[53] John iv. 2.

[54] Pa.s.saglia, p. 181.

[55] Acts xi. 1-4.

[56] On Acts, Hom. 24, n. 2.

[57] Lib. 9. Ep. 39.

[58] Pa.s.saglia. p. 188.

[59] Acts v. 8. 3.

[60] On Acts, Hom. 12.

[61] Pa.s.saglia, p. 190.

[62] Acts ix. 31.

[63] t.i.tus i. 5.

[64] Acts xv. 36.

[65] Hist. Ecc. Lib. 3, ch. 23.

[66] So called by Arn.o.bius, on psalm 138.

[67] On Acts, Hom. 21, n. 2.

[68] Pa.s.saglia, p. 192.

[69] Acts xv. 6.

[70] Hom. 32, n. 1.

[71] Hom. 32, Tom. 9, p. 250.

[72] Acts xv. 28; xvi. 4.

[73] De Pudicitia, c. 21.

[74] S. Jerome, Ep. 75, inter Augustinianas, Tom. 2, p. 171.

[75] Theodoret, Ep. 113, Tom. 3, 984.

[76] Pa.s.saglia, p. 197.

[77] On Acts, Hom. 26, n. 2.

[78] Pa.s.saglia, p. 198.

[79] 1 Pet. v. 3.

[80] Princeps hujus fuit decreti, says St. Jerome to St. Augustine, Ep. 75, n. 8. inter Augustinianas.

[81] Numbers xvi. 3; xii. 2.

[82] Acts vi. 1; xv. 2; xi. 2.

[83] Acts xi. 18.

[84] Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23, 27.

[85] Col. i. 18.

CHAPTER VI.

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

In leaving the Gospels and the Acts we quit those writings in which we should expect, beforehand, that divine government to be set forth, which it pleased our Lord to establish for His church. In exact accordance with such expectation we have seen the inst.i.tution of the apostolic college, and of S. Peter's Primacy over it, described in the Gospels, and the history in the Acts of its execution and practical working. Both inst.i.tution and execution have been complete in their parts, and wonderfully harmonise with each other. But in the other inspired writings of the New Testament, comprising the letters of various Apostles, and specially of S.

Paul, we had no reason to antic.i.p.ate any detailed mention of Church government. The fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were written incidentally on different subjects, no one of them leading him to set forth, with any exact specification, that divine hierarchy under which it was the pleasure of the Lord that His Church should grow up. Moreover, it so happened that the [1]circ.u.mstances of S. Paul's calling to be an Apostle, and the opposition which he sometimes met with from those attached to Jewish usages, caused him to be a great defender of the Apostolic dignity, as bestowed upon himself, and continually to a.s.sert that he received it not of men, but of G.o.d.

Had there, then, been no recognition at all of S. Peter's superior rank in the Apostolic College to be found in his writings, it would not have caused surprise to those who consider the above reasons.

And proportionably strong and effective is the recognition of that rank, which, though incidental, does occur, and that several times.

If, then, S. Paul, being so circ.u.mstanced, selected expressions which seem to indicate a distinction of dignity between the Apostles and S. Peter, they claim a special attention, and carry a double force. Now on putting these together we shall find that they show not merely a distinction of dignity, but a superior authority, in Peter.

The first are four several pa.s.sages in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in all of which S. Peter holds the higher place, and in two is moreover mentioned singly, while the rest are mentioned only in ma.s.s. 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 G.o.d'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."[2] First, we may remark that the place of dignity in a sentence varies[3] according to its nature: if it _descends_, such place is the first; but if it _ascends_, it is the furthest point from the first. Now in the first instance the discourse ascends, for what can be plainer than that it terminates in Christ, as in the supreme point? "Every one of you saith, I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ;" so S. Chrysostome observes, "It was not to prefer himself before Peter that he set him last, but to prefer Peter even greatly before himself. For he speaks in the ascending scale:" and Theodoret: "They called themselves from different teachers: now he mentioned his own name and that of Apollo: but he adds also the name of the chief of the Apostles."[4] As plain is this in the second instance, where S. Paul, developing his thought, "all things are yours," adds, "whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas," or if that be not sufficient, "the world" itself, which, carried away in a sort of transport, he seems to divide into its parts, "or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all," I repeat, "are yours:" but only, you are not your own, "you are Christ's, and Christ is G.o.d's."

In all which, from human instruments, who plant and water, he rises up to G.o.d, the ultimate source, the beginning and the end. Stronger yet is the third pa.s.sage, for being in the very act of setting forth the dignity of his own Apostolate, "have we not power," he says, "to lead about a sister, a woman, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Now, whether "the rest of the Apostles" here means, those who, in the looser signification are so called, as "the Apostles of the Churches," and "Andronicus, and Junias--who are of note among the Apostles,"[5] or the original Twelve, the ascending scale is equally apparent. For why is Peter distinguished by name from all the rest? Why alone termed by his prophetical name? S. Chrysostome, again tells us why. "Look at Paul's wisdom. _He puts the chief the last. For there he puts that which was strongest among the princ.i.p.al. For it was not so remarkable to shew the rest doing this, as him that was chief, and had been entrusted with the keys of heaven._ But he puts not him alone, but all, as if he would say, whether you look for inferiors, or superiors, you have examples of all. For the brethren of the Lord, being delivered from their first unbelief,[6] were among the princ.i.p.al, though they had not reached the height of Apostles, and, therefore, he put them in the middle, with the highest on the two sides:"[7] 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 pa.s.sage, we have spoken above, under another head: and, therefore, proceed to much more remarkable testimonies of S. Paul.

In the epistle to the Galatians, S. Paul has occasion[8] to defend his Apostolic authority, and the agreement of the Gospel which he had preached with that of the original Apostles. After referring to his marvellous conversion, he continues, "immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood; neither went I to Jerusalem to the Apostles, who were before me, but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to visit Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord." At length, then, S. Paul goes to Jerusalem, and that with a fixed purpose, "to visit Peter." But why Peter only, and not the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord?[9] Why speaks he of these, and of James himself, besides, as if he would intimate that he had little care of seeing them? No other answer can be given to such queries, than is shadowed out in the prophetic name of Peter, and contained in the explanation of it given by Christ Himself, "Upon this Rock I will build My Church."

For, to prove this, let us go back once more to witnesses beyond suspicion, who wrote a thousand years before the denial of Peter's Primacy began. The Greek and Latin Fathers see here a recognition of his chief authority. Thus Theodoret, "Not needing doctrines from man, as having received it from the G.o.d of all, he gives the fitting honour to the chief." Theodoret follows S. Chrysostome, who had said, "After so many great deeds, needing nothing of Peter, nor of his instruction, but being his equal in rank, for I will say no more here, still he goes up to him as to the greater and elder:" his equal in the Apostolic dignity, and the immediate reception of his authority from Christ, but yet his inferior in the range of his jurisdiction, Peter being "greater and elder." And he goes on, "he went, but for this alone, to see him and honour him by his presence.

He says, I went up to visit Peter. He said not to see Peter, but to visit Peter, as they say, in becoming acquainted with great and ill.u.s.trious 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 antic.i.p.ation, that when he shall say, I resisted Peter, no one may think these words of enmity and contention. For he honours the man, and loves him more than all. For he says that he came up for none of the Apostles, save him."

Elsewhere, S. Chrysostome, commenting on the charge, Feed My sheep, asks, "Why, then, pa.s.sing by the rest, does He converse with him (Peter) on these things?" And he replies, Peter "was the one preferred among the Apostles, and the mouth-piece of the disciples, and the head of the band: _therefore_, too, Paul then went up to visit him _rather than the rest_."[10] Tertullian, the most ancient of the Latins, says, "then, as he relates himself, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of becoming acquainted with Peter, that is, according to duty, and the claim of their identical faith and preaching:"[11] the _duty_, which Paul had to Peter; the _claim_ which Peter had on Paul. In the fourth century, Marius Victorinus observes: "After three years, says he, I came to Jerusalem; then he adds the cause, to see Peter. For if the foundation of the Church was laid in Peter, as is said in the Gospel, Paul, to whom all things had been revealed, knew that he was _bound_ to see Peter, as one to whom so great an authority had been given by Christ, not to learn anything from him."[12] The writer called Ambrosiaster, as his works are attached to those of S. Ambrose, and contemporary with Pope Damasus, (A.D. 366-384) remarks, "It was proper that he should desire to see Peter, because he was first among the Apostles, to whom the Saviour had committed the care of the Churches." S. Jerome, more largely, says, "not to behold his eyes, his cheeks, or his countenance, whether he were thin or stout, with nose straight or twisted, covered with hair, or as Clement, in the Periods, will have it, bald. It was not, I conceive, in the gravity of an Apostle, that after so long as three years' preparation, he could wish to see anything human in Peter. But he gazed on him with those eyes with which now he is seen in his own letters. Paul saw Cephas with eyes such as those with which all wise men now look on Paul. If any one thinks otherwise, let him join all this with the sense before indicated, that the Apostles contributed nothing to each other. For even in that he seemed to go to Jerusalem, in order that he might see the Apostle, it was not to learn, as having himself too the same author of his preaching, but _to shew honour to the first Apostle_."[13] Our own S. Thomas sums up all these in saying, "the doctor of the Gentiles, who boasts that he had learnt the Gospel, not of man, nor through man, but instructed by Christ, went up to Jerusalem, conferred concerning the faith _with the head of the Churches_, lest perchance he might run, or had run, in vain."[14]

These last words lead us attentively to consider the pa.s.sage which follows in S. Paul. At a subsequent period the zealots of the law had raised against him a report that the Gospel which he preached differed from that of the Twelve. At once to meet and silence such a calumny, he tells us that "after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking t.i.tus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and," a.s.signing 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 ident.i.ty of his doctrine with that of those who "seemed to be something,"

that is, Peter, James, and John, though to him they "added nothing,"

he specifies Peter among these, and proceeds to draw a singular parallel between, on the one hand, Peter, as accompanied by James and John, and himself, as working with Barnabas and t.i.tus. 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 to me was committed the Gospel the circ.u.mcision, of the uncirc.u.mcision,

For He who wrought in Wrought in me also among Peter, to the Apostleship of the Gentiles, the circ.u.mcision,

[15]James, and Cephas, and Gave to me and Barnabas John, who seemed to be the right hand of fellowship; pillars,