253,242, 275 
 Cyril of Alexandria, St, 10, 129 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted, 69, 
 201, 265, 282 
 
 Dante, Inferno quoted, 221 
 Dionysius, quoted, 128 
 Dodwell, 247 
 Donatists, mentioned, 263 
 
 Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, 
 “274 
 
 Ephrem, Syrus, St., quoted, 69, 
 219 
 
 Epiphanius, 17, 157, 286 
 Eucherius of Lyons, quoted, 
 201 
 
 Eusebius, quoted, 162, 281 
 Euthalius, quoted, 134 
 
 Fenelon, quoted, 268 
 
 Gallican Sacramentary, 17 
 Gelasius, quoted, 270 
 Greek Fathers, comparison, 194 
 Gregory the Great: Pope St, 
 274, 288 
 
 289 
 
290 ST peter: his name and his office 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzen, quoted, 
 17, 201, 242, 270 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 185, 282 
 Gregory II, Pope, to Leo the 
 Isaurian, 126 
 
 Hermas, St, 280 
 Hilary of Poitiers, on Matt., 
 17, 201, 248, 281 
 Hippolytus, quoted, 200 
 Hormisdas, Pope, 270 
 
 Ignatius of Antioch, 220, 280 
 Innocent, Pope St, 122, 274 
 Irenaeus, quoted, 185, 200, 220, 
 248, 262, 266, 280, 281, 286 
 Isidore, St, Bishop of Seville, 
 125 
 
 Jerome, St: Dialog., quoted, 51, 
 150, 168, 185, 193, 243, 248, 
 262, 286; to Pope Damasus, 
 266 
 
 Jurien, quoted, 260 
 
 King, quoted, 262 
 
 Lactantius, 257 
 Lateran Synod, 63 
 Leander, quoted, 264 
 Leo, St, quoted, 17, 68, 91, 
 123, 187, 274, 277 
 Lightfoot, 286, 287 
 
 Martin I, Pope, 63 
 Maximus of Turin, 17, 124, 
 270 
 
 Mestrezat, quoted, 258 
 Mosheim, quoted, 220,257 
 
 Nicole, quoted, 259 
 Novatian, mentioned by Cy¬ 
 prian, 254 
 
 Optatus, St, quoted, 123, 257, 
 263, 270 
 
 Origen: on Luke, 12; in 
 Ps. i, 17, 19, 41; on John, 
 97, 248, 269, 286 
 
 Pacian, quoted, 262, 263, 265, 
 268 
 
 Passaglia, 12,30,144, 153, 177 
 Pearson, quoted, 247 
 Polycarp, St, 280 
 Petavius, quoted, 120, 220 
 Pfaff, quoted, 260 
 Philip, Legate of Holy See, 18 
 Photius, mentioned, 284 
 Proclus, Patriarch of Constan¬ 
 tinople, 240 
 
 Stephen of Dora, 93 
 Stephen of Larissa, to Boni¬ 
 face II, 70 
 
 Stephen, Pope St, 274 
 
 Tertullian, quoted, 17, 185, 220, 
 248, 263, 264, 269, 281, 286 
 Theodore, Abbot, to Paschal I, 
 
 63 
 
 Theodore, Pope, allusion to, 
 122 
 
 Theodoret, 10; to St Leo, 168, 
 179; quoted, 17, 179, 281, 
 286 
 
 Theophylact, quoted, 58 
 Thomas of Canterbury, St, 
 quoted, 184 
 
 Victor, Pope St, 274 
 Vincent of Lerins, 286 
 Vitringa, Sacred Observations, 
 
 250, 254 
 
 Voss, quoted, 262 
 Walemburg, the Brothers, 259 
 
Date Due 
 
 per 7 
 
 
 
 
 9*1 w 
 
 
 
 
 ' i k ‘ 
 
 | t 
 
 
 
 /. '-< 0 . 
 
 f •* J 4 
 
 *1 
 
 
 
 f aO^~“ ; 
 
 
 
 
 RP20’^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / h •- 
 
 ^ '55 
 
 
 
 
 X 2 7 s t 
 
 
 
 
 t J H '•■ 
 *> y j 
 
 >2 
 
 
 
 
 ?A 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 aw**— 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 ' . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 onr * « 
 
 
 
 
 •CTD 1 g 
 
 — t a* - 
 
 ?0P4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $>