5t^
J
i
THE
PRIMACY
OF THE
APOSTOLIC SEE,
AND THK
AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, V I N D I C A T E D.
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS
ADDRESSED TO THE
RIGHT REV. J. H. HOPKINS, D.D.
BISHOP OF THE TROTESTAST EPISCOPAL CHIRCH OF VERMONT. nV THC
RIGHT REV. FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, D.D.
BISHOP OF ARATH, A5D COADJUTOR OF THE BISHOP oF PHILADELPHIA.
"Omnia te video dixis.-je ronira Calholiram : inio iniilia pro Catholica, cum Catln)liciis iioii sis."— (>/(<a/uj(, /. ],^:>,p.4.
I'im-.\I)i:i,l'III.\:
JAMES KAY, JUN. & BROTHER, 1^> CHESTNUT STREET
I'lTT.sni'RCM : JOHN I. KAY Sc CO. Il.M.TIMOHF. : y. I.rtAS, JI.N.
1838.
Entered according to the act of congress, in the year 1837, by Francis Patrick Kenrick, in the office of the clerk of the district court of the United States in and for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
TO THE
MOST REV. SAMUEL ECCLESTON,
ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE.
Most Reverend Sir :
Your eminent station, and still more your zeal for our holy Religion, encourage me to inscribe to you the following Letters, directed to vindicate the Primacy of the Apostolic See. The influence of your example must be powerful with those who reflect that you sacrificed early prejudice to truth, and that whilst you yield to none in love of coun- try, and attachment to its free institutions, you cherish profound veneration for the high authority which Christ established for the government of his Church. With such a Prelate at the head of the American Hierarchy, who recommends Reli- gion by the exercise of the mild virtues which it inspires, we may hope that many of those who lie scattered throughout this vast and flourishing Republic, like sheep without a shepherd, will
soon be brought to the fold of Jesus Christ. This is, doubtless, your highest ambition, and most earnest prayer, as it is likewise the object dearest to the heart of him who, with veneration and esteem, subscribes himself.
Your devoted brother in Christ,
t FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
Bishop of Arath and Coadj. Philadelphia. Philadelphia, December 8, 1837.
PREFACE
The followinor Letters have been written in reply to the work which has recently appeared from the pen of the Protestant Episcopal bishop of Ver- mont, in which "the Church of Rome, at the pre- sent day, is compared with the Church of Jiome in her primitive purity," and which is ''addressed to the Roman Hierarchy." The investiiration which has been thus opened is hii,dily interesting, and the mode in which it is conducted sufficiently novel to increase the interest. Thoui>h the early writers of the Anglican Church made free use of the Fathers, it was found by experience so difficult to suit their testimony to the doctrines of the day, that appeals to their authority have become com- paratively rare in Protestant polemics, l^ishop Hopkins has ventured anew on ground whence many a chaminon of Protestantism had been forced to retreat, and has advanced close to our camp, brandishing weapons taken from our own armory. Not confining himself, as some more cautious dis- putants, to the earlic^st Fathers, styled Apostolic, he has extended his researches to the nuddle of the fifth century, and presented, in regular array, a host of writers, with aj)|)areiit confidence in the favoural)le character of their testimony. C^atholics owe him a debt of Liralitude for directing public attention to tlu^se venerable witnesses of ancient faith; and Protestants must feel ilattcnd that so
PREFACE.
plausible a defence of their principles could have been made by their ingenious advocate. To in- spire confidence in his proofs, Bishop Hopkins cited at the bottom of the page, in many instances, the original Greek and Latin, and in some cases the received Latin version of some Greek Fathers. I regret to be obliged to dispute the fidelity of the English translation of several passages; and though I willingly acquit him of intentional misrepresen- tation of the meaning of the text, the learned reader will admit, that it has been, in many places, greatly mistaken. The frequency of my corrections, which I have generally made in the notes, may appear unkind, perhaps pedantic; but the errors sometimes materially affected the sense, and w^ere made the occasion or ground of false argumentation. It is pleasing to find that a desultory mode of contro- versy has not been pursued by Bishop Hopkins, his arguments being directed almost exclusively against one tenet of Catholic faith — the Supre- macy of the Pope. It is, indeed, to be regretted that the Bishop did not confine himself to that tenet, which would have fixed attention so com- pletely on it that the reader might have more easily formed his judgment. The occasional ob- jections introduced against General Councils have called for a reply, but have not afforded an oppor- tunity of a full development of the nature and au- thority of these venerable assemblies. The Letters, then, may be deemed the vindication of the Pri- macy alone, though incidentally the authority of General Councils is likewise vindicated. The main subject has been somew^hat encumbered, in the work of Bishop Hopkins, by the introduction of supposititious works, and of passages having little or no connexion with it: which render the task of the writer and reader more tedious than it
PREFACE. ni
would otherwise have been. By the repetition of assertions of the same kind in numberless places, the respondent has been k'd to repeat, with some variety of phrase, what a dilVerent arrangement would not have ref[uired. The plan, however, of the original work is somewhat new and pleasing, and well calculated for its end, uniting much art vrith apparent simplicity. The style is that of a gentleman and a scholar — and abounds in profess- ions of kindness — in exhortation — in appeals — and in prayer — but withal it conceals the bitter- ness of reproach and accusation. In the answer, great care has l)een taken to repress the strong feeling which groundless imputations awaken — to temper its expression — and to sustain truth with- out violating charity. It has been deemed unne- cessary to swell the book by giving all the })assages in the original Greek, or Latin, or in the Latin version of the Greek text, as most readers cannot profit l)y the facility which it allbrds of judging of the accuracy of the English version : but wherever a doubt might be excited as to the meaning of the words, or a correction was to be sustained, or the words seemed peculiarly important, they have been given in the notes. These Letters, wTitten purely with a view to vindicate a divine dogma, appear without any ])rctensions to adventitious or- nament; and are submitted in the hope that they may fall into the hands of some who are not as yet of the fold of Jesus Christ, Imt whom his mercy designs to bring, that they may be of the one fold, under the one Pastor.
CONTENTS
LETTER I.
Promotion of Christian union. The Catholic principle. Canon law. Fathers — Extent of their authority. Use and meaning of Anathema. Apostolic Fathers. Apostolic Canons. Apostolic Constitutions. Coun- cil of Florence. Pontifical rights and privileges.
LETTER IL
Scriptural proofs of the Primacy. Promise of Christ. Metaphor of the Rock — Of the keys of the kingdom. Distinction between Petrusand Petra abandoned. Greek text. Syriac version. Arabic, (/haldaic. Bloomfield, Bishop Marsh, Rosenmiiller. In what sense is Peter the foundation .' Supposed literary blunder. Vigilius. Charge of Christ to Peter. Prayer that his faith may not fail. Pastoral commission. Ar- nobius. Protestant interpretation. Exercise of the Primacy. Elec- tion of Matthias. Chrysostom. Council of Jerusalem. Decree of Peter. Jerome, Theodoret. Cave. Perpetuity of the Primacy. Peter, Bishop of Rome.
LETTER in.
Objections. Christ the Rock, the foundation. St Leo. Bishop Marsh. Bloomfield. Humility inculcated. Domination. Vanity. Power of forgiveness. Peter and John sent. Peter vindicates himself Paul's visit. Reproof of Ceplias. Order of the Apostles. Foundation of the Church of Rome. St Francis de Sales. Scriptural allusions.
LETTER IV.
Spurious Documents. Canons of the Apostles. Apostolic Constitu- tions. Decretals of Isidore. Sources. Letter of Hormisdas. John of Constantinople.
LETTER V.
Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius. Roman Church presiding. Clement of Rome. Letter to the Corinthians. Irenanis. Splendid testimony. More powerful principality. Agreement with the Roman Ciiurch. Pas- chal question. Victor. Threat of excommunication. Ancient usages Perpetuity of the Roman See. Undying sovereignty. Fanciful hypo- thesis. Primitive views. Seat of ernpire.
CONTENTS. IX
LETTER VI.
Tertiillian. Peter the Rock. Bishop of hishops. Church of I'oter. Apostolic. Keys left tlirouijh I'eter to the Church. Ingenious inter- pretation. Council of Jerusalem. Fal>er's acknowledgment. SucceiiB- ion to Peter. Montanisin. Key of knowledirr. Apostolic Churches. Vindication of TertuUian.
LETTER VII.
Clement of Ale.xandria. Hypotyposcs lost. Fracrment in F^usebius Precedency of Peter. Ancient Church. Unity of the Church. Figu- rative terms. Gospel of Mark.
LETTER Vin.
Origen. Keys of Scripture. Mystical interpretation. Privileges of all the Apostles. Moral application. Gates of hell powerless against the Rock and Church. Heterodox. Connexion not iinine(jiat<'. Claims of the episcopacy. Capricious exercise of power. On Pet«'r the Church is built. To him supreme power is given. Visit to Rome. Profession of faith.
LETTER IX.
St Cyprian. One Church. One Chair. Communion with Corne- lius, tliat is, with the Catholic Church. Authority of the Roman Church. Pl.ice of I'cter. Pag.iti eiii|Mror jealous of the Roman Bishop. Acknowlednment of Bishop Hopkins. Iluman church. Liberty of bishops. Scliismatics. Letter to Cornelius. One Bishop. One Judge. Preventive of heresy and schism. Peter speaks for all. .M.ijesty of the Church. Roman faith inaccessible to perfidy. Appeals to Rome. Right not questioned. Root and parent of the Catholic Church. Power to depose bishops. Unity of the Episcopate and Church. Peter its Guar- dian. Letter to Quintus. Doubt raised as to the genuine character of the writings on baptism. Incorrect translations. St Gregory the Great. Mutual appellations. Greatness of Home.
LETTER X.
Controversy concerning baptism. Narrative of St Vincent of Lerins. Zeal of the Apostolic See. No innovation. Cyprian not mentioned. Plea for liim by St Augustin. Kusebius. St Jerome. F'irmilian. Ad- missif)n of the superiority f)f Stephen. Cause of excited feeling.^ Abuse of authority. Political illustration. Supposed submission of Cyprian. Victor and Stephen sustained by councils. Example of Cyprian
LETTER XI.
Lactantius. Catholic Church. Kusebius. Circumstantial evidence Paul preceded all the Christian apologists. Silence of Mark.^ Pet<*r the first— the most powerful and the great.'st of the Apostles. Fanciful interpretation of this testimony. The priniacy of a skilful lawyer. Chair
X CONTENTS.
of Peter. Roman Bishop successor of Peter. Paschal controversy. Remonstrance of Irenaeus. Letter of Dionysius of Alexandria. Coun- cil of Antioch. Ancient discipHne. Reference by Aurelian to the bishops of Italy and Rome. Letter of Constantine. Judgment of Mel- chiades. Council of Aries. New trial unnecessary. History of Euse- bius. Offensive language of Bishop Hopkins.
LETTER XIL
General Councils. PontiiTs right of convocation. Of presiding. Dis- tinction between doctrine and discipline. Council of Nice summoned by Constantine, with the assent of Sylvester. Address of Constantine. Untimely introduction of the Council of Jerusalem. Imperial convoca- tion not suited to the divided state of Christendom. Letter of the orien- tal bishops to Damasus. Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Osius of Cordova. Order of Councils. Council of Constantinople. Unjust reproach by Bishop Hopkins. St Cyril presiding by commission of Ce- lestine. Second Council of Constantinople. Assertion of Bishop Hop- kins refuted. Council of Chalcedon. Presidency of the emperor. Western Councils. Right of confirmation.
LETTER XHL
Nicene Canons. Sixth Canon. Metropolitical rights. Patriarchates. Primacy. Proceedings at Chalcedon. Exceptionable authority of Ques- nel. Modification of ancient legislation.
LETTER XIV.
St Athanasius. Mode of defending Councils. Authority of the Ni- cene Council. False Councils of Arians. Nicene definition unchangea- ble. Imaginary contrast. Real harmony of doctrine. Testimony of Bishop Bull. Of Saywell. Regard for the Holy See. Efforts of the Eusebians. Synod summoned by Julius. Athanasius acquitted. Judg- ment of Julius. Historical facts. Eusebians acknowledge the pre-emi- nence of the Roman Church. Literary criticism of Bishop Hopkins. Judicial forms. Reversal of sentence. Letter of Julius. Splendid evi- dence of the Primacy. Council of Sardica. Testimony to the Primacy. Titles. Bishop of the Catholic Church. Liberius. Pseudo-Athanasius. Letter of Pope Agatho. Acknowledgment of Whitaker.
LETTER XV.
St Cyril of Jerusalem. False translation. Peter the most eminent. The Prince of the Apostles. Power of the keys. Overthrow of Simon Magus. Primacy of jurisdiction. Irrelevant texts. Translator of Cyril. Catholic Church. Shameful insinuation.
LETTER XVI.
St Hilary of Poictiers. The Church built on Simon Peter. Power of the keys. Faith of Peter. A rian heresy. Literary criticism. Apos- trophe to Peter. Epitliets. Polity of the Church. Sense of Scripture. Strong foundation. Bishop Pearson.
CON TK NTS.
LETTER XV 11.
St Basil the Groat. l\'ter the foundation. Prayer for the I'atriarch. Diptychs. Order of tile Church. Peter preferred Received tin- keys. Letters to Athanasius. Implores tlie autliority of tlic Roman Rinliop. Signal fact. Eustatiiius restored hy Liherius. Roman Chureli mother of all cliurchea. Baptism administered by heretics. Nicene Council.
LETTER XVI II.
St GrejTory of Nazianzum. Peter called a rock, and entrusted with the fountiations of the Church. False translation and false readinjj. Mistake of Rishop Hopkins. Virtues of the elder CJreirory. Ri.shopof the Catholic Church. Hackneyed objection. Unity of faith. Councils.
LETTER XIX.
St Ambrose. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Faith of Peter. He is called a rock, and made the strength of the (Church. Received a kingdom from Christ. Moral application. Peter Bishop of the Roman Church. Powers common to the Apostles. Peculiar |)reroirative of Peter. Unity of action in the three Divine Persons. Unfair use of iso- lated expressions. Equality of merit in Peter and Paul. Peter the foun- dation. Pastoral commission. Vicar of Christ. Pious usage. Council ofAquileiat Record of trial. Splendid testimony. Council of Capua. Satirus.
LETTER XX.
St Jerome. Letter to Damasus. Chair of Peter. Communion with Damasus. Letter to Evagrius. Equality of the Episcopal character. Peter the foundation. Abuse of the power of the keys. Confession. City of Rome. Local usages. Jerome's motives and sentiments. Ex- hortation to Demetrias. Roman faith. Adoption of Jerome's senti raents.
LETTER XXI.
St Augustin. Hesitancy ns to the rock. Bishops Pearson and Beve- ridge. l*rincipality of the Apostleship. Allegorical interpretation. Pri- macy of Peter. Excellence of Peter. First among the A[)ostles. In him unity is commended. Catholicity of the Church. Roman Church. Apostolic Chair. Letter tr) Hesychius. Misrepresentation of its mean- ing. Roman usages. Doctrinal tribunal. Acknowledgment of Casau- bon. African Councils. Authority of ihe Holy See.
LETTER XXII.
St Chrysostom. Peter Prince of the Apostles. (Diarge given to him and his successors. Power of binding and loosinjr. Commission to feed the sheep. Peter the head of the .\postlc8. On him the Churrli is bjiMt Divinity of Christ proved by his gif\s and promises to Peti'r. Petit placed over tiie worM. Doctor of the whole world. Rock of faith. Ap- peal of Chrysostom to Innocent.
Xll CONTENTS.
LETTER XXllI.
St Isidore of Pelusium. Confession of Peter. Church not to be over- thrown. St Prosper of Aquitaine. Authority of the ApostoHc See. Condemnation of the Pehio^ians. E.xtraord nary assertion of Bishop Hopkins. Vincent of Lerins. Pope Stephen. Ri^me head of the world. Rule for Scriptural interpretation. Catholics follow it. Bishop Pearson and Archbishop Potter. Primacy always, every where, by ALL admitted.
LETTER XXIV.
General testimonies. St James of Nisibis. St Epiphanius. St Gregory of Nyssa. St Asterius of Amasea. St Optatus of Mela. St Cyril of Alexandria. St Peter Chrysologus. Council of Ephesus. Of Chalcedon.
LETTER XXV.
Interpolation of the Fathers. Jansenist Quesnel. Unjust charge. Retort. Vigilius of Thapsis. St Maximus of Turin.
LETTER XXVI.
Claims of the primitive Roman Church. Admission of Hallam. Si- ricius, Innocent, Zosimus, Leo. Council of Sardica.
LETTER XXVII.
Temporal power. Profession of faith. Sir Edward Sandys. Gre- gory VII. Condition and compact. American independence. Depo- sition by Innocent IV. Public opinion. Benefits of Papal power. Fo- reign Quarterly and London Quarterly Reviews. Southey. Third canon of Latran. Council of Trent. Council of Florence. French de- claration. Opinions. Disclaimers of temporal claims. German empire. False construction. Offensive assertion. General character of Pontifical authority.
LETTER XXVIII.
Mode of election. Ancient form. Modifications. Coronation of the Pope. Electors. Mistakes of Bishop Hopkins.
LETTER XXIX.
Catholic Church. Ancient respect for Papal authority. Questions answered. St Cyprian on Unity. Jerome. Optatus. Obedience to Pope. Creed of Pope Pius. Ancient rites. Anathema. Council of Constantinople. Choice of words. Unjust accusations. Infallibility. Failing and falling. Prayer of Christ. St Leo. Plan of reunion. In- fluQUce of government. Groundless assertions. Ascendancy. Spiritual triumph. Friendly discussion. Exhortation.
INTRODUCTORY LETTER. ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
Right Reverend Sir :
Your recent work, " addressed to the Roman Hierarchy" and dedicated " to the cause of Catholic unity," has been read by me with no small degree of interest and attention. As one of the body addressed, which you are pleased to designate " nu- merous, powerful, and august," I could not be insensible to your very solemn appeal on a subject involving our eternal interests, and those of the millions over whom we watch, being to render an account for their inunortal souls : as a friend to Catholic unity, I hail every overture for reconciliation coming from the highly respectable and influential body to which you belong. In the perusal of your work, I have been afforded great gratification, no less by the method which you have adopted, and which, if constantly followed, must lead to the end we both have in view, than by the treasure of testimo- nies which it contains, regarding the rights of the apostolic see, which cannot be too highly valued. Some inaccuracies, how- ever, have escaped you, which I feel warranted in pointing out, although perfectly aware of the delicacy of the task, and of the responsibility incurred by anticipating my more experienced and more competent colleagues. I rely, however, on your indulgence, and on theirs, and only plead sirjcere zeal for the cause of Catholic unity.
You commence by stating that the principle on which you proceed is our own principle ; and, by way of explanation, you add, that you should make your appeal in every case to the
14 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
authorities sanctioned by our own canon law. The use of such documents as have the sanction of the Church is certainly allowable, provided, however, they receive only that degree of authority which she ascribes to them : but as the body of canon law — especially that part styled the decree of Gratian — has re- ceived no solemn sanction, no weight can be given to passages extracted from it, beyond what the document to which it refers may possess intrinsically, or derive from the usage of the Church.*
According to Gibert, whom you quote, and to whose posi- tion I willingly assent, the holy scriptures are the fountain of law, both as to faith and morals, when expounded by compe- tent authority, not by private interpretation, in accordance with that faith which was originally delivered to the saints. From it, he adds, we learn the necessity, utility and form of councils ; the model of which is found in the council of Jerusalem, whose proceedings are recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. General councils are placed by him next; and passing over the Pontifical decrees, which form a great portion of the canon law, he gives us a list of Fathers mentioned with approbation in a decree of a Roman synod, held towards the close of the fifth century. St Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, and martyr, is the first on this list ; and it is said, in the origi- nal decree, that his works are to be received in all things:! yet as among his reputed works are some J in defence of what is now acknowledged by all to be an error, — the invalidity of baptism administered by heretics, — we must suppose that these were rejected as supposititious, or that this general phrase ad- mits a certain latitude of signification. Although St Augustin was an ardent admirer of the great bishop of Carthage, he
* See Devoti institut. Juris Can. 1. I, § 79.
t " In omnibus recipienda." Cone. Rom. § iv. torn. 11. Cone. Hard. Col. 939.
X Some learned men in Germany, and elsewhere, strongly contena that these are not genuine. See Binterin's excellent work on the disci- pline of the Church in the early, middle, and late ages.
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS. 15
avowed his perfect freedom as lo such opinions as were not in harmony with Scripture, "^ and expressly rejected those ascrib- ed lo him against the validity of such baptism ; *♦ I do not ad- mit, I say, the opinion of blessed Cyprian concerning the bap- tizing of heretics and schismatics, because the Church does not admit it, for which blessed Cyprian shed his blood. "t As you, Right Reverend Sir, desire to proceed on our principles, I beg of you to notice, that the general approbation of the works of any individual father does not imply a solemn sanction of every thing that may be contained in his writings. The Church re- gards the Fathers as witnesses of ancient faith and tradition, wherever they unanimously declare or vindicate some doctrine ; but, as the enlightened bishop of Hippo remarked, in re- gard to the writings of Cyprian, she does not consider their works as canonical and divine.J Thougli their testimony be worthy of credit, and their individual sentiments should be treat- ed with respect, on account of their learning, piety, and their connexion with tlie primitive church, yet Catholic principles necessarily free us from the yoke of individual authority, and subject our intellect to Christ alone, speaking by the tribunals which He has established in his Church.
In the list which you give, as taken from Gibert, and found in the canon law, you represent as " accursed, whoever does not embrace the letter of the blessed Leo to Flavian, the bishop of Constantinople, even to a tittle." Instead of the awe- inspiring word "accursed," I could wish that you had retained the simple "anathema" of the original, and left your readers to learn its meaning from some one who might give it tKe less odious, but more correct, interpretation, of "separation from the Church of Christ." Baron de Starck, a professed Lutheran min- ister, thoiigh almost a Catholic in sentiment — perhaps in the end entirely Catholic, in liis profound essay on the reunion of the
* S. Aug. I. 11. contra Cresconiuin, c. 3'J. " Quod aulcm iion con- gruit cum pace ejus rcspuo." t Ibid. X S. Aug. 1. II. contra ('n>sc(»iiiiun, r. 32. also Epist. 1 1 1
16 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
Christian Churches, gives the obnoxious word this milder signifi- cation.* For the present, I will state why so great a penalty as exclusion from the Church of Christ was decreed against such as would not receive unreservedly this Epistle of Pope Leo, whilst no such sanction is given to the rest of his admirably writings, or to those of the other Fathers whose names are men- tioned. That epistle was a solemn exposition of the faith of the Church on the adorable mystery of the Incarnation, which was then assailed by Eutyches, who denied the distinction of the two natures of God and man in our Redeemer Jesus Christ. It was read publicly in the great Council of Chalcedon, and the assembled prelates of the Catholic world hailed it as the voice of Peter speaking by the mouth of Leo. Anathemas re- sounded throughout that venerable assembly against all who did not hold the faith of the Fathers, so correctly and solemnly declared by the successor of Peter. Before quitting this sub- ject, it may be well to remind you that this '* anathema" is borrowed from St Paul : " Though we, or an angel from hea- ven, preach a gospel beside that which we have preached to you, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. As I Said bcforc, SO I Say now again, If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."!
Besides the works of the Fathers specified in the list which you give, you use others, mentioned with commendation by St Jerom, to whose discrimination and judgment great defer- ence is deservedly manifested, without any prejudice, howev- er, to our liberty of respectful dissent, wherever it is not corro- borated by the positive sanction of the Church. With regard to the works of minor character which you use, such as Pi- card, Gibert, Tuberville's Catechism, Butler's "Book of the Church," I can have no objection that you should use them
* '' L'anatheme n'emporte point un jugement de damnation." P. 415.
" Cette sentence ne designe pas une excommunication reunie aux ma- ledictions." P. 421. Entretiens Philosophiques traduits de I'allemand. 2d ed. Paris, 1821.
t Gal. i. 8, 9.
SPURIOUS WORKS. 17
for the elucidation of any point in dispute ; alilioufrh they do not possess such wei«,dit of autliority as could make liieir testi- mony conclusive. In an investigation of this kind, the highest authorities only should iiave been selected.
WJien noticing the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, I regret that you have introduced the " Apostolic Canons," and " the Apostolical Constitutions," for, as all the learned agree that these latter collections are not the genuine works of the Apostles, reference to them is calculated unnecessarily to incumber and embarrass the controversy. Truth, as it was anciently deliv- ered and professed, being your object, you should have, at once, set aside all documents of a questionable character, and still more those which are known to be supposititious. The same consideration should have determined you to leave unnoticed all such works as, in passing through the ordeal of criticism, have not stood the application of its legitimate tests ; such are eome works falsely ascribed to the Fathers, and the decretals attributed by Isidore to the Popes of tiie first three centuries. This would have preserved you from the temptation of express- ing yourself in a manner that might be thought offensive, and, consequently, inconsistent as well with the very kind profess- ions with which your letters abound, as with the altainnient of ihat end you have so much at heart. It would have left the sincerity of your search after truth beyond the reach even of suspicion ; whilst the introduction of these literary forgeries may be thought designed to convey the false impression that they were contrived by the advocates of the primacy to supply the want of better evidence. This course would have afforded the reader greater facility in judging of the real merits of the case, by concentrating his attention on documents of unques- tionable authenticity, whose weight may now be diminislicd, in his mind, from the connexion with false and forged testimo- nies, which you likewise bring forward. For this I cannot give you praise.
Instead of staling our belief on the primacy of the Apostolic See in your words, or in those of Tuberville, I beg to sul)mii
18 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
the definition of the General Council of Florence : " We define that the holy Apostolic See and Roman Pontiffhasthe primacy throughout the entire world, and that the said Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians ; and that to him, in the person of blessed Peter, full power was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule and govern the Uni- versal Church; as is even contained in the acts of (Ecumenical Councils, and in the Sacred Canons."* With this strong expression of the power and authority of the Apostolic See before us, we can easily dispense with the explanations of TuberviUe's Catechism, and with the passages which you quote as extracts from the Canon law. You seem to have borrowed them from Gibert, to whose works you refer ; but as these are not now within my reach, I cannot ascertain the sources whence he has derived them. I shall observe, how- ever, that the pompous phrases in which the Pontifical au- thority may be occasionally expressed, are not the fair criterion of its character, which must be ascertained by the solemn and deliberate definition of the Church, such as that of the Fathers of Florence. To adduce one instance, you quote a passage which you thus translate : — " The Roman Pontiflf bears the authority not of a mere man, but of the true God upon the earth. "t Some one might imagine that the Pope was here held up as the true God ; whilst the obvious meaning of the text is, that he acts as vicegerent not of a mere man, but of the true God, — our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. The various privileges or rights ascribed to him should not be con- founded with the primacy itself, since, as you yourself after- wards state, a diversity of opinion exists among Catholics themselves as to the extent of his prerogative, though the
* Cone. Flor. Collat. 22, p. 985. T. ix. Edit. Paris, 1714. Cone. Col. Hard.
t " Romanus Pontifex non puri hominis ; sed veri Dei vieera gerit in terris." Gibert, torn. 2. p. U.
DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY. 19
divine institution of the primary is admitted by nil. Those who seriously desire unity, should carefully distinguish be- tween the defined doctrines of failii, in which all harmonize, and those opinions which are tolerated by the Church. If we could agree on the doctrine, we might, at our leisure, in the bosom of the Church herself, consider the weight of authority which may sustain each sentiment, and adopt or reject it as our enlightened judgment would dictate. I recollect a very interesting essay for Catholic communion written by a minister of the church of England, in which was stated, with great candour and accuracy, what Catholic faith essentially de- manded, and how far Anglican divines had advanced on each disputed point. The difference between us appeared very small, when the concessions made by your divines were placed at the side of the Catholic tenet. With a similar view the great Bossuet composed his simple but profound exposition of the doctrine of the Catholic church on matters of controversy. In the same spirit I beg to state, that it is my design to main- tain the doctrine and faith of the Catholic church on the primacy, without entering into the vindication of any disputa- ble claim : and if the authorities which I shall have occasion to bring forward, or the expressions which I may use, should go beyond these limits, I shall not be supposed to urge any thing questionable, as a condition for Catholic communion. The primacy which I mean to defend is the Spiritual Presi- dency of the Church of God,* established by Jesus Christ, for the maintenance of faith in its integrity, for the good order and government of the church in things spiritual, and for all that appertains to eternal salvation. Could I indulge the hope of inducing you. Right Reverend Sir, to recognise this Catholic dogma, as one plainly delivered in the Scriptures, acknowledged by all the Fathers of the Church, solemnly admitted and declared
* I borrow the phrase from St Chrysostom, who says that Christ gave to Peter " the presidency of the Church in tiie whole world:" — "per totum orbem lerraruin ccclesio; proesidentiam tradidit." Ad pop. An- tioch. horn. bO de pcenil.
20 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
by the General Councils of the bishops of the Christian world, I should undertake my present task with alacrity and joy. But deep and strong as is my own conviction and faith on this subject, I know, like Augustine, how difficult it is to rid oneself of false opinions imbibed in infancy — and which too frequently grow with our growth and strengthen with our strength.^ Still I enter on the work as a duty which I owe to truth — to the Apostolic See — to the Church of Jesus Christ. May his Spirit guide my pen, and prepare our hearts for the influence of his grace.
- Aug. I. 2, de civ. Dei. c. 1. Tom. III. 1. 7, p. 31.
LETTER IT.
SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
Right Reverend Sir:
Your fourth chapter commences the important investigation of the claims of tlie Cliurcli of Rome, to what you, somewhat ambiguously, call " universal dominion," but which would more correctly be termed, Ijer claim to authority in defining the doctrines of faith, and in maintaining religious unity. You quote the celebrated passage of St Matthew, in whicli Catho- lics believe Christ promised this authority to Peter, who died bishop of Rome. The occasion on whicli the words were spoken must be remembered, in order to perceive their full force. Christ had asked tlie Apostles what opinions were en- tertained of him, and had been told by them that some said he was John the Baptist, others Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He then asked, who they themselves believed him to be. Peter stood forward and said : " Thou art Clirist, the Son of the living God."* He alone speaks, and to him alone the Redeemer addresses his reply. " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Iona ; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and tlie gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shah bind on earth shalt be bound also in heaven, and whatso- ever tliou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." Peter's confession of faith is declared to be divinely inspired, and on account of it he is pronounced blessed. His name is
• Matt. xvi. IG.
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
changed ; the son of lona is henceforth to be called Cephas, a Syriac word,* which in Greek is rendered Petros, in English, a rock.t As Jacob was called Israel, because in the mysteri- rious conflict he prevailed over the angel of God ; — as Abratn was called Abraham, because chosen to be the father of a count- less multitude; — so Simon is called Cephas or Peter, because made by divine grace a rock of faith. Nor is the firmness of his faith a mere personal endowment; he is to become the foundation-stone of the Church of Christ. That Church is the house the wise man built upon a rock. Christ Jesus is the architect : Peter is placed by Him as the foundation : the build- ing is to be raised by the power of the divine Founder, and, owing to the immovable nature of the foundation, is to be so solid, so compact in its parts, that waves and winds may dash against it, but cannot overthrow it. Time cannot crumble it into dust ; no engine of human power can raze it ; hell itself is powerless against it. Peter is to it what a strong foundation is to a vast building, — its strength, its necessary and permanent support. Take away the foundation, and the building tumbles to the ground. He is, then, not merely the first to profess aloud the divinity of his master, nor merely the first to preach the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, but he is the rock on which the Church rests, and with which it is inseparably united.
To this striking and expressive figure, Christ adds another, still more clearly designating the governing and supreme power which he determined to impart to Peter. The keys of the palace, or of the gates of the royal city, were the known em- blems of power and authority.."}: Christ promises to give him
^ Kiplia, the Greeks write KtitpAi.
t In three Arabic versions he is styled the rock : the definite article being prefixed : thou art the rock. See Ecchellensis, par. 2. p. 195.
X Isaiah xxii. 22. " I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open." This is said of Eliacim, who was to be substituted to Sobna in the high priesthood. Of Christ the same prophet foretells : "the government is upon his shoulder," Is. ix. 6; making an allusion to the manner of carrying the keys.
PROMISE OF THE PRIMACY. 23
the keys of the kingdom of lieavcn, whicli, in the New Testa- ment, means eillier tlie (.'hurcli of G'oil on earth, or llie celes- tial kingdom itself. To Peter, then, was promised the govern- ing power in the Church, — the power of opening heaven itself to man. His relation to the (Jhurch is to be one of power and authority. Whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, either by unfolding the dilhculties of the law, as that phrase sometimes was understood among the Jews, or by remitting the oflences of the penitent, as the collation of the power of forgiveness ma- nifests, shall be also loosed in heaven: whatsoever he shall bind on earth, by his authoritative definition and decree, shall be also bound in heaven. This surely conveys the idea of the liighest degree of power which Christ could communicate for our instruction, government, and salvation. The promise is made to him distinctly, and that on account of his glorious con- fession, and the privileges and power which it indicates are con- sequently to belong to him. Christ afterwards, indeed, promised to all the apostles the power of binding and loosing : still what was promised in common to all, must be acknowledged peculiarly and pre-eminently to have been promised to Peter, — else why was it that he received in particular what in common with his fellow Apostles he would equally have got ? Surely it was not without the special view of marking his high authority and essential relation to the Church, that he alone was declared its fundamental rock — its ruler, bearing the keys of this heavenly kingdom.*
I am surprised to find you. Right Reverend Sir, endeavouring to weaken what appears to me the obvious meaning of the words "upon this rock," by referring to the diilerent words, almost similar in sound and signification, by which Peter and the rock are expressed in the Greek text. Still more am 1 astonished at
" " As to tlio expression * the keys,' it may also refer to the power and autljorily for tlie said work; especially aa a key was anciently an usual 8ynil>ol of authority, and presentinfr with a key was a common form of invfstiniT with authority, insomuch that it was afterwards worn as a bad^e of ollice. " liluomfield, a learned Protestant commentator, on tJiis text.
24 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
your objection to profit by the aid which the language spoken by our Lord affords for the elucidation of this passage. Its meaning is, indeed, equally clear in the Greek, and in our own language ; but as the genius of the Greek induced a slight va- riety in the terms, and as the English does not at all present the force of the allusion, it is reasonable and necessary to exa- mine what were the precise expressions used by our Lord. To sustain your objection, you bring forward the authority of the Vulgate, which, although we are forbidden to reject, we are not prohibited from illustrating, by reference to the original text, where it exists, or to the peculiar genius of the original languages, to remove any ambiguity or obscurity that may be in some term of that version. You ask us, *' do we mean that the original Gospel, which is in the Greek, is not our only sure authority?" We fully admit the authority of the Greek text; but this admission does not in the least degree interfere with our right to clear up any difficulty by reference to the language in which many believe that Gospel to have been written, or in which, at least, our Redeemer spoke. These are not, as you suggest, ** imaginary words which our Lord might have used," but they are the words which he really used. One of them is known from the Gospel of St John to have been Cephas, and the other is ascertained by examining whether there is the va- riety of gender and termination in the Syriac term as is found in the Greek. The Syriac term admits no such variation. The very ancient Syriac version proves the correctness of this re- mark, and modern learned Protestants are so far from contest- ing it, that, according to the testimony of one of them, almost every modern expositor of note has abandoned the distinction between Peter and the rock as untenable.* The French trans- lation fully exhibits the force of the allusion as it was made by our Saviour ; because in French, as in Syriac, the same term which signifies a rock, is also an appellative noun. Were we to give a strictly literal translation of the sentence into English, we would either say, " thou art a ROCK, and on this ROCK
* Bloomfield in locum.
I'KOMI.^i: OF Tin: I'RIMACV. 25
I will build my (-iimi-Ji ;' or, thou art PETEH, and uj)on this PE'l'ER I will build my (-'luin-h ; but, then, eiilicr tlie name given to Simon is suppressed, or the strength and power wiiicii it indicates do not appear to be properties of his name as well as of his olliee. 'I'he same may be saiil of the CJerman, whilst the Latin, Italian, and Spanish, as you remark, follow the Greek, and retain, with the variation of gender, something of the original allusion. t I am, then, perfectly unable to conceive how you could speak of this reference to the original terms as *» the fanciful notion of what our Saviour might have said in Hebrew ;" and speak of the Greek *' as the actual record of what he did say;" especially as afterwards, in your remarks on a text of St John, you adopt the principle which in this instance you reject. Christ certainly spoke not in Greek, but in the language then generally spoken in Judea, whether you please to designate it Hebrew, Syriac, or, more correctly, Syro-Chal-
* The Syriac version of the New Testament is deservedly of high re- pute, on account of its early date, and of the near affinity between the Syriac language and the Syro-Chaldaic, which our Lord used, and in which, according to tlie most probable opinion, St. Matthew wrote his Gospel. In this version, the words " Peter" and " Rock" are expressed by the same characters :
Anath chipha, vehall hada chipua. In the Arabian version, which, from its connexion with the language in which Christ spoke, is well calculated to elucidate the present sul)- ject, we read
Anath alsaciira, wahal hada ai.sacmha.
Another Arabic version translates Peter and rock by a different word fiom that used in the above (jiiotation, but in both instances the same word (Usaphu, is put for Peter and the rock.
A most ancient Chaldee manuscript of St Matthew's gospel, in thi' collection formerly belonging to Cardinal JJarberini, written in charac- ters long obsoh.'te, and professing to have b(>en made in Mesopotamia in the year 330, uses but one word to express Peter and the Rock, :fciuha. See the learned treatise of Ecchelensis, a Maronite de origine nominis Papaj,&c. RomiD, MDCLX.
t iMtin. Tu C8 Pclrus et super banc prtram, &c. Italian. Tu sei Pietro, e sopra questa pietra, &c. Spanish. Tu eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra, &c. German. Dm bist Pclrus und auf diesen Fclsen. C
26 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
daic. He certainly called Simon, Cephas, for we are assured' of it by St John,* and he manifestly referred to him when he said : " thou art Cephas (a rock), and on this Cephas (rock) I will build my Church."
The reason why the Greek interpreter of St Matthew used two distinct terms, was, because although the feminine noun properly expressed the force of the original term, yet the Greeks never applied a feminine noun to a man except in derision.t He chose, then, a masculine noun, less expressive, but more appropriate. No ambiguity could have arisen from this circumstance, had not the ingenuity of controversial writers sought to wrest from us this splendid proof of the prerogatives of Peter. Every rule of correct interpretation has been recklessly trampled under foot in the attempt; and although the preceding words were mani- festly directed to Peter, and those which followed were also acknowledged to regard him, still he was denied to be the rock on which the Church was built, as declared in the intervening words which were necessarily applied to him. Happily for the cause of truth, Cameron,:}: Bishop Marsh, and many respectable modern interpreters, have rejected this subterfuge, so unworthy of literary men, and better calculated to show the weakness of those who recur to it, than to invalidate or obscure the strong argument supplied us by the text, in the only interpretation it can consistently have. The most recent editor of the Greek text in England, acknowledges that " almost every modern ex- positor of note refers it to Peter himself;" " and with reason ; for certainly," as is observed by Bishop Marsh, § " it would be a desperate undertaking to prove that Christ meant any other person than Peter. In fact, they can indicate no other, con- sistently with the rules of correct exegesis. Moreover, the words following x*/ croi ^^'7a> imply that there had been some previous gift or distinction. In short, the sense is : Thou art by name JRotk; (i. e. thy name means Rock,) and suitably to thai will be thy work and office; for upon thee (i. e. upon
* John i. 42.
t Synopsis Crit. in locum.
t See Synopsis Crit. in hunc locum.
§ Comparative View. App. p. 27.
PROTESTANT INTERPRETERS. 27
thy j)reachin^, as upon a rock) shall the foumhition of the church be laid." It may, indeed, seem straiifre, that so natu- ral and well founded an interpretation shouUl liave been passed over by any. — Hut that may be attributed parthj to the cause- less fears into whicli Protestants have been betrayed ; lest, by admittiui^ it, they should give a countenance to the Papal claim of supreniacy ; and parthj to an idea that s-uch a sense would be contrary to what is elsewhere said in Scripture, namely, that Christ is the onhj fuumlation. See 1 Cor. iii. 11. Hut as to the first, the fear is groundless: it being (as Hishop Middleton observes) dilhi-ult to see what advantage coidd be gained ; un- less we could evade the meaning of /ai5-a»c7-:< txV xm<o-, which follows. "And as to the laiier fear, it is equally without founda- tion ; since the two expressions are employed in two very different senses."* You will pardon, Right Reverend Sir, this long extract from a Protestant commentator of deservedly high repute, who, whilst he asserts that the fears of Protestants were groundless, and endeavours to explain away the force of the text by referring it to a certain precedency of Peter in preaching the Gospel, betrays the weakness of Protestantism, and shows how the obvious meaning of Scripture has been obscured in order to avoid the admission of an authority it so clearly indi- cates. With regard to the interpretation of the entire passage, given by those who acknowledge the keys to be the emblem of power and authority, it is rather a bold stretch of ingenuity to understand this, as well as the other no less strong metaphor which precedes, of mere priority in announcing the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. The same may be observed of the interpreta- tion of Rosenmiiller, who, however, renders a splendid tribute to the Catholic explanation, and completely explodes your distinct- ion between Pctros and Pitra, and all the various modes whereby the manifest reference to Peter is sought to be evaded. " The rock," says he, ♦' is neither the confession of Peter nor Christ, pointing out himself by his finger, or by a shake of the head (whicii interpretations the context does not admit),
• Bloomficld. Com. Mnt. xvi. Ir, !'.», p. TK. Edit. IJoston, 1-:}?.
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
but Peter himself. The Lord, speaking in Syriac, used no diversity of name, but in both places said Cephas, as the French word pierre is said both of a proper and appellative noun. He pointed out Peter therefore either by his finger, or nod ; for that gesture suited his purpose to explain the reason of giving him this name. So it was said of Abraham : Thy name shall be Abraham, because I liave made thee father of many nations. Of Jacob : Israel shall be thy name, for thou actest as a prince with angels and men. So Christ says : Thou art called by me Peter, because thou wilt be as a rock. And he promises that he will build his Church on Peter. Allusion is made to the custom prevailing in Palestine of build- ing houses that are exposed to floods and whirlwinds, on a rocky soil, that they may be able to resist the violence of waters and winds. Mat. vii. 24, 25. Therefore whosoever thinks of building a durable house, should above all look around for a rock, or firm ground : the rock is the first thing whence the work is to be begun."*
Although these observations, emanating as they do from men adverse to the Catholic church, are sufficient for my purpose, the two following extracts need no apology':
In *' Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism" is contained the following justobservaiion — Canon 511 : "The most obvious and natural sense is to be set aside only when it is absolutely contradictory to something plainly taught in Scripture." He then remarks that " the opposite way has been taken by all sects;" and quotes the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of St Matthew. " Thou, &c., building on Peter, is explained by- some, as contrary to the faith that Christ is the only founda- tion (1 Cor. iii. 2.), and as favouring the succession of Peter and his successors ; but the connexion shows that PETER IS HERE PLAINLY MEANT." Edition of Boston, 1823. Such is the language of this text-book of many Protestant Col- leges and Theological Institutions, both in this country and in England.
^ Scholia in Novum Test., Tom. I, p. 336. Norumb. an. 1815.
LITERARY BLrNDER. VKMLIL'S. 29
The Reverend Mr Thompson of Cilastrow, in liis Munates- saroHy reprinted at Baltimore, 1829, p. 194, on this text, gives three interpretations. He thinks the two first unfounded, and thus quotes the third :
" Tlie third opinion is, that both the words petros iiud pftra are here used as appellations of the Apostle ; and, consequently, Peter was the rock on which Christ said liis Church should bo built. To this the connexion and scope of the passage agree. There seems to be something forced in every other construc- tion, and an inaptitude in the language and ligure of the text in every attempt to construct the words otherwise. Protestants have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have, therefore, used all the HARDIHOOD of LAWLESS CRITICISM in their at- tempts to reason away the Catholic interpretation."
Although not immediately connected with my present sub- ject, I must notice what you call " a strange error based upon a text in the Gospel of St John, which several of the popes of Rome have advanced in their solicitude to find authority for their favourite doctrine." It is thus slated by V'igilius in a letter to Eleutherius: *' Although the election of all the Apos- tles was the same, yet it was granted to blessed Peter that he should be raised above the rest; whence ho was called Cephas, because he was the head and the fust of all the Apostles, and what precedes in the head, must necessarily be followed in the members."* You smile at this supposed literary blunder, be- cause you imagine that Vigilius confounded Cephas, a Syrian term, with the Greek word, of somewhat similar sound, t«9a>^''. signifying t/ic hrud, and that he thence inferred that Peter was the head of the Apostles, 'i'he text which you bring forward does not, however, prove this mistake, for though the writer argues from Peter's name that he was head and first of all the Apostles, he does not say that the name signified " a head." We make a like inference from the same appellation ; yet we know the meaning of the term Cephas to be not *' a heoil,'^ but
' Mansi, Tom. 1, p. 77 Cul. Cone. •' Unde ct Cephas vocatur. 'juia caput et primuri ost omnium apostolorum." c*
30 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
*' a rock.^^ The relation of a foundation to a building may be compared to the relation of the head to the body, and conse- quently of a ruler to the spiritual kingdom of Christ.
The letter in question, as well as the other passage quoted by you, is, at best, of doubtful authenticity. The publisher of the collection of the Councils gives it as a part of some tract on the primacy, which came to light in the early part of the sixteenth century ; and he avows that his object is to preserve the various writings on that subject, whatever be their character. It has no place among the writings of Vigilius, given in their regular order, but is placed in the first volume with other documents confessedly spurious. In the genuine writings of that pontiff we find that he assumes higher ground than a mere verbal allusion. In his letter to the whole Catholic Church, speaking of the part which his predecessors Celestine and Leo took in the condemnation of heresy, he observes : " Our God from heaven armed the pastoral ofiice against these fierce errors : recommending which office to blessed Peter, with thrice repeated injunctions, he says. Feed my sheep : and justly was the charge of feeding them committed to him, whose glorious confession of faith was praised by the mouth of God. For when he confessed in a saving manner, and said : Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, perpetual blessedness is given him in return, and he is called the son of the dove, and receives the keys of the heavenly kingdom.* You perceive, that Vigilius, addressing *' the whole Catholic Church," does not rest his authority on a " literary blunder," but on the pro- mises of our God and Saviour. To account for the supposed blunder, you observe that the name of this apostle " appears to us in two shapes, indeed, because the Saviour spoke in He- brew, and St John wrote in Greek, but they have the same signification." What, Sir, refer to the language used by our Lord, after having, a few pages before, condemned such a reference as no better than '* a fanciful imagination calculated to prostrate the authority of the whole word of God ?"
* Vigilii, p. ep. ad univ. Eccl. Tom. III. Cone. Hard. Col. 5.
CHARGE OF CHRIST TO PETKR. 81
The promise made by Jesus Christ to Peter was to be ful- filled after his resurrection. At the last supper, a contention having arisen among tlie Apostles which should be tlie greater, Christ took occasion to inculcate to all the necessity of humility and mutual condescension. Addressing Peter in a special man- ner, he apprised him of the violent efforts of Satan against them all, but gave him the consoling assurance that he had prayed for him in particular,* that his faith might not fail. He re- minded him of the obligation which his office would impose of confirming his brethren in the faith, and urged him to its per- formance : *' Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have YOU that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for THEE that THY faitli fail not: and thou being once converted, CONFIRM THY BRETHREN. t An addrcss of this kind on such an occasion shows that Peter was to be the superior of the rest, and on that account was the special object of the prayer of his divine Master — that being himscll' strong in faith, he might be able to confirm liis brethren. That prayer did not prevent his grievous fall on that very night, although Christ be " al- ways heard for his reverence ;" but it was directed to a sub- limer object than the personal perseverance of Peter : it regarded the office which he was to exercise towards others, and the performance of which was so earnestly enjoined. When ele- vated to the pastoral dignity, he was to look around, from time to time,± to the various portions of his great charge, and
* ty/wic — 5-K. Thechangeof number, more apparent in the Greek text than in the English translation, shows that while Satan directed his efforts against all the Apostles, Christ prayed especially for one — Peter.
t Luke xxii. 32.
t o-u irort iT/r^i^flic. The learned Clrotius discovers in Uiis express- ion a Hebraism, denoting the repetition of an act : " tu quoque olim vicissini fratrcs confirma:" "do thou also, on thy part, from time to time confirm thy brethren." The Septuagint U8e this Greek verb for the Hebrew DIBT*, which, when united with anotiier verb, may be ren- dered by the adverb, again. Thus : iTTir^i^atc <ra.»cri/c */Ufltc, "Thou will again save us." Pb Ixxxv. G »See Synopsis Sac. Crit. in hunc locum. Also, John xxi. 20, tTnr^*<ptis^ means turning toirards. Many eminent
32 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
strengthen, by his teaching and authority, those who might be weak in faith.
It is worthy of observation, that our Lord prepared the Apos- tles for his most important institutions by a promise made long before their actual establishment. Thus, in the course of his life, he promised to them all the power of binding and loosing ; and, after his resurrection, he gave them the power of forgiving and retaining sins, which he had previously and principally de- signated by that of loosing and binding. He had made a spe- cial promise to Peter that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and he accordingly gave to him, in an especial manner, the charge of feeding his lambs and sheep, thereby constituting him shepherd of the entire flock. The fact is thus related by the Evangelist St John: " Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these ? He saith to him : Yea, liOrd, 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 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."*
There were present on this occasion, at least, Thomas the Apostle, and John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples, besides Nathaniel, of Cana in Galilee.t Christ addresses Peter alone, questions him as to his love, but is not satisfied with a declaration of ordinary love. He asks whether he has a special love for Him, greater than that which the others cherish ; " Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these ?" He must then mean to confer a special preroga- tive,— to constitute him Pastor in a sense more sublime than
writers, however, explain it of the duty to be performed after his con- version, when he was to be constituted Pastor of the fold, and to receive the grace necessary to discharge faithfully his office. * John xxi. 15. i John xxi. 2.
GRANT OF THE PRIMACY. 33
that in which Thomas, or John, or James, were Pastors. Peter having declared liis greater love, and having appealed to the Saviour himself, as knowing his aflection, receives the charge to feed the tender lambs of Christ : " Feed my lambs." ' The question is again and a third time repeated, not to ascertain what Christ so well knew, — not merely to require the three protesta- tions of love as an atonement for the three denials, and a condi- tion for elevating him to the pastoral oihce, since he receives the authority and commission on his first declaration of love, — but to point out in a strong manner the peculiar and sublime cha- racter of his pastoral authority. He is first commanded to feed the lambs of Christ, and the term used denotes strictly tlie act of giving them food or pasture, that he may understand that his duty is to give the pastures of eternal life — tlie divine doctrines of faith — to the weakest, lowliest of the faithful, that their souls may be therewith nourished. On his second protestation of love, the nature of his office is more fully developed. He is told to do all the duties of a shepherd ;t not only to give them salutary pas- tures, and lead them to the refreshing streams, but to tend, to watch over, to restrain, to bring back the stray sheep to the fold, to cast away the contagious, and in all things to imitate Him whose place he holds, whose sheep he tends, whose name he bears — the one Shepherd of the one fold. Again, the Sa- viour demands the declaration of his love, and the alllicled Apostle appeals to Him, as the searcher of hearts, to whom all things lie open, and who consequently knows the sincerity of his love: '♦ Lord, thou knowest all tilings : thou knowest that I love thee." The pastoral charge is then extended to the sheep of ('hrist — to those who are as the parents of the tender lambs — those who bring them forth in C'hrist: "Feed my sheep. ":{: The term by which this exercise of pastoral care is
t wii/xAiit Tat fr^i0AT» fxou. The Vulgate road apvisL. The Greek term is taken for governinj;, aH kinjrs were called shepherds of the peo- ple : ^ti/uiric Aato»r. Se»r IltJiner, pasHiiii.
34 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
expressed, signifies to give food, because it is the chief duty of the great Shepherd to phice in salutary pastures the sheep, that they and their tender offspring may be nourished. Dropping the metaphor, he must communicate to them, in its integrity, the divine doctrine, such as he received it from Christ, that they may be fit to teach others. His duly towards them is chiefly to instruct them, though, as shepherd of the entire flock, he can wield, even in their regard, the staft' of pastoral correction. Hence it is manifest that blessed Peter, and in him his success- ors, received from Christ full power to feed, to rule, and go- vern the Church of God; that is, the entire flock of Christ, as the Council of Florence defined.
The character of this authority is beautifully represented by the image of a Shepherd, which is presented in so tender a man- ner in the Old as well as the New Testament; and the accom- plishment of the divine design is indicated of uniting Jews and Gentiles in one fold under one Shepherd. Arnobius, a French writer of the fifth century, thus expatiates on the appointment of Peter to the office of Pastor : " Behold the penitent Apostle, who is the bishop of bishops, is relieved, and a higher dignity is given to him after his tears, than was taken away from him at his fall. This I prove from the fact that none of the Apostles was styled Shepherd : for the Lord Jesus Christ alone said : I am the good Shepherd, and again my sheep follow me. He granted, then, after his resurrection, this holy name to penitent Peter; and he who was denied, gave to him who had denied him, the power which he alone had."*
The justness of our interpretation is fully sustained by some eminent Protestant annotators on this place. " The true inter- pretation," says Bloomfield, in reference to the comparison made in the first interrogation, " seems to be that of the ancient, and many of the most eminent modern commentators, as Lampe, Campbell, Kuinoel, and Tittman, who assign the following sense : Dost thou love me more than those do? It is proper to observe, that though our Lord asks the question thrice, yet the
* Arnobius in finem, Ps. cxxxviii.
EXERCISE OF TMF PRIMACV. 35
admonition, which each time follows it up, is not quite the same ; for /S-.a-Ktn signifies simply to feed, provide willi pasture ; rroifJiaLirtiv both to feed and to tend ; the former being especially applicable to ifu* (meaning young, raw professors), and the lat- ter to rrpcfixTx, OT the morc advanced and mature professors. And the notion of tending necessarily carries with it that of guiding and governing."*
I submit these critical remarks of the learned vicar of Bis- brooke, to show that, although many Protestants, from a dread of findinor the privileges of Peter in these words of Christ, have given to them a forced, inane, and even ridiculous inter])retalion ; yet that others, who have a character for learning and impar- tiality, admit the substantial correctness of our interpretation, whilst they deny the necessary consequence of their own ad- missions, and, to use the words of St Hilary, ofTer violence to the glorious words of our Redeemer.
I know not in what more solemn manner Christ could have manifested his will that Peter should govern the Church by his authority. He declared him the rock on which it was built — he gave him the keys, the emblem of power and authority, thereby clearly api)ointing him the ruler of his spiritual king- dom. Of him, especially, he declared, that what he should bind on earth would be bound in heaven ; what he should loose on earth would be loosed in heaven. For him, especially, he prayed that his faith might not fail — and to him alone he gave the charge to confirm his brethren. In fine, after exacting from him a protestation of special love, he commissioned hiin lo feed his lambs and sheep ; to perform towards both all the duties ol a Shepherd.
The actual exercise of the pastoral and governing authority of Peter is clearly marked in the divine Scriptures. One of the most solemn acts of authority is to create subordinate pastors, and especially to communicate the Apostolic power and cha- racter. Judas had left his place vacant in the Apostolic col- lege, and l^eter took the earliest opportunity to fill tiie vacancy.
" Notes on Greek ttxt of John x\i. Jo.
36 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
Whilst the Apostles and other disciples of the Lord, to the number of about one hundred and twenty, were persevering with one mind in prayer, awaiting the Holy Spirit, who was promised them, " Peter, rising up in the midst of the brethren,"* urged the necessity of choosing one " to take the place of this ministry and Apostleship." Though he did not act at once and of himself, but sought the advice and concurrence of the bre- thren, yet, by originating the measure, he showed that his office imposed on him the duty of seeing that the vacancy was filled, whilst he manifested condescension and regard for the sugges- tions and wishes of his inferiors in authority. He could, doubt- less, as St Chrysostom observes, have acted with entire inde- pendence, but he had been educated in the school of humility, and learned to imitate Him whose power he was commissioned to exercise : " How fervent he is," exclaims Chrysostom, "how he manifests that the flock was committed by Christ to his charge, — see how he is the prince of this band, and every where is the first to speak. — Why did he not alone ask of Christ to give him some one to be substituted in the place of Judas ? Why do they not rather of themselves make the choice ? Peter had already become better than he was. — Consider how Peter does all according to the common wish of the disciples — nothing by his own authority, nothing in an im- perious manner. — Men, brethren, he says : since the Lord called his disciples brethren, it is still more becoming that Peter should thus address his fellow disciples, wherefore he spoke to all present; Behold the dignity of the Church: be- hold the angelic state of harmony and love. — Why does he consult them on this matter ? liCst it should become an occa- sion of dissention and dispute. — But he himself points out those from whom the choice should be made : ' of these men who have been with us all the time.' Was it not lawful for himself to make the choice? It was, and, indeed, pre-eminently lawful::}:
* Acts i. 15.
t Quid ? an non licebat ipsi eligere ? licebat, et quidem maxime. — P. 182, Vol. 111. St Chrys. edit. Par. 1C87.
COUNTIL OF JERUSALKM. 37
but he abstains from it, lust lie should appear to favour any one. Justly he first of all takes to himself authority in tliis matter, as having them all under his control ; for to liini (.'lirist said : " thou being onee converted, conlirm thy brethren."" It is pleasing to be able to sliow in what light this act was viewed by so bright an ornament of the Greek Church in the fourth century. It is not, then, as you assert, we who strive to find Scriptural authority for the Primacy, but one of the most il- lustrious men of antiquity, — one occupying the chair of the rival city, the new Rome, who recognises a splendid instance of the (uoderate use of supreme power in the conduct of Peter on this occasion.
A still more illustrious exercise of his high office, as "guar- dian of the faith, "t occurs in the history of the first Council of Jeru^falem. Great excitement was caused at Antioch by cer- tain Judaizing Christians, who insisted that the converts from the Gentiles should be subjected to circumcision and the legal observances. " Paul and liarnabas had no small contest with them,"]: but were unable to induce all to acquiesce in their judg- ment; wherefore it was determiiuHl that they ''and certain others of the other side, should go up to the Apostles and j)riests to Jerusalem about this question." " The Apostles and ancients came together to consider of tliis matter, and when there was much disputing, l*eter, rising up, said to them : Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knowetli the hearts, gave them testimony, giving to them the Holy Ghost as well as to us : and made no diflerence between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why
* St Clirys. hotn. III. in 1 cap. Act. pp. li?l, \t2.
t TIh' appellation givfii to Cclcstint', as successor of Petor, in the Gen»'ral Council of Ephesus, an. i'M : Kixir<'r» tc* >Ja«x/ tmc TiTimc, one of the acclamations after the public reading of his doctrinal exposi- tion of tlic faith against the heresy of Eutyches. Cone. Eph. Act. 11. T. I. Cone. Hard. Col. HTii.
t Acta XV. 'J.
38 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved even as they." I pray you to observe the result of this discourse: " All the multitude held their peace."* Previously there had been at Antioch great opposition and contest, notwithstanding the reverence due to the Apostolic character in Paul and Bar- nabas : the collision of sentiment Ivad been renewed in the Coun- cil with considerable feeling. Peter authoritatively speaks, re- minds them that he had been chosen to announce the Gospel to the Gentiles, that God had given evidences of his favour towards them, reproaches his brethren with seeking unne- cessarily to burden them with the multifarious observances of the ceremonial law: and declares the great principle of faith in Jesus Christ as the only foundation of hope for Jew or Gen- tile. No sooner has he spoken than all acquiesce : no dissent- ing voice is heard, no murmur : all opposition ceases ; and who- ever rises to speak only confirms, like Paul and Barnabas, by the narrative of miraculous facts, what Peter had declared of the favour shown by God to the Gentiles ; or, like James, refers to the prophecies, adding the suggestiont of the mea- sures to be decreed, that the principle might be carried into suc- cessful execution. I do not see how any man can read the sim- ple history of this controversy, by the inspired writer, and not perceive the great weight of Peter's authority in its termination. The letter of the Council, drawn up in the name of the Apos- tles and ancients, expressive of the principle laid down by Pe- ter, and of the practical measure suggested by James, is declared to emanate from the Holy Ghost : " it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us. "J The writers of antiquity speak of it as the sentence or decree of Peter. In the third century,
* Acts XV. 12.
t K^tvce "I judge," is the simple expression of sentiment, whether authoritative, or void of authority. See Thucydid. iv. GO. It corresponds to the Latin censco.
i lb. v. 28.
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. 39
Terlullian describes it as the exercise of liis power of binding and loosing : " liie decree of l*eler loosed such things of the law as were set aside, and bound fast such as were retained."' In the fourth, St Jeroni says that Peter was the author of this de- cree,! and the celebrated Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, speaks of the controversy, as a matter referred by Paul to Peter, thai by his supreme authority it mi^dn he definitively settled. ♦• If Paul," says he in his letter to Pope Leo, " who was the herald of truth, the organ of the Holy Spirit, had recourse to the great Peter, in order to obtain a solution from him concerning the observances of the law for those who disputed at Antioch on this subject, with much greater reason we, who are abject and weak, iiave recourse to your Apostolic Sec, that we may receive from you remedies for the wounds of the churches. For it is tit that you in all things should be first. "J Cave explains the words of Paul, that *' he went to Jerusalem to see Peter," of his going up on this occasion. §
Your assertions that this Council was not called by Peter, that Peter did not preside in it, and that its decrees were not confirmed by him, are, to say the least, perfectly gratuitous. He was evidently the leading character in the Council, as Cave ad- mits. Chrysostom calls our attention to the wisdom with which he permitted the discussion, and then authoritatively interposed : ** See," says he, " he permits the inquiry and dispute to go on, and then he himself speaks :"|| and he observes it as an evidence of the harmony and condescension which prevailed, that Paul was allowed to speak after Peter had pronounced judgment: ♦' See, Paul speaks after Peter, and no one closes his mouth. "f
* TortuUian, 1. do pudicitia.
t " Princippin hujus fuisso docrcti." S. Ilicron. Aug. Ep. 75, alias xi., inter August. S. b, col. 172. Tom. II.
t Theodorot. ad Leonem.
§ Pelruin ibi convenit occaaionc, utvidctur, Concilii Apostolici — cu- JU8 Pclrus pars magna fuit." Sn'C. Ap. p.G.
II S. Chrys. horn, xxxii. inc. xv. Act. Ap. p. 2r.O. Tom. III. Edit Paris, HW7.
IT Horn, .xxxiii. p. 200.
40 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
To establish the primacy of Peter, it is not necessary to prove that he exercised, at all times, and in every circumstance, his prerogative to its utmost extent: since moderation, condescen- sion and humility, had been prescribed to him by his divine master; and Chrysostom testifies, that in this spirit he abstain- ed from appointing the Apostle to fill the place of Judas, ^vhich, nevertheless, he was fully authorized to do. The performance, however, of any act which supposes superior power, is a proof that he possessed it ; because an Apostle of Christ was not likely to usurp a power not communicated by the Redeemer. When, therefore, we see him stand forward, and silence the disputants by his meek rebuke, we cannot fail to recognise him as the high judge of religious controversy.
It has pleased the Holy Spirit to leave on record but a few of the circumstances connected with this model of councils : but these few sufficiently show that Peter was there, that he either called the council, or assented to its convocation, that he spoke with authority and effect, silencing all disputation by his discourse, and that the decree was in strict conformity with his judgment. The forms are of little importance where the au- thority is fully respected and admitted. To be Prince and Primate in the Church of God, it was not necessary that he should stand alone, separated from his colleagues in the apostolate and episco- pacy, and resting solely on the prerogative of his station. It is delightful to see him in the council of his brethren, causing the ardour of disputation to subside by authoritative instruction, and enlightening the minds of his colleagues, and of the faithful, by unfolding to them the oracles of God. The decree which ex- presses his judgment, and that of his colleagues, and the faith of the whole Church, is no way derogatory to his high prerogative.
The perpetuity of the privileges of the Prince of the Apostles in the Church is a necessary consequence of the divine institution of the Primacy. It is the foundation which must remain as long as the edifice which it supports subsists — it is the governing power, without which the king- dom of Christ would be divided and brought to desolation — it is the pastoral office, by which the sheep of Christ are
PERPETUITY OF THK PRIMACY. 41
to be for ever preserved in uniiy, ami lo be one fold under one Sheplierd. As llie perpcluily of the Apostolic commission to teach, baptize, and perform the other functions of the sacred ministry is admitted, though the words were addressed lo the Apostles only, with the assurance, however, that Christ would be with them till the consummation of ages; so must the per- petuity of the governing power and pastoral oftlce, originally conferred on Peter, be acknowledged, especially since, in im- mediate connexion with it, the assurance was given that the gates of hell should not prevail, — a promise which at least in- directly regards the rock on which the Church is built. *' Neither against the rock on which the Church is built, nor against the Church s1il\11 the gates of hell prevail."*
That Peter founded the Church of Rome, and in conjunction with Paul exercised there his Apostolic ministry, and that both Apostles died martyrs for the failh in that city, are facts at- tested by all antiquity, and freely adiniltcd by tlie most respect- able Protestant writers. " We intrepidly aflirm," says Cave. ** with all antiquity, that Peter was at Rome, and for some time resided there. "t You deny that he was Bishop of Rome, because the Apostolic commission was general ♦' to the whole world :" but the government of that particular Church did not prevent his discharge of all the duties of the Apostleship.J The early writers, as Irenajus, speak conjointly of Peter and Paul, as founding the C/hurch of Rome, because of their joint labours, and tl'.eir martyrdom in that city at the close of their apostolic ministry: some, as Epiphanius, designate them both its bishops, as Cave remarks ; but whenever the Roman See is spoken of in reference to one Apostle as its first bishop, thai Apostle is uniformly Peter, and not Paul. Hence, it is called
• Origen, in C. xvi. Mat. Tom. XII., p o"J().
t Cave Stcc. Apost. S. I'ctrus, p. 5, col. 1 Edit. Gcnevm, an. 170G.
t " All, both ancient and modrrn, will, I think, agree with me that I'eter may be called Hisliop of Rome in a less strict sense, inasmuch as 111- laid the foundations of this Church, and rendered it illustrious by his martyrdom." This admissir)n is made by Cave, lhou;T|i he questions whether Peter should be styled IJishop of Home in a strict sense. V 'i D*
42 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
by St Cyprian, " the place of Peter,"* by St Jerom, " the chair of Peter,"! and the succession from Peter in that See is avow- ed, by St Aiigustin, to be one of the great evidences of truth which retained him in the Catholic communion. " I am kept," says he, " by the succession of bishops from the very See of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after his resurrection, in- trusted the feeding of his sheep, down to the present bishop."! Ambrose, the master of Augustin, styles Peter " Bishop of the Roman Church. "§ Whatever share the Apostle Paul may have had in the government of that Church, it must have ne- cessarily had one bishop, since the general practice of antiquity, and the positive testimonies of the ancients, unanimously teach that there can be but one bishop of one Church. To suppose that neither Apostle governed it as bishop, is to create an anomaly in the organization of the churches, by leaving one without a special ruler. In whatever way we view the matter, and whatever share in the administration we may ascribe to St Paul, the Church of Rome is the heiress of both apostles, sanc- tified by their labours, and enriched by their doctrine and their blood. She claims all the privileges and powers which either enjoyed or exercised ; and if she rests with peculiar emphasis on those of Peter, it is because his privileges were more sub- lime, and of a more enduring character, than those of the Apostle of the Gentiles. I care not then to insist on the ap- plication of the term " bishop," to Peter as governor of the Roman Church, although it is perfectly applicable : it is un- questionable that he governed it, at least in his apostolic cha- racter, and died whilst so governing it. The authority with which he was invested was a fundamental principle of Church organization, which could not cease without the destruction of the Church itself. It must then continue, in the bishops who succeed him in the government of that Church, over which he presided up to the time of his martyrdom.
* S. Cyprian, Ep. ad Antonian. t Jerom. ep, ad Damas.
t Aug. 1. adv. ep. Man. fundam. C. IV. Tom. VIll.,p 153. § S. Ambros. 1. 3 de Sac. c. 1, §. (5. Tom. II.
LETTER III.
OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
Right Reverend Sir :
Having reviewed the Scriptural evidence of the Primacy, which you pass over rather slightly, it is but just to meet the ob- jections which you derive from some passages of Scripture. You say that the rock was the Redeemer; for " no one can lay ano- ther foundation, but that which is laid, whicii is Christ Jesus." ' To have the true meaning of this passage, and to perceive the weakness of the objection grounded on it, the context must be attended to, from wliich it will at once appear, that the founda- tion of which St Paul speaks is different from that mentioned by Christ. The Apostle addressing the Corinthians, whom he had brought to tlie knowledge of Cliristiaii faith, says: *'You are God's building. According to the grace of God that is given me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, and another buildclh thereon. But let every man take heed how he build- eth thereupon. For no man can lay another foundation, but that which is laid — which is Christ Jesus.'* The Apostle, anxious to maintain his spiritual children in the integrity of faith, compares them to a building erected, by his own hands, on faith in our divine Redeemer; and he declares that no other foundation can be laid. In Him we must believe; in Him we must hope; Him in all things we must obey; for, as St Peter expresses the same idea in clearer terms, "there is not salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to
• 1 Cor. ii. 11.
44 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
men, whereby we must be saved."* This is the obvious mean- ing of St Paul.t The text has no relation whatever to the pro- mise of Christ to Peter, except the illustration of a different truth by a similar image. Christ wished to signify to Peter the reward of his faith by the authority which he would enjoy in his Church, and with this view he likened the Church to a building, himself to an architect, Peter to a rock on which the foundation of the building would be laid. The similitude is apt and expressive in both cases, but confusion is necessarily pro- duced when the two similitudes are confounded together, and what is said of Christ in the one place, where he is represented as the foundation, is applied to him in the other, where he speaks of himself as the architect. The passages are parallel in their character, but different in their object: in both, the foundation is distinguished from the architect. Where Paul is the architect, Christ is the foundation : where Christ is the architect, he makes Peter the foundation. Do we then reject Christ ? God forbid ! He is for us also the foundation of faith, — the basis on which our hopes of immortality are built. Our sentiments are correctly and eloquently expressed by one of the most distinguished of Peter's successors, the first Leo, with whose name posterity has associated the appellation of " Great." Paraphrasing the address of Christ to Peter, recorded in the sixteenth chapter of St Matthew, he says : " As my Father has manifested my divinity to thee, I make known to thee thy dig- nity : for thou art Peter, that is, as I am the inviolable rock, the corner-stone, who make both one, — I the foundation, other
* Acts iv. 12.
t The rule prescribed by the Protestant critic, Gerard, should here be attended to, 45G : " Every term should be considered as it stands, in the proposition of which it makes a part, and explained, not by itself, but so as to bring out the real sense of that whole proposition." He shows the violation of this rule by an Antinomian, who should under- stand the rock on which the wise man builds his house. Matt. vii. 24, to be Christ, the Rock of Ages. The rule is equally violated, when the rock, of which Christ speaks, Matt. xvi. 18, is understood to be himself See Gerard's Institutes, p. 134.
DOMINATION FORBIDDEN. 45
than wliich no one can lay — nevertlieless thou also art a Rock, because thou art strengthened by my power, so that what things belong to me by nature, are common to thee with me by far- TiciFATioN."* Every prerogative then wjjich we acknowledge in Peter is the gift of his bounty; all authority emanates from him. In fact, Bishop Marsh, and, after him, Bloomfield ad- mit that there can be no real difficulty in reconciling these two passages, because Christ and Peter are called the foundation in a very different sense. *' The Apostles, generally, are in other parts of the New Testament called the foundation on which the Cliurch is built ;t but Peter is specially called such, and even designated a rock, to denote his peculiar strength and connexion with the Church."
You adduce various passages of Scripture in which pride and domination are condemned, and humility is prescribed : and you assert that ♦' all these instances are related as occurring subse- quently to the gift of the keys to Peter." You suppose, that if die words of Christ had the meaning which we assign them, he would have reproved his disciples when contending about superiority, and *' have reminded them that he had constituted Peter tiie governor and chief already." Allow me to observe, that Peter did not receive the power which was promised to him, until after the resurrection, when Christ gave him the commission to feed his lambs and sheep. It is not wonderful that the AposUes did not at tliat time fully understand the sub- lime promise of the Saviour, for, as yet, they were slow of un- derstanding, and had no adequate idea of the institutions whicli Christ meant to establish. Already, indeed, they saw a mark- ed preference manifested for Peter, since Christ paid the tri- bute for him as well as for himself, and gave other indications of peculiar favour: but he was known to cherish a tender love for John, and his kindness towards all rendered it still a matter of (juestion which was the greatest favourite with their divine master. He took occasion from this, and other circumstances
• S. Leo. Maij. Scrm. 3, dc a.ssurnptionc sua ad I'ontificatuin.
t Bloomfield Coin. Matt, xvi., and quotes Eph.ii. 20, and Rev. xxi 1-1.
46 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
which showed his disciples' imperfection, to teach them — notequahty, but liumility. Thus, when the mother of the sons of Zebedee sought for her children, that they might sit, one on his right hand, and the other on his left, by his throne, " the ten hearing it were moved with indignation against the two bre- thren." He called them to him, and observed, that lordly do- mination characterized the rulers of this earth, but that, if they wished to be great in his sight, they should humble themselves, and become as servants to each other : " Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many."* In this surely was implied, that there was to be amongst them a difference of rank ; but, never- theless, that the highest should imitate the humility of their Lord and Master, so that the exercise of authority, however great, should be marked by kind and fraternal feeling. This divine lesson was inculcated by Peter, when, addressing his colleagues in the sacred ministry, he bade them " feed the flock of God" entrusted to their charge, not domineering over the portion of the Lord's inheritance committed to them, " but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart."! The exer- cise of power is, in all circumstances, to be tempered with hu- mility; but the power is not, on that account, less real or effi- cacious.
In the second passage objected by you, Christ forbids pha- risaical vanity and ostentation, which delights in " salutations in the market-place," and in titles of distinction : " be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master, and all you are bre- thren.":}: If this passage be alleged to prove that no one of the Apostles was superior to the other, it may be, with equal pro- priety, used to show that the Apostles were in no respect supe- rior to the multitude, for the discourse was not addressed to the Apostles alone, but " to the multitude and to his disciples. "§ You are scarcely prepared for this perfect equality. You admit superior powers in the Apostolic college, and you consequently
* Matt. XX. 28. t 1 Peter V. 2, 3.
t Matt, xxiii. 8. § Matt, xxiii. 1.
POWERS OF THE APOSTLES. 47
cannot urge this passage farther than to show that vanity is re- preliensible in all, wheliier they he the tilled dignitaries of the churcli, or the less conspicuous members of the laity.
The ninth chapter of Luke aflbrds you another objection. " There entered a thought into them which of them should be greater;" and their divine Master " took a child, and set him by him, and said to them : whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receivelh me: and whosoever shall receive me, re- ceiveth him that sent me. For he that is the least among you all, he is the greatest."* The Lord thus beautifully insinuates humility, which is the best disposition for elevation to the high ollice of the Apostolate. He says nothing to exclude the supe- riority of one above the rest in dignity or rank ; but teaches all that the lowliest in station may be greatest in merit before God, provided he be profoundly humble.
The objection derived from the twenty-second chapter of Luke is similar to that which you have before advanced, from the twentieth chapter of Matthew, and which I have already explained. It regards the mode in which superior power is to be exercised : " he who is the greatest among you, let him be as the least, and he that is the leader as he that servelh. For which is greater, lie that sittelh at table, or he that servelh ? Is not he that sittelh at table ? But I am in the midst of you, as he that servelh. "t There was then a leader, there was one greatest among them, but he was to imitate Ilim who was above all, but wIjo nevertheless humbled himself as the servant of all. He sufliciently indicated the leader, when, addressing Peter on that occasion, he told him to " confirm his brethren. "J
You found the next objection on tlie twentieth chapter of St John's Gospel, wherein (Jhrist, addressing all the Apostles, says : ♦♦ Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, 1 also send you. Receive ye the Holy (Jhost. Wliose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall re- tain, they are retained.") You argue that, as no distinction is
• Luke xxii. 2G. t Ibid. xxii. S*).
t ibid. 3*J. § John. XX. -JI.
48 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
made between Peter and the other Apostles, the power confer- red on all was alike, and that *' as the character of his office is not to be determined by the time when it was first promised, but by the rights actually conferred, it seems abundantly evident that this passage decides the whole controversy." There might be something more than plausibility in this reasoning, had the same Evangelist neglected to record the special commission to feed the lambs and sheep of Christ, given to Peter alone, after a thrice repeated protestation of loving his Lord more than the others loved him. Peter received, with the others, the power of forgiveness, which he and they were to exercise ; but sepa- rately and apart from them, he received the pastoral commission to govern all the sheep of Christ, and, as the vicegerent and visible representative of Christ, to be the one shepherd of the one fold. The character of his office is determined both by the promise, which was special, and by the rights actually confer- red, which fully corresponded with the sublime promise. Peter had powers common to the whole Apostolic college ; he had, besides, authority peculiarly his own.
I have already shown that the Apostolic commission pre- sented no obstacle to the administration of a particular Church by an Apostle. He had privilege to exercise his power every where, but he was not necessarily obliged to be witliout any fixed residence or See, as is evident from the case of the Apostle James, who occupied the See of Jerusalem. As you here promise presently to prove from Irenaeus that Linus, and not St Peter, is set down as the first bishop of that city, it is but just to observe that you labour under a misconception of that writer's meaning, as will appear when we shall come to the examination of his testimony.
You observe, that on some occasions Peter appears, in the Acts of the Apostles, " like one more ruled than ruling." The chief instance which you give is, that when the conversion of the Samaritans, through the ministry of Philip, was made known to the Apostles who were in Jerusalem, they sent to them " Peter and John,"* But, surely, this is too slight a
* Acts viii. 14.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 40
ground for questioning the superior authority of Peter, esta- blished by so many and such strong Scriptural proofs. A superior cannot, indeed, be authoritatively sent by his subjects, yet he is said sometimes to be sent when he is induced to go at their solicitation. Were we to rely on a similar argument, — the equivocal meaning of a word ; were we to oppose it to solemn and clear and express testimonies of Scripture, convey- ing power and authority, you would surely regard us with a feeling of pity, if not of indignation.
After the baptism of Cornelius, when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they who were of llie circumcision disputed against him," and Peter explains the wliolc matter, concluding in the 17lh verse by saying: *' Who was I, that I could oppose God?" "Neither he nor his accusers on this occasion," you observe, ** seem to have had any notion of his superior dignity." But is it a matter of surprise that a people so attached to their religious traditions as the Jews, and so recently converted to Christianity, should have viewed with displeasure a measure so novel, and so repugnant to their ideas, and should have been wanting in due respect for the auliiority of the first Pastor ? You need only call to mind the frequent murmurings of their forefathers against Moses, even shortly after many and stu- pendous prodigies had convinced them that he was the chosen servant of (lod, and was acting in obedience to the divine will. Peter was not unconscious of iiis authority, but did not deem it unworthy of his high dignity to explain the motives of his conduct, and thus take away from their weak minds the occa- sion of scandal and dissention. 'I'he recognition of the hio^h authority of l^elcr, even by the converts from Judaism, as well as his own sense of that authority, is manifest from the history of the Council of Jerusalem, of which I have already treated. I must refer you to my remarks for the solution of the objec- tion which you seek to draw from it.
You mention, as something unfavourable to the prerogative of Peter, that " the whole of liu; remaining chapters of the
' Arts xi. "2.
50 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
book of the Acts, is devoted chiefly to the labours of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter is hardly named again." Is it possible that you seriously object this circumstance ? St Luke, the writer of the Acts, was the companion of Paul in his travels, as the Apostle himself testifies.* He gives a com- pendium of the chief events which marked the rise of the Church until the conversion of Saul, and thence confines him- self, almost exclusively, to the subsequent history of St Paul, having been himself an eye witness of many of the events which he records.
The arguments which you produce to prove that St Paul -acknowledged no superior authority in Peter, are, to say the least, weak indeed. To convince the Galatians that his gospel was divinely revealed, St Paul observes that, on his conversion, lie had not gone to Jerusalem, to the Apostles who had pre- ceded him in the faith : but what he adds is worthy of your most serious consideration: "Three years after, I came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days."t Can we suppose that this was a visit of mere courtesy, and not rather an official act of respect to the authority of the prince of the Apostles, with whom Paul wished to consult on the im- portant concerns of the Church? The Greek verb suggests the idea of consultation, or inquiry .J " Peter," says Chrysos- tom, " was the organ and prince of the Apostles: wherefore Paul went up to see him in preference to the rest."§ Cave himself, as you have seen, believes that the visit was made with a view to obtain the decision of the controversy about the observance of the ceremonial law.
The reproof given by St Paul to Cephas, I| is alleged by you, after most Protestant writers on the subject, as evidence that he recognised in Peter no superior authority. The Fathers, ho\yever, discovered in it nothing more than the liberty w^hich an inferior may use in admonishing his superior, when the
* 2 Cor. viii. 18. Col. iv. 14. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24.
t Gal. i. 18.
t <ri§«?A', to confer with. See Jones's Greek Lexicon.
§ S. Chrys. horn. 87 in Joan. || Gal. ii. 11.
CEPHAS AT ANTIOCH. 51
conduct of the latter is such as is likely to bo prrjudirial to the interests of truth. No station, liowever elevated, places man beyond the reacli of respectful admonition, or even strong reproof, if his conduct ilescrve it. " Paul," says Tcrtullian, *' reproved Peter, for no other reason, however, than the change of his mode of livinjj;, wliich he varied according to tlie class of persons with whom he associated, not for any corruption of divine truth."* In regard to this fact, Augustiu ol)serves : "a just liberty is to be admired in Paul, and holy humility in Peter."t ;
You avail yourself of tiie statement of St Paul, that to" him " was committed the Gosjiel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter
* Tertullian, 1. v. contra Marcion,c. 3.
t Aujr. Ep. 6^2. n. 22. Nov. edit.
t I have granted to Bishop Hopkins that Cephas here mentioned is the same as Peter, as I do not wish to encumber the investigation with a question of a mere critical character. The Fathers of the Church generally take him to be the same, but in a question of this kind, totally independent of doctrine, a mistake may be supposed without disrespect to their venerable authority. It is certain that Clement of Alexandria maintained that Cephas, who was reproved by St Paul, was one of the seventy disciples, and Euscbius has recorded this testimony, wiUiout any indication of dissent. Eusebius, 1. i. c. 12. In all ages liiis sentiment of Clement has had advocates, although the contrary opinion has been always more general. Among modern writers the learned Feller, in his historical dictionary, manifestly favours the less generally received opinion. Hardouin expressly defends it. Kerkherdere in his cojuitus noTus de Ccpfui riprrhoiso, published at Louvain in 1713, maintains it, and Molkcnbuhr, in 17-;.'), published a Scriptural critical dissertation to the same effect. The authors, both Catholic and Protestant, who have confounded the two, are strangely embarrassed to find a time at which the reproof of Peter can be supposed to have happened, some placing it before, some after tlio Council of Jerusalem. The simple fact seems to be that Cephas, one of the disciples, being reproved sharply by Paul for tergiversation of conduct, " no small contest" ensued, which led to the reference to Prter and James and their colleagues at Jerusalem. Tlic conduct of Peter in defending his reception of Cornelius into the Church, and his bold reproof of the Judaizing Christians in the Council, pivc us a view of his character totally inconsistent with the dissimula- tion of the weak disciple.
52 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
was that of the circumcision ;"* but surely you know that these expressions do not signify that the exclusive charge of Gentiles or Jews was given to either apostle. The universal character of the apostolic commission regards not only places, but classes of men: and the Apostle only intimates that the chief exercise of his own ministry was to be among the Gentiles, whilst Pe- ter was chiefly to exert his zeal for the conversion of the Jews.t Peter was the first to receive the Gentiles into the Church, in the person of Cornelius and his family; and you cannot sup- pose that he, or any of the Apostles, had not full authority to exercise his ministry in favour of ail classes of men. Besides, there were at Rome many Jews, amongst whom Peter no doubt especially laboured, whilst Paul more particularly devoted himself to the conversion of the Gentiles. Each, as opportunity was offered, extended his zeal to Jew and Gentile ; but the general superintendance of all still remained in him whom Christ had commanded to feed his lambs and sheep, and con- firm his brethren.
The order observed by St Paul in the mention of those who were regarded as pillars of the church, "James, Cephas, and John," seems to you evidence against the primacy of Peter. To the learned Hardouin and others it appeared to favour the opinion that Cephas here mentioned was a disciple, and not the Apostle ; because in all the Gospels, and in the writings of St Paul, wherever Peter is named, he uniformly precedes all others, unless where the latter place is the more honourable from the nature of the subject,;}: and by St Matthew he is ex- pressly styled " the first."§ This, though the least proof of
* Gal. ii. 7.
t " St Peter was chiefly but not entirely occupied by the Jews, and St Paul chiefly, but not wholly, with the Gentiles," says Bloomfield on this passage. See also Synopsis Grit, in locum.
t Gal. i. 12 , iii. 22.
§ Mat. X. 2. 0 TT^atTo?, "the first." That this is not a mere ordinal adjective is proved by the fact that no such adjective is placed after the names of the other Apostles enumerated in this list. It is remarkable that the Evangelists observe no order injthe catalogues they have given, except in regard of two — Peter and Judas. The first of whom always
PREACHING OF PETER AT ROME. 53
his superiority, afl'ords no slight presumption of it. Waiving, however, whatever advantage might he derived from this circumstance, I shall beg, in reply to your objection, to state that the name of Cephas is altogether wanting in tliis place in a mo:it ancient manuscript, which Grotius judges to be correct.* Moreover the incidental mention of the name of the Apostle, without regard to the precedency of his office, cannot render questionable his authority.
You labour to prove that Paul, and not Peter, was the first founder of the Church of Rome, and you do not hesitate to assert that 'on this point the book of the Acts is clear and posi- tive.' But, sir, all that is clear from that divine history is that Paul was brought to Rome in chains, and that during his stay there, whicli lasted two years, he instructed those who liad recourse to him at his own hired lodginji.t Before he had seen that city,J he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, in which
is placed at the head of the catalogue ; tlic last uniformly occupies the lowest place. The eloquent bishop of Mcaux presents, at one view, the various circumstances in which Peter appears foremost in the Gospels : " Peter," says he, " appears the first on all occasions : tlie first to confess the faith ; the first to express his obligation of love ; the first of all the Apostles who saw Christ after his resurrection, as he was th«' first to bear testimony to this fact before all the people. We find him first, when there was question of filling up the number of the Apostles ; the first wh(j confirmed tiie faith by a miracle, tiie first to convert the Jews, the first to receive the Gentiles; in short, every thing occurs to estab- lish Ixis supremacy. The power divided among many, imports its re- striction : conferred on one alone, ozcr all and without exception, it bears the evidence of its plenitude. All receive the same power, but not in the same degree, nor to the same extent. Jesus Christ commences by the chief, and in the person of the chief developes all his power — in order that we should learn that the ecclesiastical authority, being origi- nally centred in one individual, has been diffused only on the condition that it sliould always be reflected back on the princij)]e of its unity ; and that all they who share in it should be inseparably connected with that See, which is the common centre of ail churclics." — Bossuet. Disc, sur lunit^ de I'Eglise, premiere partie.
' See Critic. Sac. Synop. in hunc locum.
t Acts xxviii. 30.
I Five or six years before his imprisonment, about the year of C^hriul E*
54 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
he declares his earnest desire to see them, to be consoled by the evidence of their faith, the fame of which had already spread to the utmost limits of the empire.* You have fallen into the strange mistake of quoting this epistle in proof of the success of his preaching in that city, whilst he declares in it that he had never been there : " I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I have often purposed to come to you (and have been prevented hitherto), that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other nations."!
You complain that " after all this St Paul should be made to act a secondary part to St Peter in founding the Church of Rome, and that the Sacred Oracles should thus become subor- dinate to the testimony of tradition." But it is manifest, from the passage of Scripture just quoted, that St Paul was not the original founder of that Church, and that it was flourishing and celebrated before his eye had ever rested on that magnificent city. Tradition comes to our aid on a point not stated in Scrip- ture, by informing us who it was that first entered the seat of Paganism to preach salvation in the name of the crucified Re- deemer : it does not set aside the Sacred Oracles, but gives us information for which they had prepared us. Chrysostom, in regard to the establishment of religion by Peter in the capital of the empire, observes : " The fisherman Peter, because he practised virtue, and occupied the imperial city, shines, even after death, brighter than the sun. "J TertuUian, at the close of the second century, speaks of those whom Peter baptized in the Tyber.§
You " remind us, that in the two epistles of St Peter, there is not one word of intimation on the supreme rule and govern- ment supposed to be conferred on him." But it is enough that he writes to his colleagues in the ministry with the dignity and authority that becomes the prince of the Apostles ; and such
57 or 58. See Bloomfield, Notes on the Acts and on the Epistle to the Romans : also Macknight on the Epistles. See also Cave, Saec, Apost.
^ Rom. i. e. t V. 13.
t S. Joan. Chry. in Ps. 48, p. 370, Tom. I.
§ Tertull. 1. de bapt.
SCRIPTURAL ALLUSIONS. 55
is the judgment which an eminent Protestant critic has passed on his style.* He speaks as one to wliom pastors and people were alike entrusted ; and whilst, with the humility which his divine Master inculcated, he regards himself as a fellow-labourer, he prescribes to the dignitaries of the Church the spirit in which they should exercise their power.t
In fine, you ask us, as you delight in interrogatories, " have we never wondered that the supremacy of Peter has been passed by in all the Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles?" We reply that we have no cause for this supposed wonder, as we see ils exercise very distinctly marked in the Acts, and its divine origin strongly declared in the Gospels. Great, indeed, is our astonishment, and deep our regret, that many read these divine writings and perceive not these truths, but prefer vain conjectures and weak reasonings to the plain and solemn words of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, sir, you may not have per- mitted your attention to be directed to the various passages in the Gospels, in which the Primacy of Peter is indirectly, but significantly intimated. ♦' Is the Church," says St Francis de Sales, J " likened unto a house ? It is placed on the foundation of a rock, which is Peter. Will you represent it under the figure of a family ? You behold our Redeemer paying the tribute as ils master, and after him comes Peter as his repre- sentative. Is the Church a bark? Peter is its pilot; and it is our Redeemer who instructs him. Is the doctrine by which we are drawn from the gulf of sin represented by a fisher's net? It is Peter who casts it: it is Peter who draws it; the other disciples lend their aid ; but it is Peter that presents the fishes to our Redeemer. Is the Church represented by an embassy ? Saint Peter is at its head. Do you prefer the figure of a kingdom ? Saint Peter carries its keys. In fine, will you have it shadowed under the symbol of a flock and a fold ? Saint Peter is the shepherd and universal Pastor under Jesus Christ."
• Grotius. Sec Synops. Grit. Proleg. Ep. 1, Petri.
t 1 Ep. Peter, c. v.
t Controvcrses de S. Franc, de Sales, disc. 42.
LETTER IV. SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
Right Reverend Sir :
From the Scriptural proofs of the Primacy of Peter, you pro- ceed to the ancient canons, styled, of the Jipo sties ; and you ob- serve, that in them no evidence of it is discoverable. That they are not regarded by us as the true productions of the Apostles, you candidly acknowledge ; and hence I can see no reason why you should bring them forward in this investigation, especially as all learned Protestants agree with us in rejecting them.* Allowing you, however, the privilege of using them, you can- not find a single expression in them which impugns the Pri- macy of Peter and his successors. The prohibition of the trans- fer of bishops from one see to another, unless by the judgment and earnest recommendation of many bishops, does not prove that there was then no Primate, because the present discipline requires his consent for so important a change ; this being a matter entirely dependent on positive enactment. In the first three ages espef*ially, when persecution raged, the communi- cation between the prelates, scattered abroad over the empire, and even beyond its limits, was necessarily difficult; and it cannot be matter of surprise, that recourse to the chief Pastor was enjoined only in cases of vital importance to the general interests of the Church. Besides, the See of Alexandria, found- ed by Mark, the disciple of Peter, and that of Antioch, founded by Peter himself, had extensive jurisdiction, afterwards deno-
* See Cave Sa^c. Ap. Op. Sup. p. 19. Gen. cd. He thinks that they were collected together chiefly from the usage and regulations of the Church about the end of the second age.
CANONS OF THE APOSTLES. 57
minated patriarchal, according to the beautiful order established from the comraencement. The general affairs of these vast districts were committed fully to their authority, as appears by the sixtli canon of Nice. If the bishops of the east, whose dis- cipline is thought to be represented by tiiose canons, authorized episcopal translations, whenever judged expedient by many neighbouring bishops, it was an enactment no wise derogatory to the supremacy of Peter's chair. At a later period, the ex- pediency of further restrictions to prevent ambition became manifest, whilst the facilities of communication were increased, and the patriarchal sees having failed, occasion was oflercd for the more direct and frequent exercise of pontifical authority, even in the most distant provinces. An absolute prohibition of all translations has been made, whereby they became unlaw- ful, except by the dispensation of the general ruler of the Church. The thirty-third canon exhibits that order which is to be maintained in the respective portions of the Christian world ; the bishops of each province or nation looking up with reverence to their local head, or metropolitan, as continues to be enjoined even unto this day: but who can thence conclude that there is no common head, whom even metropolitans should reverence and obey ? In the enactment of canons, the Coun- cils of the three first ages, which were all local, intended to re- gulate local concerns, not general discipline ; and consequently legislated without the remotest intention to interfere with the general organization of the Church. In this spirit, provincial Councils were to be held twice a year, and local controversies were therein examined and determined : but when the general interests of religion were at stake, their acts were sent to the chief guardian of the divine deposite, as we shall see in the case of Paul of Samosata, and in the celebrated controversies con- cerning baptism administered by heretics, and the necessity of grace. These fretjuent Councils were advisable, in consequence of thediflicullies for which no legislation had yet provided, and were practicable among neighbouring bishops, whose dioceses were generally small. Such Councils are still prescribed to be lield, at least every third year, and, within the last ten years,
58 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
they have been thrice held in our ecclesiastical province. Thus our practice is substantially the same as that of the early a^es, and neither interferes with the prerogative of the Pope. The judg- ment of bishops, accused of grievous delinquency, was some- times left to their colleagues of the province, except the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, whose patriarchal dignity gave them the privilege of being judged by the Pope ; but when aggrieved, they raised their voice from the East, and from the West, to the father of bishops, whose power was often exerted in their behalf. The extinction of those patriarchates, and a desire to protect the episcopal dignity from unjust and rash aggression, subsequently induced the reservation of all such cases to the mature examination and impartial judgment of one whose ele- vation raises him above the partial influences to which other bishops might be exposed.
I have thus offered an explanation of difficulties which have no direct bearing on the subject of our investigation, and which I could have justly passed over without notice, because taken from supposititious documents. Your assertion, that these ca- nons are directly adverse to our doctrine, is surely not easy to be sustained. I hope you now see how perfectly they har- monize with the admission of a governing power, watching over the general interests of religion, and interfering more or less in local concerns, according to peculiar exigencies and circum- stances. As to our evading evidence, as you insinuate, it is as far from our thoughts as it is foreign from our practice to seek it in spurious sources.
In your progress among these impure sources, you next come to the *• Apostolic Constitutions," which, although confessedly spurious, you bring forward to bear evidence against us, de- claring that " you have searched them in vain for any trace of our doctrine on the Primacy." 1 regret. Right Reverend Sir, that you should have occupied yourself in examining docu- ments of this character, from which no conclusive evidence could, in any case, be derived ; but, as I am obliged to follow you in the path you have chosen, I will proceed, although re- luctantly, to consider the justness of your conclusions, ^rn n
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 59
what is or is not contained in these unimportant writings. You observe that these Constitutions apply to all bishops, in the plural form, the very language addressed to Peter. This is a niislakc. The words which you cite are those which were addressed to all the Apostles.* No where do you find all the bishops styled the rock on which Christ built his Church. Even from these spurious decrees the pre-eminence of Peter is apparent. They are drawn up chiefly in his name, and he is represented as speaking throughout the most of them. He is named and styled first, as is apparent from the passages which you quote, in the translation of one of which you have rendered ihis particularity less apparent to the reader. The text should be thus translated: " I therefore tbe first, Peter say ;" which you have rendered : ** I therefore Peter say, first. "t Wiicn Peter and Paul are united in the decree, the precedency of Peter is still maintained : •* I Peter, and I Paul, ordain. "J
You have, at last, reached a class of spurious documents which you avow are highly favourable to the claims of the Roman Pontiff, the decretals of Isidore xMercator. You dwell on these with peculiar emphasis;, and not only do you charge the forgery of them on Kiculphus, bishop of Moguntum, about the year 787, but, at one fell swoop, you make the Popes ac- complices of the fraud by their countenance and sanction. The compliment you pay to the Catholic literati of the present day for their honourable rejection of these false decrees, but badly compensates for the wound which you endeavour to in- flict on the religion which they have defended, when you repre- sent bishops and Popes as *' paltering with every principle of truth, whilst they boasted of infallibility." The facts of the case, however, do not warrant these reproaches. The collection was not certainly framed at Home, but in Germany: and its author is still problematic, though you unhesitatingly pronounce liim to have been a bishop, 'i'lic literary fraud did not consist
• Matt, xviii. 18.
f TTfmroi «r »>»' fn/jii riiT^sf. ** Ego igitur primus Tetrus dico.
t E^M niTjic «, iyei Ilai/Aoc Ji*rx((o/unfiit. Const. 1. viii. c. 33.
00 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
in forging the documents altogether, with a view to introduce new doctrines, or a new system of ecclesiastical polity, for the calvinist Blondell h'mself acknowledges that genuine docu- ments were used as the materials of this imposture ; whilst false inscriptions and clumsy combinations gave to the collec- tion an air of remote antiquity. It is a curious fact that "the Apostolic Constitutions," which you have read with intense interest, and which you describe as rich in doctrine, in elo- quence, and in forms of devotion, have been used freely by the compiler of these false decretals. Large extracts are taken from them, sometimes word for word, sometimes with some slight variation, and given in the name of some Pope of the first three centuries. The Recognitions of Clement, another work of the same spurious character, was also used by Isidore ; and even works of undoubted authenticity, such as the writings of Saints Leo and Gregory, were employed in the same manner. You ask: *' does not the existence of such a fraud bring a dark cloud upon the very character of the claim itself?" I answer confi- dently, it does not. As well might an unbeliever argue against the divine character of the Christian religion, because spurious gospels and other literary frauds were circulated at a very early period by some whose zeal was not according to knowledge. If you can speak in raptures of the Apostolic Constitutions, ac- knowledged by all to be a literary imposture, why are you so vehement in your invectives against the compilation of Isidore, founded in a great measure on these Constitutions, or on w^orks undoubtedly authentic? You say, that this imposture was exe- cuted by a bishop ; but surely you must know that this is quite uncertain : you add that it was patronised by successive Popes ; but you are aware that the usage of three centuries had given the decretals the force of law before the Popes admitted them into the body of laws used in the Roman Church. Nicholas I., in rebuking Hincma, bishop of Rheims, for having rejected them, assumed, as certain, the fact of their being such as they were represented, — the decrees of the early PontiflJs, whose authority was not dependent on their insertion in the general collection of tlie canons : but he had not examined, and did not
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 61
pronounce, on the alleged fact of their aullienlicily. If you will take llie pains of comparing the decretals with their sources, you will lind how very easy it was, at a lime when critical in- quiry was almost unknown, to he mistaken in regard to a fad of this nature. But there are documents, the authenticity of which is admitted by the most enlightened critics, not excepting those adverse to our faith, which so fully establish the Primacy and its privileges, that 1 am almost teni])ted to imitate your language, and tell you that they force a sigh of deep regret over the shame of men who, by ascribing the origin of the pontifical privileges to these false decretals, trifle with every principle of truth, wiiilsi they boast of impartiality. You say that '* it is undf.iicd and undeniable that forgeries so extensive were actually palmed upon the churches for many ages, by the successors of Nicholas the 1st." The decretals of which you speak being presented by their author, presumed to be Bene- dictus Levita, in connexion with authentic decrees and canons, got credence and currency first in Germany, where they were contrived, afterwards in France, and subsequently in Rome itself, wIk'm usage had given them the force of law. They were forgeries, because ascribed to the ancient Popes : but they were for the most part the expression of primitive faith and of the received discipline of the Church. The question of their authorship was a matter of minor importance, when their con- formity to primiiive tradition was known in regard to the great principles of faith, and the organization of the Church ; and their suitableness to existing circumstances in disciplinary regulations was proved by experience. It mattered little whether a decree purporting to be of Pope Fabian contained his sentiments and injunctions, or those of St Leo, St Celes- tine, or St Gregory, from whose works the compiler borrowed his materials : and the prerogatives of the Apostolic See, as explained by Innocent and Siricius, were equally sacred, as when declared by Evaristus or Alexander, 'i'he Popes, who admitted these decretals into tlie body of canon law, after they had been j-lsewhere adopted during three centuries, did not study the inlercols of their See, so much as uniformity of ilis-
F
62 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
cipline. The special object of the contriver of the fraud was most probably to shield bishops against their accusers, for to this much of what may be considered original in the decretals is directed. The scheme of imposition was certainly not con- cocted by the Roman Pontiffs, nor can a shadow of evidence be offered of this injurious assertion. In the progress of this work I shall have occasion to adduce documents of undoubted authenticity, long prior to the ninth century, which gave birth to the false decretals ; and I shall prove from them that the Primacy, with great amplitude of prerogative, was acknowledged in all ages. For the present I shall give you one specimen from the false decretals, with reference to the genuine docu- ments which have been copied or imitated. A letter purport- ing to be of Pope Eusebius, directed to the bishops of Tuscia and Campania, is found in the collection of Isidore. The exordium is with some slight variation a copy of the com- mencement of the genuine letter of Pope Hormisdas to all the bishops of Spain, written at the beginning of the sixth century: the continuation is borrowed from the letter of John, bishop of Constantinople, to Hormisdas, in which the authority of the Hol}^ See is set forth in the strongest terms. I willingly forego the advantage to be derived from the view of the Papal prerogative given by the pseudo-Eusebius : but is not the loss of two centuries in date amply compensated by the weight of authority derived from the acknowledgment of one who might be considered most likely to question the privileges of the Bishop of ancient Rome ? Hear then John of Constantinople, giving an account of his faith to Hormisdas. "The first thing necessary for salvation is to observe the rule of sound faith, and to deviate, in no respect, from the tradition of the Fathers, for the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be disre- garded : * Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church.' What was said is proved by the event: for the Catholic religion is always inviolably maintained in the Apos- tolic See. Being desirous, therefore, not to fall away from this faith, and following in all things the decrees of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies. Wherefore, following in all
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 63
tilings the Aposlolii; Sec, we also preach all things decreed by it: and for that reason I hope iluit I shall he united with you in the communion of that laith which is proclaimed hy the Apostolic See, in which is the entire and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. We promise that hereafter the names of such as are separated IVoiii the communion of the Apostolic Church, that is, such as do not in all things harmonize with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited in the celebration of the sacred mysteries."* Compare this with the false decretal, and say candidly, whether the clumsy contrivance could have been needed to establish the rights of the Apostolic See.t
Candour then will admit that the compilation of Isidore, changed nothing in the principles of the Church, or in the or- ganization of the hierarchy, and induced few, if any, variations in the established discipline, as may be inferred from the very fact of the success of the imposture. In no age can men be so far duped as to surrender, without reluctance, their acknowledged rights to any claimant. As well might an impostor hope to change the principles of common law, by the pretended dis- covery of Dome-day book, or of the Code of Edgar, or of Ed- ward, as Isidore could expect, even in the ninth century, to effect any essential change in the organization or polity of the Church, by the pretended decretals of the Popes of the first three centuries, which, even if authentic, would liave been disregarded as obsolete, had not actual usage sustained them. The belief of the divine institution of the Primacy, so clearly expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, was deeply seated in the minds and hearts of the faithful long before the days of Isidore, as was solemnly declared four centuries before by the Council of Carthage. J
• Act. Cone. Hard. Tom. II. lulT.
t Ibid. Tom. I. col. 241.
; Kp. 17(5. oliin. 1)2, p. (522, Tom. II. op. Aug. cd Ven., " arhilrainur — aucloritati sanctitatis tucc dc sanctarum scripturarum aucloritatc dc pompta; fncilius cos ense ccssuros" ad Innocent.
LETTER V. APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND IRENiEUS.
Right Reverend Sir :
From the examination of spurious works, we pass to the ge- nuine writings of those venerable men, who, from their close connexion with the Apostles and the Apostolic age, are styled Apostolic Fathers. They claim our respect, from the charac- ter of their authors, the station they occupied in the Church, the sanctity of their lives, and their sufferings for religion. You observe, that *' nothing positive can be derived from them on the point in question:" yet you seek to make them appear ad- verse to the Primacy. Thus, you object that, " in one of the epistles of Ignatius, addressed to the Romans, his entire silence on the supposed pre-eminence of their Church, and the derived supremacy of Peter, looks altogether adverse to your claims." Yet he is not altogether silent. The address of his epistle is strongly expressive of the pre-eminence of the Roman Church. It runs thus : " Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has obtained mercy through the magnificence of the most higli Father, and of Jesus Christ his only begotten Son ; the Church, beloved and enlightened through his will, who wills all things that are according to the charity of Jesus Christ our God ; which PRESIDES in the place of the Roman region, being worthy of God, most comely, deservedly blessed, most celebrated, properly organized, most chaste, and PRESIDING in charity, having the law of Christ, bearing the name of the Father." I know not in what more emphatic language the di- vinely bestowed privileges and pre-eminence of the church WHICH PRESiDi: s could be expressed. The source of its prero-
K.NATH .S AM) CLEMKNT. 05
galives is also iiulicaled in llie boily of llie Idler, in wlut-li allu- sion is made to its I'oinulation by Peter and Paul : " 1 do not command you, as Peter and l^iul : iliey were Apostles, I am a condemned man ; they were Tree ; 1 have hitherto been a slave."* Ignatius, who succeeded Evodius in the See of Anti- och, notwithstanding the prior foundation of that See by the Apostle Peter, proclaims the presiding character of the Roman Church, and regards it as peculiarly beloved and enlightened by God : and yet to you he appears entirely silent on its pre- eminence !
The letter of Clement, IJishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, is the next document to which you direct our attention. He was a cotemporary of Peter and Paul, and his letter is supposed by some to have been written about the year 90 ; by others, at an earlier period. It is written in the name of the Church of God, dwelling at Rome, to the Church of God dwelling at Co- rinth.t The revolt of the Corinthians against their ecclesias- tical superiors was the occasion of lliis " most powerful letter," as Irenmus designates it, which was intended to " recall them to peace, and to renew their faith."; 'I'he inscription, you ob- serve, is ♦' an humble beginning ; lor Clement, instead of atlect- ing to rule the Corinthians by his ollicial power, unites with his Church in a fraternal expostulation." Hut, sir, il was the cus- tom of antiquity to consider affairs of great importance in an assembly of the bishop, with the leading members of the clergy, and the result of the deliberation was given in tiie name of the whole Church ; for, according to Cyprian, " the Church is the people united with the priest, and the (lock following its pastor; wlicnce, you should know that the bishop is in the
t '• Ecclcsia Dei quoB incolit lloinain :" 7r«^:<jciir«- In the work of Hisho|) Hopkins it is translaUd : " worships at " This unimportant niis- l:ikt' would not bi* noticed but for llu' scviTity of llie bisljop towards otin r translnlors. Of all men, he ought to be tlie most indulgent in this regard
t Irr:r'>'' h'' in ."Iv hr>'r. r. ill. 1 *
bb APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
Church, and the Church is in the bishop."* Notwithstanding that inscription, you yourself, after the early writers, speak of the letter as of Clement. His interference in the local concerns of this distant Church is inexplicable, if his superior authority be not admitted. John the Apostle was still alive, and both from his character and proximity to Corinth, was the most likely to display his zeal on such an occasion, if zeal only, and not the order of Church government, were the moving princi- ple. But Clement makes no mention of his supremacy. — It was not called in question, and therefore it was unnecessary to assert it : he proved it by his interference, and exercised it most effectually by paternal remonstrance, mild rebuke, and sublime instruction. Why, you ask, does he not complain of the dis- regard of the rights of the Apostolic See, by the violent depo- sition of the bishop of Corinth without its concurrence ? He does complain of the deposition as a violation of the order esta- blisshed by Christ in his Church — the divine law by which the laity are bound to obey those who are set over them. This was their crime ; this was the evil to be cured by salutary ad- monition. The rights of the Holy See had only been indirectly and remotely invaded, inasmuch as that See is the guardian of the order divinely established. Had the discipline then prevail- ed, whereby the deposition of bishops is reserved to the Pope, still reference to that circumstance would have been unneces- sary, because no form of judgment had been observed. The expulsion or deposition of the bishop and clergy was not an act of an inferior tribunal taking cognizance of a cause reserved to a higher power, in which case Clement might have complained of an aggression on his own authority ; but it was an act of po- pular violence, in which the divine law itself had been trampled under foot. Though, then, the letter of Clement makes no men- lion of his supremacy, it is a precious and splendid evidence of that "solicitude of all the churches" which belonged to his Apostolic office, and of the salutary influence of that authority
* S. Cyprian, Ep. 60, ad Pupianum, p. 220. Edit. Wirceburg.
ST IREN.EUS. G7
which Christ wi-i'ly eslablislicd, to preserve the faith, and re- store to peace the discordant members ot^ the Cluirrli. The want of such a presiding power is deeply felt in modern sects, who have no remedy for tliose evils which the passions of men so often indict on religion, and sec their preachers and ministers either obliged to court favour, at the sacrifice of the independ- ence which becomes the ambassador of Christ, or to yield to the violence or intrigue, which the enemies of order and authori- ty are ever ready to employ.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, about the middle of the second century, a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evan- gelist, bears splendid evidence of the powerful principality of the Roman Church, — of the high authority of her tradition, — and of the succession of her bishops, from her glorious found- ers, Pelor and Paul. Every elTort to explain away his testi- mony must always prove vain. You admit tiiat " he grants to that Church an important rank." 'I'iiis admission is important, since we shall see that at so early a period, when her bishops were constant objects of persecution, she could have derived that rank only from her Apostolic founders. Writing against the Gnostics, Irenoeus says: " All who wish to sec the truth, may see in all the Church the tradition of the Apostles, mani- fested throughout the whole world : and we can enumerate the bishops who have been ordained by the Apostles and their suc- cessors, down to our own time, who taught, or knew no such doctrine as they madly dream of. — But since it would be very tedious to enumerate the succession of all the Churches in thi:? work, by pointing to the tradition of the greatest, and most an- cient Church, known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her lailh announced to men, coming down to us by the succession of bishops, we confoiind all those who in any injproper manner gather together, either through self-complacency or vain-glory, or through blindness and perverse disposition. For with this Church, on account of the more powerful principality, it is nc- ceesary that every Church, that is, the faithful, w ho are in every
68 ST IREN^rS.
direction, should agree, in which the Apostolic tradition has been always preserved, by those who are in every direction."* Much ingenuity has been exercised to destroy the force of so solemn a testimony. You ask : " Does he not make the establishment of the Church of Rome the joint act of both Peter and Paul, saying, in positive terms, that they set Linus over that Church as its bishop, and not intimating, in the slightest degree, that Peter ever established himself as bishop there?" We grant that both Apostles concurred in its establishment, and the Popes are accustomed in all their solemn acts to unite both, not only as patrons whom they invoke, but likewise as Apostles whose authority they inherit. These holy Apos- tles acted in concert, without jealousy, labouring for the glory of their common Master, though the prerogative of Peter was special. What regards Linus is tlius expressed by Euse- bius, in the original words of Irenseus : " The blessed Apos- tles, having foimded and built up the CImrch, delivered to Linus the ministry of the episcopate."! You infer hence that Linus was the Bishop of Rome, even in the lifetime of Peter and Paul : but were this the case, how could the succession be counted from the Apostles ? Thus Irenaeus tells us that on the death of Anaclelus, Clement succeeded, " in the third place from the Apostles. "J Linus tlien must not have been Bishop of Rome, until after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, though he received the episcopal character in their lifetime, and was appointed to be the bishop of that city after their decease, and probably exercised many acts of his order before it, with their assent, and under tlieir direction. Tfiere is no reason to sup- pose that whilst tlie two Apostles continued in Rome, a bishop was created to govern it with independent authority.
* S. lrena)us, lib. iii adv. lia'r. c. iii.
iHKh)f'^iiv >.ivrf) T«v Tii^f iTrtCKOTrH; hinov^yiav ivi^ii^i^xx'. Euscb. 1. v. hist. c. G. The Latin version as given in Irenceus is : " Fundantes igitur et instruentes beati apostoli ecclesiam Lino episcopatum administranda? ecclesioe tradidernnt."
t Tpiru Ti/Ta) t'ri tuv u-TiTi^ctV . (lt>.)
ST IRENiEUS. CO
♦•With respect to the more powerful prinripnlily of wliich Irenaeus speaks, he does not," you sny, ♦♦ use one word which connects Uie principality wiih the Church, or wiih ils hishop ; hut refers simply to its location in that city, which was then, and for many centuries before and after, the acknowledged mistress of the world." For my part, after an attentive exa- mination of the passage, I am perfectly unable to find the least mention whatever of the city, or ils imperial greatness, but solely and exclusively of the Church founded by the Apostles. On what ground, then, do you assert, that the more powerful prinripnlily ilc>ignaled the civil dominion ? Suppose it for a moment, and insert the explanatory words. '* By pointing to the tradition of the greatest and most ancient Church, known to all, founded and established at Kome, by the two most glo- rious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her faith announced to men, coming down to us by the succession of bishops, we confound errorists of every kind : for with this Church {be- cauae the city in icliich it is situated is the seat of tJie Roman empire) every Church must agree."* Would you admit such a reason ? Substitute the words which explain the more power- ful principality of spiritual authority, and you will find the reasoning forcible and coherent. IJy referring to the tradition of the Roman Church founded by the Apostles, — to its faith perpetuated through the regular succession of its bishops, we •;onfound all sectarists, because with this Church {on account of the supreme authority ivith which its Bishop is divincfy invested)^ every other Church must agree."
" " MaximoB et antiquissimo?, ct omnibus cognito;, a gloriosissimis (Juobus apostolis Petro et Paulo fundatin et constitula; ecclesicR earn <{uam habct ab apostolis traditionem, ct annuntiatam hominibus fidein per successioncB cpiscoporuin pervenientcra usque ad nos indicantes, confundiiuus omnes eos (jui quocjuo xnodo, vel per sibi j)laccntia, vrl vanatn gloriarn, vol per ccecitatein ct inalam sententiam, pra'lcrquain oportnt colligunt. Ad banc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem prin- cii)alitateiu necegsc est oinnem convcnire ecclesiain, hoc est, cos qui sunt undique fidclcd : in qua semper ab liis <jui sunt undiquc, conservala est ca qua; < st ab apostolis traditio." S. Iren. 1 iii. c. iii.
/U ST IREN.EUS.
Though you are "not fond of resting any religious question on mere verbal criticism," you cannot forbear observing that Irenaeus does not say : on account of " its" more powerful principality, whence you conceive yourself authorized to infer that he referred to the principality of the city, not of the Church : as if when the relative is omitted, as is frequently done by writers in every language, what is said must be re- ferred, not to what immediately precedes, but to something not before spoken of in any way ! Few will be inclined to adopt this canon of interpretation. In the present instance the preposition propter determines the relation : for with this Church on ac- count of the more powerful principality every Church must agree : just as in the following chapter the Son of God is stated to have submitted to be born of a virgin, on account of ihe most extraordinary love towards his creatures.* As well might it be said that the love spoken of v/as not his love, because the rela- tive is wanting, as that, in the other instance, the powerful principality is not the principality of the Church.
You think that the scope of Irendeus, which was to refute the Gnostics, ^ho boasted of wisdom superior to the Apostles, and of secret traditions, will serve to illustrate his meaning. "He had been employed," you observe, " in refuting the wild absurdities of the Gnostic heretics from the authority of Scrip- ture, and now he desires to put them down by the authority of tradition." Undoubtedly ; but he points to the tradition of the Roman Church especially, because the greatest of all Churches ; because with it all the genuine disciples of Christ every where had always harmonized ; and consequently its tradition, authori- tatively declared by its Bishop, was the solemn attestation of what the Apostles had originally taught.
But you object that the Latin term " convenio,"t used by the translator of Irenaeus, cannot be rendered to " agree" with- out a want of grammatical accuracy, and that the idea conveyed
" Qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem.' S. Irenaeus, 1. iii. 4, p. 242. Edit. Col. Agrip. an. 159G.
t " Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est oninem convenire ecclesiam." Irenseus, supra.
I
ST IREN.F.rS. 71
by it would have no connexion wiili ilic argument. I refer ilie reader to llie dictionaries, and to the note'' for tlie meaning of tlie disputeil term. If there were any ambij,aiiiy in the phrase, its meaning should be determined by lljc context, wliicli necessarily expresses agreement, and not resort to the j)lace, as will appear by the paraphrase according to this latter exposition. — " To this Church, on account of the imperial do- minion, it is necessary that the whole Church, that is, the failliful from all quarters, should come up." 'I'he greatness of the city might give occasion to some of the faithful to visit Iconic, but it never could impose such a necessity on all. Nay, it was a circumstance in most cases unfavourable to their visit- ing it, because the public authority was there more vigilant, and more hostile to the Christian profession. You forget the limes in which Irenanis wrote, when persecution raged at Rome against the Churcli, and every successor of Peter was a martyr. Was the political pre-eminence of tlie city likely in such circumstances to attract the clergy and the faithful of nil the surrounding cliurches, to sec its lowly and persecuted IJishop ? I am astonished at the fanciful conjectures which men seriously put forward to evade the force of a j)lain and powerful testimony.
The fact whicji you allege to justify your interprc't:uion of this passage, shall now be considered. During the lifetime of Irena^us considerable excitement was occasioned in the churches of Asia, by an eflbrt to bring them to conformity with the oilier cliurches of the world, in the observance of the Paschal festival. They were accustomed to celebrate it
* Bishop Hopkins is not accurate in stating, tliat when convenio refers io place, it is usually followed by the accusative, but when to sen- timent, as when it means to consent or agree, it generally lakes the da- tive." The nearest phrases I can find in Uie classical authors like that of IrentDUs, are : " Convenit optime ad pcdem cothurnus," and " convc- nit ad eum ha-c contumelia," both found in Cicero, the former signify- ing " the boot fits the foot well," the latter, ** this insult alfects him." It is j)rol)ablr that the translator adhered closely to the Greek idiom. The verb furtt^/xcrTaf, to harnjoni/.e, is construed somelimes with t^sc and the accusative.
72 ST IREN^US.
on the same day as the Jews, whether that was Sunday or not, whilst the general practice was to celebrate it on the Sunday immediately following the vernal equinox. Councils were convened in various places, and the voice of all was unanimous, that uniformity should be insisted on. Irenaeus presided over a synod in Gaul, in the name of which a letter was directed to the Asiatic churches. A letter also was sent from the Ro- man synod, bearing the name of Victor the bishop. Poly- crates, at the head of several Asiatic bishops, undertook to justify the peculiar usage of his countrymen, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and to the Church of the Ro- mans. On the receipt of the letter, Victor resolved to separate from the communion of the Universal Church, the discordant churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces, whose obstinate adherence to this practice might eventually endanger the integrity of faith by a too close imitation of Judaical obser- vances. With this view he despatched letters to all his col- leagues, declaring, or threatening to declare — for the matter is doubtful — the recusant bishops aliens from ecclesiastical com- munion. To many of the bishops, who before had urged the necessity of uniformity, this severity seemed uncalled for and untimely. On this occasion Irenaeus wrote to the Pontiff a re- spectful remonstrance. He called to his recollection the mode- ration observed, on the same subject, by his predecessor Anicetus, who having vainly endeavoured to induce Polycarp, wlien he visited Rome, to abandon the peculiar practice of the Asiatic churches, wisely passed over this difference of usage, and treated his venerable guest with distinguished honour. These are the facts as related by Eusebius in his history.* I am pleased that you have referred to them by way of illustra- tion. The letter of Polycrates to Victor in justification of the Asiatic practice, shows that he recognised in the Bishop of Rome a special authority ; for it does not appear that he deemed it necessary to justify his practice to the other bishops who had addressed him. The measures to which Victor re-
* Euseb. 1. V. c. xxiii. xxiv
PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 73
sorted, or threatened to resort, prove that he felt himself in- vested with power even over his colleagues in the episcopacy in the most distant parts, and that he had authority to punish, with the highest ecclesiastical censure, obstinate departure from the general discipline of the Church. The remon- strance of Irena3us does not give tiie least indication of any usurpation of power by Victor, but is grounded solely on the inexpedicjicy of exercising it in those circumstances. The ex- ample of Anicetus affords a splendid instance of the indulgence and forbearance of the Holy See, in points of a discretionary character, especially where personal merit recommends the advocacy of ancient usage. The unwillingness of Polycarp to relinquish a practice which he believed to have originally had the sanction of tlie Apostle JSt Jolin, implies no resistance to the positive injunctions of a Superior, wlio had wisely confined himself to mere persuasion.
The notion of supremacy which would require the abandon- ment of ancient national usages at the mere suggestion of the Pontiff, without the least expostulation, or representation of the inconveniences that might thence ensue, is a far more ex- alted view of it, than is entertained by the most devoted de- fenders of Papal authority. The Pontiffs themselves have generally — I might say, uniformly, manifested wise and en- larged views in regard to local usages, and have seldom threatened to enforce points of mere discipline by severe cen- sures, unless they perceived some danger to faith likely to re- sult from the want of uniformity.
I agree with you, that the subject of this controversy was of no trifling importance. 'J'he practice of celebrating the resur- rection of our Lord, on one day of the week rather than ano- tlier, was indeed in itself indillcrent ; and the Apostle St John had wisely sanctioned its celebration in Asia on the very day on which the Jews celebrated their passover, in order to facilitate the transition from Judaism to (Jlirislianity, in places where the Jews were most numerous. In other portions of the Church, where this motive did not exist, the Sunday was chosen for its celebration, as the very day consecrated by his triumph over o
74 ST IREN^US.
death ; and all coincidence with the Jewish observance was avoided, that it might be the more clearly understood, that the Mosaic rites had entirely passed av/ay. As Christianity ad- vanced, the motives for indulgence towards the Jewish con- verts became fewer and less strong, and that toleration which the Apostles had extended to the ceremonial observances, was no longer necessary or expedient. Anicetus desired to see uni- formity prevail throughout the whole Christian Church, but re- spected the attachment of a venerable man to long established usage. At a later period Victor perceived that the practice was subject to great inconveniences, and not entirely free from the taint of error,* as some considered it an obligation of the Mosaic law : wherefore he judged that it was time to cut off the refrac- tory adherents to it from the general body of the Church. The entreaties and counsels of Irenaeus induced him to relent : but the event showed the wisdom and prudence which influenced Victor, as the Quartodedmans^ or obstinate observers of this usage, were finally separated from the Church in the general Council of Nice.
You advise us to try the experiment of acting as Polycarp did towards Anicetus. The counsel is needless. Every day bishops from various parts of the world, where usages pre- vail different in many respects from those most cherished by the Holy See, go to Rome, and are received by the Father of the faithful as brothers, with all the marks of ecclesiastical communion. Their remonstrances, their explanations, their defence of national practices, are heard with patience ; and even when the Pontifl' earnestly desires and recommends conformity to the general law, he tolerates, with wise indulgence, the dis- crepancies which he cannot remove without a painful exercise of authority.
In the language of Irenfcus, as understood by you, you think that you have found the solution of the mystery with which the question of Roman supremacy is connected. You " do not wonder, that the very fact of this supremacy existing so long,
* ere^ocTt^iicrAo-. Eusebius, loc. cit.
PKRIMTIITV OF THE ROMAN" SEE. 76
wilhoul any apparent support from the temporal power, should strike our imajrinations as being almost conclusive evidence in its favour." My judgment, at least, rests satisfied with the proof. I see thrones totter, and empires fall, where human wisdom and power promised perpetuity : but the " better prin- cipality" of the successor of tlie fisherman survives, though assailed by all the power and malice of this world's potentates. From Nero to Napoleon, what efforts have not been made for the annihilation of this undying sovereignty ! The Pontifls of the three first centuries were, with scarcely an exception, vic- tims of pagan cruelty ; but, at the end of this fierce conflict, Constanline, as if struck with the superior majesty of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, leaves the imperial city to be the peaceful re- sidence of the humble Silvester. How often, since that time, liave not the barbarian and the Christian entered in wrath into that city, — imprisoned or led captive its Bishop, and left him to pine away, or die in foreign dungeons ! And w hen we see the meek Pius come forth from his mil to be borne in Iriumpii back to his capital, and now behold the humble Gregory, the successor of his oflice and his virtues, still governing with pa- ternal authority the Universal Church, are we not justified in concluding that this ♦'powerful principality" is dillerent from all governments of human origin ? " Count over," we say to you, with Augustin, *♦ the bishoj)s, from the very See of Peter the Apostle, and sec in that list of Fathers the succession of one to the other. 'J'his is the rock against which the haughty gates of hell cannot prevail."*
To account for tiie human origin of this power, you describe the greatness of Rome '* at the time when the Apostles, Peter and Paul, established the Church there ;" and you suppose, that in wealth, in numbers, ami importance, it must soon have sur- passed all others. As great cities influence the whole nation, you infer that the Roman Church must have acquired a ♦* pri- macy of influence and consequence" over the other Churches. To illustrate this, you represent what would be the probable
" Aug. I's. contra parlriu Donati.
76 ST IREN.EUS.
consequence if, at the present day, missionaries to China should succeed in establishing Churches in several of tlie provinces, and subsequently in the capital, which would naturally absorb all solicitude, and practically become the centre and directing rule of missionary exertion. You would write to these mis- sionaries : " Be careful about union, and in all your proceed- ings consult together : but, especially, do nothing without con- sulting with your brethren of the capital ciiy. In order that the good cause should prosper, it is necessary that you should resort to the Church established there as often as you can ; by reason of its most powerful principality, being the seat of go- vernment, and the very heart of the empire, the Church located there is the most important of the whole, and the brethren placed over it should have the chief direction in all your councils." Compare your language with that of Irenaeus, and see whether it agree.* Your implied admission, that from the very commencement the Roman Church had a primacy of influence, and the chief direction in the Councils of all the churches, is not without importance. To attribute it, how- ever, to the great influence of the Roman Bishop with the pagan emperors, praetors, and other officers who professed and exercised constant hostility to Christianity, is an hypothe- sis at variance with the roost certain facts of history. The ex- ample of that vast empire, controlled and kept in union by a single will, suggested, you suppose, the expediency of giving to the Roman Bishop a controlling power over all Christendom. The primitive Christians reasoned thus, in your opinion : *' Why not secure to the whole Church that order, and subor- dination, and peace, under a single earthly head, as the Lord's vicegerent, which heathenism had brought, in the afl'airs of hu- man government, to such a marvellous system ? Should the hosts of Satan be better marshalled than the hosts of God? Should one single will be felt and obeyed, to the remotest bounds of that mighty empire, and should not one single Church, which is the spouse of Christ, be much rather the
* Supra, p. 67.
FANCIFUL HYPOTHESIS. 77
ruler and mistress ilirou»rh llie whole of Christendom ? On such a plan, iiow mucii more union might he expected, liow nuicli more peace, how much less opportunity for heresy and false doctrine, and how much more glorious would he the victory of the Lord's people, when they should appear to the heathen one mighty host, * briglit as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners.' That the best men of tlie primi- tive age, being accustomed to have this astonishing empire of the world continually before their eyes, might readily be led to contemplate the desirableness and practicability of a similar sys- tem in the Church, and that under this influence of their ha- bitual views they would find in Scriptures analogies, and even precepts, that they would lay hold on our Lord's addresses to Peter, and begin to interpret them in favour of their ecclesias- tical empire ;" — these, sir, are suppositions groundless in them- selves, injurious to the early professors and teachers of our faith, and far from aiding the cause they had been brought for- ward to sustain. For thus you virtually admit, that, even in the primitive ages, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop existed : that it implied authority and control, for otherwise it would not have anywise resembled the power of Caesar; and that it was sustained by reference to Scriptural texts, though in your opin- ion it originated in the political pre-eminence of Rome, and in the admiration of the organization of its vast empire. You dis- cover this in "the more powerful principality," mentioned by Irenacus, whilst we, witii that primitive age, conceive that prin- cipality to be the institution of the wisdom of Him who wished that his Church should be a united kingdom — a compact body; and wc discover in its perpetuity the exercise of that power, against which the powers of darkness cannot prevail. How you can still pretend to place the Church of Rome at this day in contrast with the Church of Rome in the primitive age, is to me strange ; for though you may conceive human causes to have given occasion to the assertion of the Primacy, you own that it was then, as it is now, supposed to rest on the addresses of our Lord to Peter. Thus you admit conformity wiierc you had pledged yourself to prove a contrast; and you substitute a
78 ST IRENiEUS.
liuman origin, of your own imagining, to the divine foundation of the Primacy, which, in common with the Church of the pre- sent day, the primitive Church believed. How vain are all the attempts of man to take away from the organization of the Church its divine character ! While Rome was the residence of the Caesars, God permitted the Church and her Chief Pastor to be constantly assailed by the Roman power ; and he caused the first Christian emperor, shortly after he had come to the know- ledge of faith, to remove the seat of empire to Byzantium, so that, in after ages, the privileges of the Roman Bishop might not be thought to have been the gifts of the civil power, or the acci- dental appendages of his office, derived from the city in which he presided. The secular origin of the Primacy is manifestly disproved, by the hostility to the Christian faith which the civil power exercised whilst Rome was the capital: and by the utter improbability that the memory of its ancient grandeur could have been the foundation of its privileges, after a rival city had arisen, around which was gathered all that imperial munificence and power could collect or bestow. Rome, in the zenith of her glory, was the unrelenting enemy of the cross, and would lend no jewel to adorn the mitre of her Bishop ; in her fallen state, she could add no lustre to his crown.
Note. — "An Essay on the Invalidity of Presbyterian Ordination," by John Esten Cooke, M.D., published at Lexington, Kentucky, in J 829, has come into my hands since this letter went to press. He quotes the testimony of Irenaeus, and gives a translation entirely conformable to mine on those points in which I have had occasion to dissent from Bishop Hopkins : " With this Church, on account of its greater pre-eminence, it is necessary that every church should agree."
LETTER VI.
TERTULLIAN.
Right Re\t.rknd Sir :
Leaving lliose truly primilive witnesses of the faith once delivered to the saints, wlio either received it immediately from the Apostles, or were those faithful men to whom the precious deposit of Apostolic tradition was committed hy the immediate disciples of the Apostles, we come to Tertullian, a priest of Car- thage, who lived at the close of the second and the beginning of the third century of our era. He is adduced by you as a witness, " adverse to the Primacy," although, in the very first extract from his writings, which you bring forward to support your position, you have the proof of that Primacy you are so willing to impugn. Contemporary witli this writer lived cer- tain sectaries, who asserted that the Apostles did not know all things. This ardent defender of the ancient faith indignantly asks: "Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the rock on which thcCluirch was to be built, and who obtain- ed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loos- ing and binding in heaven and on earth ?' You deny that this passage contains the slightest allusion to the superiority of one Apostle over the other; although you acknowledge that "this Father seems to authorize our interpretation of the passages of Scripture. To deprive us of his authority iti this point, you wish him to be heard in explanation, and with this view you quote a long passage from his work " On Chastity," written,
• Tert. (Jo Prn-s. § xxii. " Latuit aliqiiid Pctrum, n«(lificandu3 Ecclc- sicB petrain dictum, clavcs regni cn-loruin consccutuin, et solvcndi cl al- ligandi in coclis ct in tcrris potestatcm ? P. 238, Ed. Lut
80 TERTULLIAN.
as you acknowledge, after he had become a follower of Monta- nus. For this eloquent apologist of Christianity, and defender of the Church, was so far influenced by the severity of his dis- position as to exclude from pardon those who were guilty of adultery and other grievous crimes, however penitent they might appear. To oppose this rising error, the Bishop of Rome published a decree, by which such sinners were declared ad- missible to penance and forgiveness. On this occasion Tertul- lian wrote his work ** On Chastity," in which he says: — "I hear that an edict has been published, and, indeed, a peremp- tory one : namely, the ' Bishop of bishops,' which is equivalent to the ' Sovereign Pontiff,'* proclaims: I pardon the sins of adul- tery and fornication, to such as do penance.t" Endeavouring to prove that the power of the keys was given to Peter alone, and was not communicated to his successors, he says: — "now I ask your own sentiment, whence do you claim this power for the Church? If because the Lord said to Peter, ' on this rock I will build my Church: to thee I have given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose upon earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven,' thou presumest, on that account, that the power of loosing and binding has come down to thee ; that is, to the whole Church allied to Peter — who art thou that overturnest and changest the manifest inten- tion of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally : On THEE, he says, I will build my Church, and to thee I will give the keys, not to the Church, and whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose, not what they shall bind or loose. "J Here Tertullian is manifestly with us, as far as regards the rock, which he iden- tifies with Peter, and the power of the keys, which he main-
* " Pontifex, scilicet, raaximus, quod est Episcopus episcoporum." This is an inversion not unusual in Tertullian. The title which the Pop.e assumed was " Bishop of bishops j" but Tertullian says that it is equivalent to " Sovereign Pontiff," a title as yet exclusively applied to the pagan high priest. Bishop Hopkins translates it : "the pontiff, namely, the chief, which means the Bishop of bishops !"
t Tertullian, 1. de pudicitia, p. 715. Edit. Lutetiae, 1G41.
X Ibid. p. 703..
TERTULLIAN. 81
tains to have been the exclusive privilege of Peter. He denies, indeed, that this power descended to the successors of Peter, but does not question the succession itself, wliich he admits, by calling the Bishop of Rome *' Apostolic."* His denial of the inheritance of Peter's power of forgiveness by Peter's suc- cessor, arose from his attachment to an error, condemned by one of them, and, consequently, loses all weight, since it must be regarded as the rejection of a power by which the error, which TertuUian defended, was proscribed. In the de- fence of a false principle, it cannot surprise us that he advanced erroneous interpretations of Scripture ; and hence his authority, in other respects imposing, has no weighty wlien he becomes an avowed partisan of ascertained error. The partial exposi- tions of Holy Writ, put forward by a writer in such circum- stances, will often be found in contradiction with those of the same writer at other times. Thus TertuUian, in his work called '♦Scorpiace," extends to the Church, ihroutrh Peter, and even to every member of it who may confess Christ, as he did, what he here explains of Peter, personally and exclusively. ♦* For if," says he, " you still think that heaven is shut, re- member that the Lord here left its keys to Peter, and through him to the Church. "t
The following attempt of TertuUian to explain the power of the keys of the personal acts of Peter, shows much ingenuity, vainly employed, to evade the force of the Scriptural proof brought against his error. He maintains, that the event cor- responds with his explanation of the promise : ♦' For so even the event teaches. On him the Church was built: that is, through him : he first used the key : see what key : ' Ye men of Israel, hear what I say : Jesus of Nazareth, destined for you by God.' He finally opened the avenue of the celestial king- dom, through Christian baptism, by which the sins before bound
" TertuUian, 1. de pudicitia, p. 7(>3.
\ " Nam ct si adhuc clausum putos coclam, memento claves ejus hie Dorainum Petro, ct por cum Ecclcsia3 rcliquisse." Scorpiacc, p. G28. Ed. LutctiiD, an. 1641.
83 TERTULLIAN.
fast are loosed, and what was not loosed, according to true sal- vation, are bound fast; and he bound Ananias with the chain of death, and loosed the lame man from his infirmity."* I need not labour much to convince you, or the reader, that the cure of the lame man was no exercise whatever of the power of loos- ing or binding. The key which Peter is said to have given the Jews, by pointing out Jesus of Nazareth, will scarcely be thought to be one of those keys of the kingdom of heaven which Christ promised him. Every one sees that this is an allego- rical and forced explanation. The opening of the avenue to heaven by baptism cannot be considered as the exclusive pre- rogative of Peter, and the mere precedency in its administration does not adequately fulfil the strong and splendid promises of Christ. Peter is not merely a foundation, but a rock, a strong and permanent foundation : the keys given him are those of a kingdom, the emblems of sovereignty : he binds and looses, in a manner peculiar and extraordinary.
Tertullian is more correct in considering the judgment of Peter in the Council of Jerusalem, as an exercise of that autho- rity to bind and loose, which our I^ord had given him : "Also," says he, " in the controversy, whether the law should be observ- ed or not, Peter, first of all, impelled by the Spirit, and having spoken of the call of the nations,! said : ' Now why do you tempt the Lord by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which neitlier we nor our fathers were able to bear ? But by the grace of Jesus, we believe that we shall be saved, even as they. This sentence:]: both loosed the things of the law, that were laid aside, and bound those that were retained.' "§ This acute African was too devoted to his favourite error to admit that the
* L. de pudicitia, p. 743.
t " De nationum vocatione praefatus." Bishop H. renders it : " fore- told the calling of the nations."
t " Hffic sententia." Bishop H. translates it " opinion ;" but an opin- ion neither looses nor binds : it plainly means here, judgment, decree, sentence.
§ Tertul. de pudic. p. 743.
fader's acknowledgment. 83
power to bind ami loose extended to the remission of the most grievous sins. His testimony, tiien, even after he hail passed to the sect of Montanus, shows that the passages of Scripture were by him, as well as by the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics in general, understood of Peter; and tliough he and the secta- rists wished to restrict their meaning to Teter personally, the Bishop of Home claimed, in virtue of them, to be •' Bishop of bishops," and to inherit the powers of Peter, and the Ca- tholic worUl admitted tliose claims. A modern apologist of the Anglican churcii has had the ingenuousness to acknowledge, that " in the time of 'I'ertullian, whose life extended into the tliird century, a considerable advance had plainly been made by the Sec of Rome, in the claim of the I'rimacy, inasmuch as he calls the Bishop of that Church the Supreme Pontiff, and dis- tinguishes him with the authoritative title of ♦ Bishop of bishops.' — * He supposes the rock to mean Peter: but he carefully restricts the character to Peter as an individual ; he deems the privilege to be altogether personal; and he flatly denies, that it can be construed as belonging to what then began to be esteemed Peter's Church."'' You are displeased at this admission ; you '* leave it to our candour to say, whether Ter- tullian does not apply tliese titles rather in irony than in sober allowance;" and you contend that "he had no idea of doing honour to the Bishop of Rome, but the contrary." I freely con- cede that he used the titles in a spirit of bitterness and sarcasm, because the edict of the Pontiff was directed against his favourite error; but had the Bishop of Rome claimed no superiority over other bisliops, tliere would have been no ground whatever for applying to him these titles. He was acknowledged by Ca- tholics to be " the Bishop of bishops," and Tertullian durst not question his superiority, thouL^i in anger he remarks, that such a title is equivalent to ihe name hitherto applied only to the heathen priest. You say, " every metropolitan bishop who liad bishj)ps under him, might be called a chief pontiff, and a bishop of !)i.shops ;" but the usage of the Church has not given
• Fabcr 8 Difficulties of Romanism, Note, p. liOl. riiil. I'M.
84 TERTULLIAN.
to metropolitans this latter appellation, and the former does not appear to have been given to the Bishop of Rome, except sar- castically by Tertullian : " None of us," says Cyprian, " makes himself bishop of bishops,"*
We can easily withstand the force of Tertullian's authority as to the restriction of the powers to Peter, when it is granted that he, though at that time a declared adversary of Peter's successor, admitted Peter to be the rock, and that it was also admitted and believed that the Church of Rome was Peter's Church.t Catholics and Montanists agreed on these two points, and the transmission of the power of forgiveness was only called in question because it was exercised with greater lenity than suited the severe disposition of Tertullian. How you can cite him as a witness that the spiritual supremacy of the Church of Rome was not the doctrine of his age, even in the Church of Rome itself, is to me surprising, since he testifies that the Bishop of that Church was Bishop of bishops — that he issued an absolute peremptory decree,:}: — that as successor of Peter he claimed the powers granted to this Apostle, — and that the Roman Church was the Church of Peter ! This then was the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and of the Catholic Church generally, whilst the error which denied the transmis- sion of the power was rejected, with Montanism whence it sprung, by the judgment of the Catholic world.
The fact of the succession of the Roman Bishop to Peter, was not denied by Tertullian, even after he had suffered his mind to be bewildered by the vagaries of Montanus. He still called liim "Apostolic," and regretted that his authority had been employed against the sect, under the influence, as he alleged, of Praxeas, wliereby the peace of the churches of Asia and Phrygia was prevented, which would have been restored
* Cone. Carthag. de rebapt. p. 339. Operum Cyp. Ed. Bas. 1521.
t " Ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam." Tertul. ib.
t '' Audio etiam edictum esse proposituin, et quidem peremptorium, Pontifex scilicet maxinms, quod est, episcopus episcoporum edicit." P. 7]5.
PETER THE ROCK. 85
by the approbation of tlie prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla.* In earlier and belter days Tertullian was the loud asscrtor of that succession, and boldly challenged secta- rists to exhibit any thing bearing a like weight of authority : "Let them then give us the origin of their churches : let them unfold the series of their bishops, coming down from the be- ginning in succession, so that the first bishop was appointed and preceded by any of the Apostles, or of Apostolic men, provided he persevered in communion with the Apostles. For in this way the Apostolic Churches exhibit their origin, as the Church of Smyrna relates that Polycarp was placed there by John; as the Church of Rome likewise relates that Clement was ordained by Peter; and in like manner the other churches show those who were constituted bishoj)s by the Apostles, and made conservators of the Apostolic seed. Let heretics feign any thing like this !"t
According to your own avowal, Tertullian '• admits the ap- plication of the term ' rock' to Peter;" but you err in stating that in this he difieis from the other Fathers, for I shall have occasion to prove to you that it is the general explanation given by these venerable men. His observation that by the knife of stone employed in circumcision we may understand the precepts of Christ by which our hearts are circumcised, ♦* because Christ is proclaimed the rock in many ways and under many figures, "t is evidently an allegorical exposition, having no force whatever as an illustration of the text, and not at all weakening his literal interpretation of the rock spoken of by Christ, as the foundation on which he would build his Church. The very passage which you quote from his work against Marcion, is immediately followed by tlie declaration
• Tcrtul. adv. Praxoam sub initiuiii.
f Tert. de prascr. hanT. " Edant ergo origiiu'in cccli'siarum suarum ; evolvant ordinem episcoporum suoruin, ita per succcssiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille cpiscopuH aliquem ex apostolis — habiurit auctorem et anlecessorein. — Sicut Romanorum (rcdcsia) Clementein a Pctro ordinatum — C'onfingant talo aliijuid hiL-rctici.
t Tertullian adv. Judrcos, p. iild. U
86 TERTULLIAN.
that Christ called Peter a rock, choosing to communicate to him his own appellation rather than to use any term not applied to himself. I regret that yon have withheld from your readers the following sentence, with which the passage concludes, and which illustrates so clearly the meaning of the author : *' There- fore he preferred to give a name to the dearest of his disciples from among the figures which regarded himself, than from those which were not applied to himself."* Having asked the question why Simon was designated Peter, he says : *' If to express the vigour of his faith, many substances of a solid nature would present a suitable figure derived from their own special quality." He rejects this reason as unsatisfactory, and asks : " was it because Christ himself was styled both a rock and a stone ? since we read that he was placed as a stone of offence an^ a rock of scandal ; to pass over other passages in which the same terms are applied to him." In this Tertullian acquiesces, and says, that Peter was styled a rock, because Christ was styled a rock, the Lord vouchsafing to communicate peculiarly to this most favoured disciple the name which in a figurative sense was applied to himself, as having a more in- timate reference to himself, and being better calculated to ex- press the gifts of Peter, than other figurative expressions bor- rowed from objects not referred to Christ,! He does not, then,
* " Ita |ue adfectavit carissimo discipulorutn de figuris suis pecu- liariter nomen communicare, puto propius quam de non suis." Tertul. adv. Marcion, 1. iv. p. 520.
t Ibidem. " Sed et cur Petrum ? Si ob vigorera fidei, multse materiie solidffique nomen de suo accommodarent. An quia et petra, et lapis Christus ? Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem oflfendiculi et in petram scandali. Omitto caetera. Itaque adfectavit carissimo disci- pulorum," etc. Some curious mistakes are observable in the translation of Bishop Hopkins : " But why Peter ? If on account of the vigour of his faith, there are many and solid arguments which would accommodate this name to him ?" He ends his version by the words : ^' I omit other matters," but the author means : " I omit other passages of Scripture." The" solidae materia)" are not solid arguments, but substances such as a pillar, or any other object which might have afforded a figurative ex- pression.
FIGURATIVE LANfa'AGE. 87
as you conceive, *' leave ilie question williout seemiiicr at all conscious that Peter could be calletl a stone by reason of the whole Church beinjr built upon him," for he expressly declares that, were the object of the Redeemer merely to signify the strenglli of his faith, he could have found many images calcu- lated for that purpose, but he was pleased to communicate his own name peculiarly, that as he himself was called the rock, Peter might be designated a rock likewise: — '* the rock on which the Church was to be built," as TertuUian elsewhere expresses it: — " Pclrum acdificunda; ecclesia? pctram dictum."*
I know not why you have quoted the passage from his '* Ex- iiortalion to Chastity," wherein he argues against second mar- riages, because one who has been twice married is not eligible to the priesthood. In his anxiety to sustain tlie error of Mon- tanus, he says that laymen also are priests, that the distinction between the clergy and laity has been eslablisiied by the Churci), and that the laity can baptize and perform other sacerdotal functions, when no priest is to be had. Are these, sir, your sentiments ? or have they any thing to do with the question now before us ? Again, I beg to remind you, that whatever is advanced in support of an exi)loded error, carries with it no authority.
When TertuUian, writing against Marcion, asks: "What key had tlie doctors of the law, but the interpretation of the law?" he speaks of the Jewish doctors, who in virtue of their office and profession, might be said to have the key of know- ledge, but who, nevertheless, as he subjoins, '' neither advanced to understand it, nor sullered others to approach."! It is surely unwarrantable to apply to a controverted text of Scripture a figurative expression used by an author, two centuries after- wards, without the least reference to the text in question. He speaks of the key of knowlcd:;e : " clavem agnitionis habens :|" Christ promised to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
" TrrtuUian do prtrs. huT.
i Tcrtul. adv. Marcion, 1. iv. p. 5J'.>. Kd. Luteliu', 444, in the edition used by Hisliop Hopkins. X Ibid.
88 TERTULLIAN.
The passage, wherein the author says that every confessor of the faith will carry with him the keys of heaven, which " the Lord left to Peter, and through him to the Church," is one of the numberless instances in which the Fathers, supposing the literal sense as well known, take occasion to recommend virtue by a moral application of the text. Protestant critics, and all conversant with the writings of the Fathers, know, as Gerard remarks, that even " when they stick to the literal sense, they study not so much to determine it with accuracy, as to ac- commodate the most obvious meaning to their subject, or to apply it to practical purposes in a rhetorical manner."* Thus Tertullian says : " Know that the ascent to heaven has been rendered smooth by the footsteps of the Lord, and that its entrance has been thrown open by the power of Christ, and that Christians will meet with no delay, and be subject to no examination at its threshold, since they have not there to be distinguished, but they are merely to be recognised, and are not to be questioned, but admitted : for if you think that heaven is still shut, call to mind that the Lord here left its keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, which keys every one who is here questioned, and who confesses the faith, will bring along with him."t The author here applies to the confession of the faith and martyrdom, what in its literal and obvious meaning must be understood of power peculiarly granted to Peter, as he himself elsewhere declares. :{: You say that we have in this and other passages " an interesting variety in the idea;" but candour will also force you to avow, that the mystical interpretations, in which this variety is found, must be corrected or explained by those passages of the author in which the literal sense is clearly pointed out. You furnish us with a splendid testimony in favour of the authority of the Roman Church, the depositary of the doctrine and power of Peter: "Come then," says Tertullian, in the passage which you quote, " you who wish to exercise your curiosity to more
* Gerard, 6G9. t Tertullian Scorpiace, p. 628.
J Tertul. 1. de pudicitia, p. 743, supra cit.
ROMAN CIILRCir. 80
advantage in llic ailair of salvalion, go llirougli ihe Aposlolic Churclie:?, in which the very chairs of the Apostk's coniinue aloft in their places, in which their very original letters are recited, sounding forlii the voice, and representing tlic counte- nance of each one. Is Achaia near you ? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedon, you have Philippi, you have Thessalouica. If you c:in go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you are near Italy, you have Uonie, whence authority is at hand for us.* How happy is this Cliurcii to which the Apostles poured fortii their whole doctrine with their blood! where Peter is assimilated to the Lonl in his martyrdom: where Paul is crowned witli a death like that of John: where John the Apostle, after he had been dipped in boiling oil without suffering injury, is banisiicd to the island : let us sec what this Church learned, wiiat she taught, what she professed in her symbol in common with the African churches."*^ You say that there is not in this testimony " any tiling that looks like ihe Roman Church having a superior authority !" What, then, is the meaning of the words, that " from llience authority was at hand" for Tertullian and his fellow believers in Africa? Why does he pass rapidly over the other churches founded by the Apostles, preserving still their chairs, and their epistles, and when he has reached the Roman Church pause, exclaim in raptures, how happy is she in possessing tiic abundant treasure of Apostolic doctrine, and appeal to her tradition, to her teach-
• " Si autem Italia? adjaccs, habcs Roiiiam, undo nobis quoque aulho- ritas pra-slo est. Ista quam felix ccclesia, cui totain doctrinaiii npos- toli cum sanguine suo profuderunt : ubi Petrus passioni Dominica) adcequatur : ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronalur : ubi apostolus Joannes posteaciuam in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur: videanms quid didiccrit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoqui' ecclcsiia contesserarit." The translation used or given by Bishop Hop- kins is any thing but correct : *' where Peter was made equal to the en- durance of the passion of his Lord, where Paul was crowned (with martyrdom) at the exile of John : where the Apostle John was afterwards plunged into boiling oil, and suffering nothing, was banished loan island Let us sec, too, what one mifjht learn, what he iniirlit teach, when h< should also have compared his Hymb«jl with the churches of Africa." H*
90 TERTULLIAN.
ing, to her solemn profession of faith, in which she was the guide of the African churches, her docile children ? Could we say more in her praise ? Need we claim for her higher pre- rogative ? She is the Church whose symbol is the great watch- word of faith, and with which the African churches harmonize, *' because with her, on account of her more powerful princi- pality," as Irenaeus has already taught us, " every church must agree."
I shall not interfere with your vindication of Tertullian from the charge of Montanism. The extracts already given show his sentiments on monogamy, the pardon of penitent adulterers, and the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla. It remains only to advert to his celebrated maxim, which you quote : " What is first, is true ; and what is subsequent, is adulterated." Listen now to its application from himself: *' Since it is evident, that what is true is first, that what is first is from the beginning, that what is from the beginning is from the Apostles, it also must be equally manifest, that what is held sacred in the Apostolic Churches must have been delivered by the Apostles. Let us see with what milk the Corinthians were fed by Paul ; according to what standard the Galatians were re- formed ; and what instructions were given to the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians ; what also the Romans proclaim in our ears, they to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed with their blood."* You may remark, that the appeal to the other churches chiefly regards the Apostolic letters directed to them, whilst the faith of Rome, as loudly proclaimed, is spe- cially referred to; for by its tradition coming down unchanged, by the succession of bishops, from its glorious founders, all errorists and sectarists are confounded.
* Tertullian, 1. iv. adv. Marcionem, p. 505. " Quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt."
LETTER VII. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Right Reverend Sir :
It is a rule of sound criticism, that, where positive docu- ments in proof of any fact exist, the argument wliicli is derived from tlie silence of some individual should not easily be re- ceived. This species of negative argument has no weight but in the absence, or deficiency, of positive proof, and when the silence can in no way be accounted for, except by supposing that the fact had no existence. As we have abundant positive evidence of the Primacy, you might have dispensed with this uncertain and unsatisfactory line of argumentation. You, ne- vertheless, devote a whole chapter to *' the testimony" of Cle- ment of Alexandria, though you avow that " it is purely nega- tive." To you it appears decisive ; because, had the Primacy been then admitted, Clement " could not," you say, " have avoided a plain statement of the fact, or, at least, some intelligi- ble allusions to it." It should be recollected, that several of his works, mentioned by the ancients, are no longer extant, so that it cannot be asserted, with certainty, that he did not in any way treat of the Primacy. In his Ilypotijposes, a work which is lost, but of which Eusebius has preserved some fragments, he carefully distinguished Cephas, whom Paul reproved at Anti- och, from the Apostle Peter.* In his Stromata, or Miscella- nies, which are still extant, he speaks of his instructors, who " guarded with care the genuine tradition of Apostolic doctrine, which, as children from their parents, they had received in un-
' EusebiuH, 1. i. hist. c. xii-
92 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
interrupted succession from the holy Apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul."* The precedency of Peter, so remarkable here, and generally in the Scriptures and Fathers, shows the harmony of Clement on this point with all antiquity. This work, as well as such otlier of his works as are extant, is chiefly directed to confound the Gentiles, Jews, and pseudo-Gnostics, and to set forth the character of the true Gnostic or Christian. It is not wonderful, therefore, that the organization of the Church should not be developed in them, nor the relative pov^^ers of its prelates determined. The passage which you adduce from the seventh book is irrelevant, for nothing is said in it which can warrant any inference against the Primacy. Treat- ing of an objection urged against Christians by Jews and Gen- tiles, derived from the discordance of Christian sects, he re- torted on them, and referred to the divisions which were found in Judaism and paganism.! He afterwards observed, that " we must not, on account of the dissentions, transgress the eccle- siastical rule, "J and that those who desire, can find out truth, which is capable of proof and demonstration. This being the case, " the questions must be examined, and from the Scriptures themselves we must learn demonstratively how the heresies have fallen away, and how in truth alone, and in the ancient Church, is most accurate knowledge. "§ On this you remark, that the ancient Church signifies here, as in Irenajus and Ter- tuUian, the Church as it was first planted, without distinction of place, or of one Apostle over another. You know, how- ever, that Irenseus speaks specially and distinctly of the Church, " founded by the most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ;" and that TerluUian likewise makes distinct reference to it. Clement speaks of the same Church, since, in the passage which you have quoted, he says, that it is easy to prove that heretical con^
* Clemens Alex. 1. i. Strom, p. 17.
t Strom. 1. vii. § xv. p. 511. Ed. Wirceb.
t lb. p. 513. arai kai Hfjietc kxta fxn^tvu. t^ottoi rov EKK\ntrid.?-tKOV
§ lb. 1. vii. p. 755, p. 517. Edit. Wirceb.
UMTV OF THE CHURCH. y3
venticles are posterior, in point of lime, to the Catholic Church,* from the very fact that the ministry of Paul was consuinnialed under Nero, whilst Basilitles broached iiis heresy only under the elder Antonine, — Glaucias, who was an interpreter of Peter, having been his teacher, and " Simon Maf^us himself having listened for a time to the preaching of Peter." The reference to these Apostles especially, rather than to St John, who sur- vived both, shows that the ancient Church, of which Clement treats, is that which was founded by these Apostles, and was guided by their doctrine. 'I'he churches of all Christendom were in communion with the Church of Rome, and formed that one ancient and Catholic Church, which was prior to all here- sies. *» This being the fact,t it is clear," continues the author, " from the most ancient and true Church, that these later here- sies, and such as are still more recent, are marked as innova- tions of spurious origin. From what has been said, I think it manifest that the true Church is one, that which is truly an- cient, in which are enrolled those who are just, according to the divine purpose." The two following sentences are omit- ted in your (}uotation, but serve to show how essential unity was deemed by Clement: " for as there is one God and one Lord, on this account what is highly venerable is praised for unity, being the imitation of the principle which is one. The one Church is, then, associated with the nature of the one Be- ing, which Church heresies endeavour to divide into many.j In its essence, therefore, in its conception, in its principle, and, by reason of its excellence, § we say, that there is one only an- cient and Catholic Church, gathering together into the unity of the one faith, according to her own covenants, or rather, ac- cording to the one covenant, at dilTcrent limes, by the counsel
" Strom. 1. vii, § xv. p. 539.
t (kr luTU( ip^orTar. " Quoj cum ita habcant." Bishop Hopkins trans- lates it: " which things if they were bo I"
\ T)i ym TK iroc <;>u7ti 9uyn.Xn^>iTxi ExxMtff-igt >i fxitt, ni u: TroXKtc KXToLitfxtnf 0n^ctraii «i^iy«/c. Stromal. 1. vii. p. 539.
§ K*Tat Tjjr uirorurir, »siTct ti 'frircur, kata rt a^^^^r, jtarat ri
94 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
of the one God, and through the one Lord, those who are al- ready preordained, whom God predestined, having known, be- fore the foundation of the world, that they would be just. And the eminence of the Church, as well as the principle of its con- struction, is from unity, surpassing all other things, and liaving notliing like or equal to it."* He adds, that " as the doctrine of all the Apostles was the same, so likewise tlieir tradilion.t Though in this long and beautiful passage, tlie Primacy of Peter is neither asserted nor denied, the unity of the Church is re- presented so forcibly, that I am glad you quoted it. Of that unity Peter was the guardian ; but the mention of this was not so well calculated to convince or confound heretics, as to object to them the notorious fact of their recent origin. The silence of Clement on the supremacy of Peter is therefore easily under- stood, and perfectly reconcilable with his admission of that doc- trine. We often use a similar argument against innovators, as we are sensible that the authority of the Holy See can be effec- tually employed only against those who already admit it. The very antiquity of a doctrine forms a presumption in its favour, not to be removed, unless by positive evidence of its origin at a period subsequent to the Apostolic age. We say then, with Clement, that the ancient Church is the only true Church, and that the fact of the posterior origin of the sects, is at once the refutation of all their claims. You observe, that " he refers this unity to its substance, its knowledge, its beginning, its excel- lency, and to the unity of the faith, as handed dow-n to the Apostles." If you mean to insinuate that he admits any di- versity of doctrine, and limits unity to some points of high im- portance, you mistake his meaning, since he complains of here- sies, as violently endeavouring to divide into many parts that Church, whose unity is an emblem of the unity of God. When he says, that it is one in substance, it is, as the Latin interpre-
* P. 540. a\Kct }cu) « i^^X^ "^"f (KKK>lO-lsti KdB-ctTTSp » agPC" '^^^ <rv<>cL(nm(r, kxtsl tuv fAcvuJ'x er/v, TreivrA ra. oihha. v7ri^0A\xou(rct., kai
t Ibid.
CANON OF INTF.RPRKTATIOV. 95
ler has rendcretl it, in essence, that is, cssontially oiio. 'J'lie term gives no ^^rouiul whatever for understanding it of unity on some particuUir points. When lie adds, that it is one in idea, or con- ception, he speaks of the idea which we necessarily conceive of it, according to its divine institution. In saying that it is one in its principle, he means God, from whom it emanates, of whose unity it is an imitation.* Il is finally one in excellence, for it far surpasses all human institutions, none of which, whe- ther they be the conventicles of sects, or civil establishments, presents any thing equal, or like this divine institution. '* Con- fingantlale aliquid haeretici!"
Availing yourself of the figure of tlic key which Clement uses, you assert, that "it is manifest that Clement regards the keys in the sense which Tcrtullian recognises, namely, the interpre- tation of Scripture." I have already shown that TertuUian did not at all speak of the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter, when he used liie figure of a key, but spoke of the Jew- ish doctors, who, not having the key of knowledge, did not in- terpret the Scripture correctly. Figurative expressions being applicable to an infinite variety of objects, of the most dissimilar nature, it is not at all warrantable to apply to one object what may have been said of another, merely because the same meta- phor is applied to both. It is inconsistent with every rule of sound interpretation, to explain the Scriptural texts by passages of the Fathers, having no relation whatever to them, except the accidental employment of a similar metaphor, for purposes widely diflerent. Clement says that, ** the Gnostic alone," — by which term he understands the enlightened Christian, — " who had grown old in the study of the Scriptures, and had pre- served the Apostolical and ecclesiastical rule of correct dogmas, lives properly a(!cording to the Gospel ;"t and he warns his readers, " that we must not imitate the followers of heresy, and
^^ fjLifxtifjL* if a^^nc TXfl" fxixc." I'..':?-'.
T*y. P. r»:M.
96 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
adulterate truth, or steal away the rule of the Church ;"* after which he thus introduces the figure to which you have made re- ference : *' those, then, who are imbued with impious princi- ples, and deliver them to others, and who employ the divine words, not properly, but in a perverse manner, neither enter themselves into the kingdom of heaven, nor suffer those whom they deceive to come to the knowledge of the truth. But they themselves not having the key of entrance, but a false key, and, as is usually said, an anti-key, by means of which, not being able to raise up the veil, as we who enter in by means of the tradition of the Lord, they cut down the side door, and clandestinely break through the wall of the Church, passing over the truth, become the initiators of the spirit of the impious."! Here Clement speaks of divine tradition as the key to the di- vine Scriptures, for the want of which heretics cannot raise the veil ; wherefore they rush forward, trampling under foot reveal- ed truth, and breaking down the wall of Church authority. Who can hence infer, that when Christ promised to Peter the keys of his kingdom, with power of binding and loosing, he meant no more than the tradition by which Scripture might be ex- plained ?
No note of distinction among the Apostles, as you observe, is added by Clement in the passage which you quote from the fourth book of the Stroinata, wherein he speaks of the Apos- tles : but this is not surprising, for even we, when we have occasion to speak of the Apostles in common, are not accustom- ed to distinguish Peter from the other members of the Apostolic college. A striking distinction was made by our Redeemer himself, in the text which Clement thus refers to, and which you have passed over in your quotation : '* Martyrdom, then, seems to be the purification of sins with glory. The shepherd [Hernias) says particularly : " You will escape the fangs of the wild beast, if your heart be pure and faultless ; but even the Lord himself says: Satan has sought you, to sift you; but I have
* t«f« fX»\l KXiVTitV TOr KOLVOVA T«f EjC»X>fC"/Ctf . P- 536.
t p. 538. juv^etyceyoi t«? rav u<rfSi»v -^u^^i.
FAVOURABLE TO THE PRIMACY. Vt
prayed. The Lord, therefore, alone drank the chalice, for ihe purification of those men who laid snares for him, and of unbe- lievers : in imitation of whom the Apostles, as being truly Gnos- tics and perfect men, sullercd for the Churches which they founded."* It is manifest that Clement treats of the martyrdom of the Apostles, and not of their official character or relative powers : consequently, there was no reason wliy he should dis- linguisli Peter from the rest. As to the epithets '• good," " no- ble," '' divine," which Clement applies to Paul, they aflbrd no ground for calling the Primacy of Peter in question. Both Apostles might receive these appellations without prejudice to truth, or to the higher prerogative of Peter ; and if they happen not to be applied to this Apostle, the circumstance is too trivial to ofler evefi the shadow of an argument.
The writings of Clement, which are extant, contain then no- thing whatever against the Primacy, and much in confirmation of the authority of the one ancient. Apostolic, and only true Church. The loss of his other works, especially his Hypoty- POSEs, is to be regretted, as, from fragments quoted by Euse- bius and John Moschus, we learn, that in them he stated the distinction between C'ephas the disciple and Peter, and nar- rated that Christ baptized Peter alone.t and that Peter baptized Andrew : also that Peter sanctioned the Gospel of Mark, and authorized it to be read in the Churches. t Whatever weight may be given to his testimony on liiese points, it is manifestly favourable to the Primacy.
• Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. iv. § 0, p. 571 Edit. Wirceb. p. 503. Edit. H.
t L. 5. Hypotyp. cit. in prato spir. c. 171).
X L. (i. Hypotyp. apud Euseb. 1. 'i, Hist. Ecci. c. 15.
LETTER YIIL
ORIGEN.
Right Re^tirend Sir :
We pass from Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned of the Fathers, to Origen, the most illustrious of his disciples. You invite our attention to his application of the figure of the keys : " First, then, let us look at a fine application of the figure of the keys, which will prove, in accordance with the other Fathers, how well this term was understood to signify the sci- ence of interpretation. On account of its obscurity, says Origen, the whole Scripture, divinely inspired, is like to many chambers within one house, but when the key applied to each chamber is not fitted to it, the keys become scattered through the cham- bers, not answering to those chambers to which they are ap- plied ; and it is truly a difficult work to find the proper keys, and adapt them to the locks, so that they may open them ; thus it is that the more abstruse Scriptures are to be understood, the argument of our knowledge being taken no otherwise than from the Scriptures themselves, v/hich have dispersed amongst them the reasons of their exposition."* Those of your readers who may have thought this to be the interpretation of il:f; keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter, may be surprised to learn that it has not the remotest connexion with them, and is a similitude borrowed by Origen from a .Jew. It is found in the preface to the interpretation of the Psalms, and is preceded by these words : "As we are about to enter on the interpreta- tion of the Psalms, we shall premise an excellent observation
* ?. 102.
KMT5 or WTEWltETATlOX. 19
gentnUj oo the whole dirine Scripture, made lo os by a Jew. He said that the whole dirinely inspired Scripture, oa accooat of its obscaritT, is like to many chambers, ^c.*** To addoee this similitude to prove that the term of the keys was nader- stood by Origen to signify the science of interpretatioo, is swely calculated to nislead. Clear texts may be aptly called keys of obscure pa> - : the use of such a meuphor, by a Jew, or
by a Fathe . norch, does not at all imply that the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, specially promised to Peter in re- ward of his faiih. mean no more than dear texts, whereby he raifht amre at the real meaning of passages which for others woold be obscure. If yon would sabetitnte the words, " dear texts'* for ** the keys of the heavenly kingdoB' * in the pumy of Si Mauhew, you will see the revolting incoosislniey of this far-fetched interpretation.
Did I suppose you to have designedly omitted the prefatory portion of the sentence, which so clearly explains its source and determines its meaning. I should smile at the following apology which precedes the next passage: '•It will require a very long extract to do it justice, but no labour should be thought too great for the aearchei after tn2th.**t Besides pervsiBf loag extracts, it is also desirable that the inquirer should rmwidrr the custom of the Fathers in general, but especially of OrigeSv to indv ' -stations of Sacred Scripture, eil-
coatee virtue, but which neither he« nor
the other Fathers, ever wished to have substituted for the literal and obvious meaning of the text. Thus he wouU easilT um- defstand how it was that Origen, in the pussage io questiou, takes occasion from the profession of faith made by StmoBv aud the appellation of *' rock** given him by his divine Master, lo obserre that if we confess Christ, under the same heuvealy in< fluence, we also will be a Peter, or rock oi faith. In this I discover nothing favouraMe to your interprets tic n, for Or j*" expressly understands the original words of Peter, and iJ nes n»rf*< and n»Tp«, which you labour so smnnoiisly to ^>'
* Ocig^ in Pnlww, Pnet pw ISS, T«L ziiL E£t. Wlrofb-j^^
• P 101
100 ORIGEN.
tinguish. "Every disciple of Christ is a rock, of whom they drank who drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and on every such rock tlie whole ecclesiastical teaching,* and corresponding government, is built: for in each of the perfect, who have the collection of words, and works, and thoughts, the Church is inwardly built by God." You see clearly how your author indulges in mysticism, and, with a view to animate all to the imitation of Peier, asserts that every just and perfect man is not only a rock, but that his pious maxims, works and words, form a Church, built on him as a foundation. If you please to follow him thus far, you are welcome to the benefit of his tes- timony. To prove that others besides Peter could partake of the rewards of his faith, he asks, can it be supposed that the Church is built on Peter in such a manner as to exclude the other Apostles from all participation in the benefits of the Church, or the privileges of the ministry? *'If, indeed, you think that the whole Church is built by God upon this one Petert (rock) only, what do you say of John, the son of thun- der, or of each of the Apostles ? Shall we venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against PeterJ in particular, but shall prevail against the other Apostles, and against the perfect ? Is not what was said previously, verified in regard to all and each one : ' the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone, and shall no other of the blessed receive them 1 But if this be common to the others, ' I shall give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' how should not all the things which go before, and follow after,§ be common likewise 1 For here it seems to be said to Peter, ' whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, &c. &c. Sic. : but in the Gospel of John, the Saviour, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples by
* O ix,)i\»(rtu;iKo: TTsLc Koycg^ Kctt « xsct' etCrov Troxmict. Origenes in Matt., Tom. XII. p. 516.
t E/ Si iTTl TOV fVX iKilVOV UiTpOV VO/Ut^lt; CtTO T« 668 OlKoJ'o/Xil^Ctt TJfV WatO-StV fKKXWlltV /UCVOV. t iSlUiQ.
§ jratvTet T* T6 TTfiotipn/uiva., Kcti ret iTTipifofxiva.. Bishop Hopkins translates it : " those things which precede it, and which are evidently connected with it."
APPLICATION OF TIIK WORDS OF t HKIST. 101
breathing on llieni, s:iys : Heceivc ye the Holy Ghost, <fec. &€."• You are aware, that in asserting ilie priviU'ires of Peter we do not adopt the exclusive principles wljich Origen ascribes to those who doubted whether eacii perfect man, imi- tating his faith and confession, might be, like him, a rock, and partake of the rewards bestowed on iiim. "We believe him to be the chief foundation placed by the hand oflhe Divine Archi- tect; but we regard all the Apostles, in a general way, as the foundation on which we are built, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone, as we are taught by St Paul. We do not say that the gates of hell shall prevail against the other Apostles, or the perfect, or the Church at large, when we assert that they cannot prevail agaiiist the Kock on which that Ciiurcli is founded. We do not claim lor Peter the power of the keys — of binding and loosing — so exclusively as to deny to the other Apostles the exercise of a similar power, though we maintain that the special address to Pcirr indicates that he pre-eminently possesses it. Wlien (Jrigen says, the promise that the gales of hell phall not prevail against it, is verified in regard to every perfect man, — lie is stilliabouring to prove, by ihc application of the text, in a mystical sense, tiiat each one may be a rock of faith which no power of hell may overthrow. t He expressly avows that the words, in their literal sense, regard Peter, and are aj)plicable toothers only in a spiritual or myslicalsigniiicalion. " if any one say to hijn: ' Thou art Clirist, ilie Son of the living God ;' not taught by llesh and blood, but by the Father who is in heaven; he will obtaini what was promised to that Peter, as the letter of the Gospel says, but as
' Origi'ii in Mai., Tom. \1I. j). .'>!(;.
t Gerard remarks that " even such of the Fathers as did not wiiolly neglect the literal sense of Scripture, are fond of ailcgorizinir it, and drawing from it mystical meanings, which are altogether fanciful, and of no use." G7(). Inst Bib. Criticism, p. 'JOH. Origen is the first wliom Gerard mentions as indulging in tlu'se niystical interpolations.
t Tit/^iTs/ T*r (/{Jt/uirttr, »c yuir tc ■^^t/jLfit. tk iuxyytkiH Ktyu, irf 6c «Kl/rir Tsr IIiT^sr, •; /• ts -rrmifjL* auth JUavku, w§sc Tsttr* roy ■) trcutrcr -Tiio; i riiTgoc mtitoc. Origen, t. xii. p. 51^. I*
102 ORIGEN.
its spirit teaches, to every one that becomes such as that Peter was. For all the imitators of Christ are styled from the Rock, — the Spiritual Rock which follows those who are saved, that they may drink from it spiritual drink, and they are styled from the Rock, as Christ : but, as being members of Christ, they have been designated Christians from his name, so from the Rock, Peters."* Conformably to his purpose, Origen says, that every perfect man may be styled Peter, from the stead- fastness of his faith, and solidity of his virtue, as Christians are so styled from being incorporated in the mystic body of Christ. To show that against such a man the powers of dark- ness cannot prevail, he proceeds : " Taking occasion from these things, you may say, that they are denominated just, from the justice of Christ, and wise, from the wisdom of Christ; and thus, from his other names, you may form epithets for the saints ; and to all such persons would be said by the Saviour what was said : ' thou art Peter, &:c. &;c. They shall not prevail against it:' What does it refer to? Is it the rock on which Christ builds the Church, or the Church ? or is it the Church and rock, as one and the same thing ? for the word is ambiguous. I think the last to be the true meaning : for nei- ther against the rock on which Christ builds the Church, nor against the Church, shall the gates of hell prevail ; as it is im- possible to find the track of the serpent on the rock, according to what is written in the Book of Proverbs. But if the gates of hell prevail against any one, such a one cannot be the rock on which Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Christ on the rock : for the rock is not accessible to the ser- pent, and is stronger than the gales of hell which struggle against it; so that on account of its strength, the gates of hell cannot prevail against it : and the Church, as the building of Christ, who wisely built it on a rock, is impregnable to hell's gates, which prevail indeed against every man out of the rock
ovTSf, TTU^eevv/uci ix^ff^^'^Krav ;^g/r/itv<;/, Tm-^'n; tfg, wiTgo;. Origen in Matt., Tom. XII. p. 518.
APPLICATION OF TIIK WORDS OF CHRIST. 103
and out of the Church, but cannot eflcct any lliinir against it. Seeing, then, that each of the sins which lead to Iieli, is the gate of hell we shall understand tliat the soul which has spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, and which, by reason of sin, is neitlicr holy nor spotless, is neither the rock on which Christ builds the Church, nor the Church, nor a part of the C'hurch, which Christ builds upon the rock."* 1 have added to the extracts which you have given, this long passage from the works of this Father, that the reader might have a better oppor- tunity than is afforded by the passages you have quoted of know- ing his real senlinient. His object was to excite the faith- ful to imitate Peter, that they might be victorious over the pow- ers of hell. He maintains, that the infernal powers cannot prevail