05 - St Peter's Primacy as Exhibited in the Acts

CHAPTER V.

S. PETER’S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE ACTS. The [1]purpose of S. Luke in writing the Acts seems to have been to set before us the labours and sufferings of the Apostles in planting and propagating the Church. But he has divided the book very distinctly into two portions; the latter, from the thirteenth chapter to the end, with one short exception, is wholly occupied with the labours of S. Paul, "the vessel of election," in spreading the faith among the Gentiles, and so contains the particular history of that Apostle, and the churches founded by him. The former, from the beginning to the end of the twelfth chapter, embraces the history of the Apostles in common, and of the whole Church, as it rose at Jerusalem, and was spread first in Judea, then in Samaria, and finally extended to the Gentiles. The former history, then, is universal; the latter, particular.

Moreover, to use the words of [2]S. Chrysostome, "we may here see the promises which Christ made in the Gospels carried into execution, and the bright light of truth shining in the very actions, and a great change in the disciples, arising from the Spirit that had entered into them.—You will see here Apostles speeding on the wing over land and sea, and men once timid and unskilled suddenly changed into despisers of wealth, and conquerors of glory and all other passions; you will see them united in the utmost harmony, without jealousy, which once they had, without contention for the higher place."

We may say, then, in a word, that the Gospels are a history of the Head, and the Acts of the mystical Body. Hence both issue forth from one and the same fountain and source. The history of the Head begins with the descent of the Holy Ghost, whereby Christ was conceived, and [3]"the race of God and of man became one. For just as the union of man with woman joins two families, so upon Christ assuming flesh, by that flesh the whole Church became of kin with Christ, Paul became Christ’s kinsman, and Peter, each one of the faithful, all we, every holy person. Therefore, says Paul, [4]’being the offspring of God,’ and again, ’we are the body of Christ and members in particular,’ that is, through the flesh, which He has assumed, we are His kinsmen." Now the history of the Body, proceeding from the same fountain-head, sets before us the Holy Spirit, who, by descending first on the teachers, and afterwards on the disciples, exalts and advances all, and by imparting Himself, imparts "the proportional deification of man," that is, "the utmost possible assimilation and union with God."[5] For "the Spirit works in us by His proper power, truly sanctifying, and uniting us to Himself into one frame, and making us partakers of the divine nature:"[6] "becoming as it were a quality of the Godhead in us, and dwelling in the saints, and abiding for ever."

Now it is [7]manifest that if the first twelve chapters of the Acts contain the history of the Church from its beginning, and what the Apostles did for its first formation, its growth, and its form of government, all this has the closest connection with the question as to Peter’s prerogatives. For the historical accounts in the Acts, which exhibit the execution of Christ’s promises and intentions, naturally tend to set in the fullest light, and to reveal distinctly, whatever as to the administration of the Church may be less clearly foretold in the Gospels. For in itself the execution is declaratory of the enactment, and supplies a safe rule for understanding and determining the words of institution. Now, if we apply this rule to the present question, it will be apparent that those expressions of the Gospel, which we assigned to the divine institution of the Primacy, cannot be otherwise received without making the execution in the Acts at variance with what the Gospels record.

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

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

1. First, [8]then, we must repeat, as concerns that whole portion of the Acts containing the history of the universal Church, and all the Apostles, viz. the first twelve chapters, a remark before made as to the Gospels, which is, that Peter simply is more often mentioned than all the rest put together. For Peter’s name occurs more than fifty times, the others very seldom, and those who are found the oftenest, John and James, are recorded, the former seven or eight, the latter three or four times. Yet this is a history of them all: Luke is recording the common exertions of all the Apostles in building up the Church. This is the very distinction between the former and the latter portion of his book, which is confined to the labours of S. Paul, leaving aside the rest of the Church. What then is the reason that Peter, in a general history, is so often brought forward, and the rest, either singly or in conjunction, so seldom? Because after our Lord’s glorious ascension Peter stood to the eleven in an analogous position to that held by our Lord, so long as He was visible, towards the whole college: because Peter was become the head, and the rest, as members, were ranged under him.

2. Such subordination on their part, such pre-eminence on his,[9] Luke shows yet more clearly, whenever he groups Peter with the rest, by assigning to him the leading place. It frequently happens to him to speak of Peter and the rest together, but on no one occasion does he give Peter any but the first place, and the leading part. Just as the evangelists do with regard to Christ, and the Apostles and disciples, so Luke prefers Peter to the rest, to mark a difference between the rank and office of Peter, and that of the others.

3. Luke seems to confirm his readers in such a conclusion by the form which he follows of mentioning Peter directly, and the rest obliquely or in a mass. These are instances: "In those days Peter, rising up in the midst of the brethren, said"—"Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice"—"They said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles"—"Peter with John fastening his eyes upon him said, Look upon us."—"Peter and the Apostles answering, said."[10] Now what form of writing could Luke choose to refute an opinion about the universal equality of the Apostles? Or to show Peter as set over the rest, and to satisfy in this even the most unreasonable? Either the form which he did choose is calculated to do this, or none such can be found.

4. Add to this that Peter is represented as speaking and answering, when the occasion would suggest that all the Apostles, equally, should disclose their mind. The reproaches of the unbelieving Jews affected not Peter singly, but all alike; but he alone stands forth, he alone lifts up his voice, and in a long speech brings them to sound reflection. The multitude, struck with compunction, asked not Peter only, but the rest likewise, "What shall we do, men and brethren?" Yet it is forthwith added, "But Peter said to them." Upon the miracle by which one who had been lame from his mother’s womb was healed, "all the people ran together to them," both Peter and John, but Peter alone speaks, and takes on himself the defence of the common cause: "Peter seeing, made answer to the people."[11] Fresh instances may be found in chs. 4:6-7, and v. 2-3. The result of the whole is that Peter is continually "the mouth-piece of the Apostles,"[12] always takes the lead, and gives his own mind, as conveying that of the rest. On what ground does he do this? Was it from natural fervour of disposition? But it was the same after he was filled with the Holy Spirit as before. Was it the result of superior age, or first calling? but the facts refute this. What other cause can be suggested save that Primacy which the Gospels record, and the Acts confirm?

5. To this we must likewise refer it that Luke, while he amply describes actions which belong to Peter, rather hints at than narrates what concerns the other Apostles. Thus he leaves it to be understood that the others spoke, while he gives Peter’s discourses entire, and seems to have chosen them as the principal material of his history. He simply suggests that miracles were wrought by the rest, but records particularly what Peter did for the establishment of the faith. He relates but very little of those who became Christians by the exertion of others, but notes at large the abundant fruit of Peter’s teaching. Take an ancient author’s summary of the Acts, "this whole volume is about the ascension of Christ after the resurrection, and about the descent of the Holy Spirit on the holy Apostles, and how and where the disciples announced Christ’s religion, and all the wondrous deeds which they did by prayer and faith in Him, and about Paul’s divine calling from heaven, his apostleship, and fruitful preaching, and in a word about those many great dangers which the Apostles underwent for Christ:"[13] follow, out of this, all which concerns the universal Church in the first twelve chapters, and Peter will be found not only the principal, but well nigh the only, figure in the foreground.

6. Hence as the Gospels may be called the history of Christ, so this first part of the Acts may be called the history of Peter; for as Christ occupies each page of the Gospels, so Peter here. Nothing can be more emphatic or more just than S. Chrysostome’s words: "Behold him making his rounds on every side, and the first to be found; when an Apostle was to be chosen, he was the first; when the Jews were to be told that they were not drunken; when the lame man was to be healed; when the multitude was to be addressed, he is before the rest; when they had to do with the rulers, it is he; when with Ananias, when healings took place from the shadow, still it is he. Where there was danger, it is he, and where there was dispensation; but when all is tranquil, they act in common. He sought not the greater honour. But again, when miracles are to be worked, he comes forth before the rest."[14] What can prove Peter’s pre-eminence if this does not? But his words on another occasion deserve mention. Alluding to the title "Acts of the Apostles," which seems to promise their common history, he observes, "Yet if you search accurately, the first part of the book exhibits Peter’s miracles and teaching, but little on the part of the other Apostles; and after this the whole account is spent on Paul." But he adds, "How are they the acts of all the Apostles? Because, according to Paul, when one member is glorified, all the members are glorified with it, the historian did not entitle them, the Acts of Peter and of Paul, but the Acts of the Apostles; the promise of the writer includes them all."[15] Now every one must feel the very high distinction given to Paul in the latter part of the book, when the historian turns away from the general history of the Church to record his particular labours, in which, no doubt, the object was to show the progress of the Church among the Gentiles; but with regard to the part which is common to the whole Church, another thought is suggested. The history of what Peter taught and did, to build up and extend the Church, is considered the common history of the Apostles, and so inscribed as their Acts. But can this be called an accurate expression, unless Peter had been the head of the Apostles? It is very plain that the acts of a head are imputed to the whole body; to a college of brethren, what its chief executes; to a city or kingdom, the deeds of its prince. But it is not plain how this can be, if the actor be one of a number, and do not exceed his brethren in honour or dignity. Therefore the Acts of Peter could be called, generally, the Acts of the Apostles, only because they were considered the Acts of their head.

Now let us pass from the general view to that in detail.

I. After [16]the Lord’s ascension a most important point immediately arose, whether, that is, the number of the Twelve was to be filled up by the election of a new Apostle to take the place of Judas. The will of Christ on this matter was to be learnt; a witness was to be chosen who should participate in the mission of Christ Himself, according to the words, "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you," and carry the light of the Gospel to the ends of the world; and one was to be elected to the dignity of the Apostolate, the highest rank in the Church. It was, therefore, so important a matter, that no one could undertake it save he who had received the vicarious headship of our Lord Himself. Now the history in the Acts tells us that Peter alone spoke on the subject of substituting a fresh Apostle for Judas; Peter alone proved from Scripture the necessity of the election, defined the conditions of eligibility, and appointed the mode of election, and presided over and directed the whole transaction. For Luke begins thus: "In those days," the interval between the Ascension and Pentecost, "Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said." Here the important prerogative of initiation is shown to belong to Peter, and by the phrase, "in the midst of the brethren," or "disciples,"—which is often used of Christ in respect of the Apostles—his pre-eminence over the disciples is shown. "Brethren, it behoved that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus, who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry," that is, of the Apostolate. Then having mentioned the miserable end of the traitor, he applies to him the prophecy: "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, ’Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein:’ and, adding another prophecy from another Psalm, ’his bishopric let another take.’"[17] Whence he concludes, "Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of His resurrection." In these words Peter plainly points out the necessity of the matter in question, confirms it by the Holy Scriptures, speaking in the character of their highest interpreter, and as the appointed teacher of all; and, while proposing it to their deliberation, yet requires their consent; for the phrase, "wherefore, one must," means, "I am not proposing what may be done or left undone, but declaring and prescribing what is to be done." So he determines the conditions of eligibility, and the form of election. Whereupon his hearers—"the number of persons together about an hundred and twenty"—instantly agree unanimously to Peter’s proposition, follow its conditions, and complete the election. No one can reflect on the above without concluding, that if Peter presided over the rest by the authority of a divinely chosen headship, no course could be more becoming, both for Peter and for the disciples, than this; and if, on the contrary, Peter was only one out of many, not having yet even received the Pentecostal gifts of the Holy Spirit, and had been entrusted by Christ with no pre-eminent office in the ministry, nothing could be more unfitting for both. We have therefore to infer that Peter "stood in the midst of the disciples," as a superior among inferiors, not as an equal among equals, and conceived that the charge of supplying an Apostle, and filling up the Apostolic college, belonged in chief to himself, because he and they alike were conscious, that he was the steward set in chief over the Lord’s family.

But, clear as this is on the face of the narration itself, fresh light is shed on it by the fact that S. Chrysostome observed and recorded this very conclusion. For why did Peter alone arise? Why was he the first and the only one to speak? "Both[18] as fervent, and as one entrusted by Christ with the flock, and as the first of the choir, he ever first begins to speak." Why does he allege prophecy? First, that he might not seem with human counsel "to attempt a great matter, and one fitted for Christ:" next to imitate his Master, "he always reasons from the Scriptures." "Why did he not singly ask of Christ to give him some one in the place of Judas?" Because "Peter had now improved," and overcome his natural disposition. But "might not Peter by himself have elected? Certainly: but he does not so, that he may not seem partial." "Why does he communicate this to them," the whole number of the names? "That the matter may not be contested, nor they fall into strife: for" (he alludes to the contention of the Apostles for the primacy,) "if this had happened to themselves, much more would it to the others," that is, the candidates to succeed Judas. Then he points out to our admiration "Peter doing this with common consent, nothing[19] with authority, nothing with lordship," where we must note that the abuse of a power is only to be feared from one who really has that power. For again he says, "he first acts with[20] authority in the matter, as having himself all put into his hands, for to him Christ said, ’And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren.’" The college of the Apostles completed, it followed that the head, if such there were, would on every occasion of danger, be the first to protect it, and to defend its reputation. Now there ensues the miracle of the Holy Spirit’s descent, and the gift of tongues, whereupon Luke describes the various opinions of the astonished multitude, some of whom "mocking,[21] said, These men are full of new wine." That is, they blasphemed the working of the Spirit, and by the most monstrous calumny were destroying the good name of the Apostles. Whereupon, "Peter, standing up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day: but this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." Now here, both the form of the words, and the matter, establish Peter’s primacy. For the phrase, "Peter standing up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them," portrays Peter as the leader of the band, the master of the family. So S. Chrysostome,[22] "What means with the Eleven? They uttered a common voice, and he was the mouthpiece of all. And the Eleven stand beside him, bearing witness to his words." And as to the matter, Peter alone fulfils the part of teacher, by interpreting scripture, and declaring the agreement of both covenants: Peter alone maintains the common cause: Peter alone, representing all, addresses the multitude in the name of all. "Observe, too, the harmony of the Apostles: they give up to him the office of speaking:"[23] that is, they yielded to him who was the Head, and who, as he says, showed here "the courage," as before "the providential care" of the Head.

After refuting the calumny, Peter goes on in a noble discourse to explain prophecies, and then coming to the dispensation of Jesus, gives the strongest proofs of His resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of the Father, and finally sums up with great force and authority. "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ this same Jesus whom you have crucified."

Now, what[24] is here to our purpose? It is this, that Luke seems only to dwell on what concerns Peter: that Peter, first of all, and in the name of all, performs the office of a witness, laid both on himself and the rest, ("ye shall be witnesses to Me;" "and you shall give witness,")[25] saying, "this Jesus hath God raised up, of which we all are witnesses:" that first of all, he publicly and solemnly discharges the duty of instruction with authority: that, first of all, he fulfils the charge set by Christ on all the Apostles, "make disciples—teach:" that, first of all, he promulgates the necessity of believing in Jesus as the divinely appointed Lord and Christ. Now these are things which, so far from allowing an equality between Peter and the rest of the Apostles, point out in him a headship over them.

Thereupon, the hearers, struck with compunction for having crucified, not merely a just man, but the Anointed of the Lord, "said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles"—here again he alone is singly named—but of all alike they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Whereupon, S. Chrysostome[26] notes, "here again, where all are asked, he alone replies." For, as Luke goes on, "Peter said to them:" As the leader, he performs what belongs to all: he alone sets forth the law of Christ. "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins:" he alone encourages them with the promised gifts of the Holy Spirit, "and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost:" he alone continues at length the instruction of the hearers, "and with very many other words did he testify and exhort them:" he alone declares the fruit of Christian profession, "save yourselves from this perverse generation," and he alone it is, of whose ministry Luke adds, "They, therefore, that gladly received his word were baptized, and there were added, in that day, about three thousand souls." And here we see how fitting it was that Peter, whom Christ had set as the foundation and rock of the Church, should labour with all his might, as the chief architect after Him, to build up the structure. But what, in the meantime, of the other Apostles? Were not they also architects? Yes, but with Peter, and under Peter, whom accordingly, they attend and support. The subsequent additions to the Church’s structure, and the course consistently pursued by Peter, will bring this out yet more clearly. For, of fresh accretions, Luke writes, "Many of them who had heard the word, believed, and the number of the men was made five thousand."[27] Now, whose word was this? Still the word of Peter, who speaks for the third[28] and fourth time, as he had for the first and second.

For, as to the third[29] occasion, Luke, after mentioning Peter and John together, introduces Peter alone as urging the children of Abraham to embrace the faith of Christ, and persuading them that Jesus is the Prophet, promised by God through Moses in Deuteronomy. And as to the fourth,[30] he writes, "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them—" But was he alone present? not so, for the council "setting them," not him, but John as well as Peter, "in the midst, they asked," on which Chrysostome[31] observes, "See how John is on every occasion silent, while Peter defends him likewise." That is, John was silent, as knowing that the lead belonged to Peter, and Peter spoke, because the Head defends not himself only, but the members committed to him.

Now, reviewing these first four chapters of the Acts, let us ask these questions. Had Peter held the authority of head among the Apostles, what would he have done? He would have filled up the Apostolic college, carefully watched over it, protected its several members. But this is just what he did. Again, had Christ made him the supreme teacher and doctor, what would he have done? He would have disclosed, first to the Apostles themselves, and to the disciples, and then to the multitude, who were to be converted, the secrets of the divine will laid up in the Scriptures; he would have shown the agreement between the dispensation of Christ, and the oracles of the Old Testament, and so have proved that Jesus was the Messiah. But this he repeatedly did. Once more, had Christ made him the chief among the builders of the Church, what would have been his office? He would have been the very first to set his hand to the work, and to construct the building with living stones; he would have held the other workmen under his control, so that the edifice might rise worthy of Christ, and exactly answering to His promises. But does not the history give precisely this picture of him, and does not the Church which Peter raised answer exactly to the archetype prescribed by the Lord? "All they that believed were together, and had all things common:" "the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul:" what is this but the counterpart of that divine prayer, "that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent[32] Me."

II. To take another point. The office of[33] authoritative teaching is in the New Testament closely connected with the power of working miracles, so that Christ not only said of Himself, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin:" but likewise added, "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father:"[34] to shew that, while faith depended on preaching, and authoritative instruction, these also needed the power of works to conciliate conviction. In accordance with which, when He first sent out His Twelve to preach, He not only charged them what to say, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand,"[35] but added the fullest miraculous power, "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils." And when more solemnly sending them, not to one people, but to all nations, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature," He adds their warrant, "these signs shall follow them that believe. In My name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents:" and the Evangelist subjoins, "They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed."[36]

Remembering, then, this very close connexion between the authority of Apostolic teaching and the power of working miracles, we may fix a criterion for recognising the exercise of the supreme office in teaching. Suppose any one of the Apostles to have been invested at the commencement of the Church with this office, how may he be ascertained? If any one is found invariably the first to announce the word of truth, and likewise to confirm it with miracles, you may suppose him to be that one. Suppose, again, that Luke intended to represent one of the Apostles as the supreme teacher. How may it be safely inferred? If, in the course of his narration, he continually exhibits one as eminent above all the rest in preaching the Gospel and guaranteeing it by signs. These are not tests arbitrarily chosen, but naturally suggested. And both exactly fit to Peter, and to Peter alone. For he, in this history of the universal Church, is the first, nay, well nigh the only one, both to preach and to support his preaching by miracles. And Luke takes pains to relate no less his miracles than his discourses, and scarcely describes with any detail either the one or the other, of any but Peter.

Nay, his mode of writing suggests a parallel between himself and S. John in his Gospel, as if it were no less Luke’s intention to show Peter invested with the supreme office, than John’s to set forth Christ as the head and teacher of the Apostolic college; and no less Luke’s purpose to accredit the Church by Peter’s miracles, than[37] John’s by the miracles of Christ to establish faith in Him as the true Son of God. For the circumstances of each narration point to this similarity of design. As S. John subordinates the group of Apostles entirely to the figure of Christ, so Luke, very slightly sketching the rest, is profuse in detail of what concerns Peter, and marks him as set over all. As John in recording the miracles of Christ dwells on the points which prove His divine mission and origin from the Father, so Luke directs his narration to exhibit the beginning, the growth, and the authority of the Church, as due to Peter’s miracles. We will mark two further resemblances. First, the miracles which Luke records of Peter seem cast in the same type as those of Christ. Compare the first one with that told by John, ch. v.

John 5:5-9. "There was a certain man there that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity. Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, He saith to him, Wilt thou be made whole? The infirm man answered Him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming another goeth down before me. Jesus said to him, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and he took up his bed and walked."

Acts 3:2-8. "And a certain man, who was lame from his mother’s womb, was carried, whom they laid every day at the gate of the temple, which is called Beautiful. He, when he had seen Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked to receive an alms. But Peter, with John, fastening his eyes upon him, said, Look upon us. But he looked earnestly upon them, hoping that he should receive something of them. But Peter said, Silver and gold I have none, but what I have, I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk. And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and forthwith his feet and soles received strength, and he, leaping up, stood, and walked."

How often had the hand of the Lord—as here that of Peter—healed the sick, given the blind sight, cured the leper, and raised the dead! But if Peter’s miracle in healing Œneas of the palsy carries[38] one back immediately to the poor man let down through the roof before our Lord, there is a yet more exact identity between the great miracle of Christ raising Jairus’ daughter, and Peter raising Dorcas. In the one case, the Lord "having put them all out, taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with Him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying, and taking the damsel by the hand, He said to her, Talitha cumi, which is, Damsel, arise, and immediately the damsel rose up and walked." In the other case, Peter came into the upper chamber, "and all the widows stood about him weeping—and they being all put forth, Peter, kneeling down, prayed, and turning to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up,[39] and giving her his hand he lifted her up." But how perfect the resemblance of the following.

Luke 4:40. "And when the sun was down, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them to Him. But He, laying His hands on every one of them, healed them. And devils went out from many."

Acts 5:15. "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter came, his shadow, at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities. And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons, and such as were troubled with unclean spirits, who were all healed." The second point of resemblance is, that the multitude regarded Peter among the Apostles as before they had regarded Christ: for, putting the rest of the Apostles in the second place, they flocked to him, and besought his aid. So that Luke, briefly saying of them, that "by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people,"[40] goes on to Peter, and of him relates the unheard-of wonders just described, assigning to the miracles wrought by him, "that the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord was more increased." It is just as when "there came to Jesus great multitudes, having with them the dumb, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and many others; and they cast them down at His feet, and He healed them."[41] And the fuller the resemblance these incidents shew between Peter and Christ, the more evident their proof that Peter’s ministry must be considered a continuation of that which Christ begun.

III. We proceed[42] to the order predetermined by our Lord in the propagation of His Church. Of Himself He had said, though the Redeemer of all, that He was not sent, that is, as an Apostle, actually to preach, "save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:" and on first sending His Apostles, He gave them this commission, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But when about to ascend to the Father, He tells them, "You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth:"[43] that is, that they should set up His kingdom through all the world, proceeding by gradual steps, from Jerusalem to Judea, thence to Samaria, and at length "to every creature" in the whole world.

Now the history of the Acts shows the exact accomplishment of this order, and it likewise shows that Simon Peter was the one elected chief instrument for carrying out these successive propagations of the Church. What we have said already shows this as to the mother Church of Jerusalem, and, before proceeding to the Gentile Churches, we will trace the same instrumentality as used to bring the Samaritans into the universal kingdom. The persecution ensuing on the proto-martyr Stephen’s death caused, by our Lord’s providence, the dissemination of many believers through Judea and Samaria, while the Apostles alone remained at Jerusalem. Amongst those who thus "went about preaching the word of God," Philip the deacon came to Samaria, and many of the people, hearing his words and seeing his miracles, were converted and baptized. But the Church thus commenced by the preaching of the deacon would have dried up without hope of progress, had it not received the assistance of those whom Christ had set in the place of fathers, and who could bestow the gifts of the Holy Ghost. For[44] "the Church is in the bishop," and, as S. Jerome said of a faction which had a deacon for its author, "With the man the sect also perished, because a deacon could ordain no clerk after him. But it is not a Church which has no priest." Accordingly when[45] "the Apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John," who "laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." The providence of Christ, then, so ordered the propagation of His kingdom as to choose Peter and John to complete and perfect the Samaritan Church. But was this on equal terms, or is no superior dignity and authority apparent in Peter over John? A regard to the words of Luke, and the series of acts recorded, will prevent such a misconception. For he mentions Peter and John, but he sets Peter first, and in his record of what happened to Simon John acts the second part, and it is Peter alone who teaches, commands, judges, and condemns, with authority, as the head and supreme ruler. Simon Magus, tempted by beholding the gifts of the Holy Spirit visibly bestowed on imposition of the Apostles’ hands, "offered them money," to both Peter and John. But Peter alone replies, and not only so, but condemns his profaneness, enlarges on his guilt, and solemnly declares that the gifts of God are not purchaseable with money. "Keep thy money to thyself to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money;" he discloses Simon’s secret thoughts, "for thy heart is not right in the sight of God;" he inflicts on him excommunication, "thou hast no part nor lot in this matter;" he exhorts him to repent, "do penance therefore from this thy wickedness, and pray to God, if perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee." Now here John, the next of the Apostles in rank, is with Peter, yet he does not speak, teach, or enjoin: Peter does all this singly. He answers Simon’s question, lances and probes the most secret wound of his conscience, declares how divine gifts are given, proscribes the plague of simony, orders penance, and inflicts excommunication on a scandalous public offender. Thus the twenty-second of the Apostolic canons runs, "If any bishop, priest or deacon, hath obtained this dignity by money, let him and his ordainer be deposed, and altogether be deprived of communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter." Nothing but an inequality of rank between Peter and John will account for Luke’s narration here. But if John was inferior to Peter, much more the rest. But there is another proof of his superiority here, in that God caused Simon Peter to engage Simon Magus. Thus, by His providence, "reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things sweetly," the first-born of Christ is brought to conflict with the "first-born of the devil," the chief of teachers with the earliest of heretics, and prime of that long brood of the evil one, who are to persecute "the seed of the woman." Thus ancient writers record that Peter afterwards went to Rome on purpose to expose the acts of this same Simon. Thus they mention his engaging with the famous Alexandrine Apion, the enemy of the Jewish and the Christian faith alike. And hence, too, probably the very ancient writer (whoever he was) of the Epistle of Clement to S. James, begins it by recording how "Simon, for his true faith and his firm grounding in doctrine, was appointed to be the foundation of the Church, and for this very reason by Jesus Himself with most true augury had his name changed to Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the Apostles, to whom first the Father revealed the Son, whom Christ with reason blessed, the called and the elect, His guest and comrade, the good and the proved disciple, he who, as the most able of all, was commanded to illuminate the West, the darker quarter of the world, and who was enabled to succeed." But as to what is said that "the Apostles who were in Jerusalem sent to the Samaritans Peter and John," it must be remembered, that at the head of those thus sending was Peter himself, and that next to him John was the most distinguished of the Apostolic college. And since it is evident from all that we have hitherto seen, that in whatever concerned the Apostles equally, Peter took the leading part, and in their common deliberations exercised the initiative, it must be concluded that he was likewise the first author of this resolution, to send himself and John to the Samaritans. And this is confirmed by our seeing that in the fulfilment of this mission he discharges the offices, and acts with the authority, of head. To none else could the execution of a fresh advance in the propagation of the Church be committed; and so great, besides, were the jealousies between the Jews and Samaritans, that it needed no less than Peter’s authority to induce the Jewish converts to receive them into the bond of the same society.

IV. But now we[46] draw nigh to the revelation of that great "mystery which in other generations was not known to the sons of men—that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and co-partners of His promise in Christ Jesus by the Gospel," whereby was brought to pass the prophecy, "from the rising of the sun even to the going down My Name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My Name a clean oblation."[47] The hour was come "when the true adorers were to adore the Father in spirit and in truth" throughout every region of the world purchased with the blood of the Son of God, and of this event, expected during four thousand years, God, by an unexampled honour, disclosed to Peter, and through Peter, the time and the manner. This greatest of purposes, after His own ascension, Christ left to be revealed through him to whom He had committed the feeding of His sheep.

While Peter[48] was "passing through all," that is, exercising his general supervision as primate of the Church, God sent His angel "in a vision manifestly" to "a certain man in Cesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the Italian band, a religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and always praying to God." And the angel says to him: "Thy prayers and thine alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God, and now send men to Joppa, and call hither one Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he will tell thee what thou must do." Though God, then, sends an angel, it is left to Simon, who is surnamed Peter, to declare His counsel, in what affected the salvation of innumerable souls. Other Apostles there were to whom had been said equally, "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature," and "Ye shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth;" and "as the Father hath sent Me, I also send you." Yet putting aside all these, as on so many other occasions, Peter is preferred, and that because to him alone was said, "on this rock I will build My Church," and again, "Feed My lambs, be shepherd over My sheep." Fitting it was that, when the wall between the Jews and Gentiles should be taken away, by him specially, all should be collected into one, on whom, as the divinely-laid foundation, all were to rest. Fitting, again, that the Lord’s prophecy, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; those also I must bring; and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd," should be fulfilled chiefly by his ministry to whom the Lord had committed His own office of universal visible pastor. For the Church, in her very birth, and in the whole process of her growth, bore this upon her forehead, that universality as well as unity belonged substantially to Peter, and that it was no less his function to gather up all nations into the mould of unity by his ministration as the one chief shepherd, than to embrace them all in the wide circuit of his love. Therefore it is a marvellous agreement in which the institution of the Primacy has a corresponding execution; and as the latter confirms the former, so from the former you might anticipate the latter before it was recorded in the sacred history. But in the meantime, while the messengers of Cornelius were approaching the house in which Peter was a guest, "there came upon him an ecstasy of mind, and he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air;" and while Peter is fixed in contemplation, "there came a voice to him, Arise Peter, kill and eat," that he might understand how "by[49] his preaching he was to make a sacrifice to the Lord of those who were represented by these animals, bringing them into the divine service through the mysteries of the Lord’s passion," which he not yet understanding, replies, "Far be it from me, for I never did eat anything that is common or unclean." Then the heavenly "voice spoke to him again the second time, That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common. And this having been done thrice, presently the vessel was taken up into heaven."

Here three things are set forth; first, that as the ark of Noah contained all sorts of animals, clean and unclean, so the fold of Christ was to gather from Jews and Greeks and barbarians "a[50] great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and tribes, and peoples, and tongues;" secondly, that the blessings of Christ concerned all who did not reject the proferred grace; thirdly, that the elaborate system of Mosaic ordinances concerning meats, rites, and ceremonies, had fallen to the ground. But to whom is disclosed, first and immediately, this whole dispensation of the first principles on which the Church was to be propagated? To none other but Peter, "to me hath God shown to call no man common or unclean." Now the undoubted knowledge of this dispensation must appear of the greatest moment, whether in itself, or as concerns the Jews, of whom the earliest church consisted, or the Apostles, by whose ministry it was to be extended. And yet, by that providence which is ever over His Church, the wisdom of God so ruled it, that through Peter alone the Apostles should be taught when they were first to approach the Gentiles, and discharge their office of witnesses before all nations without distinction. And that because He had made Peter "the greater one" and "the leader" of all, and put him in His own place, and constituted him supreme teacher in these words, "Confirm thy brethren." Thus[51] Epiphanius, in the fourth century, says that the charge of bringing the Gentiles into the Church was laid upon all the Apostles, "but most of all on holy Peter." Why this most of all? Because, while He had heard with the rest, "make disciples of all nations," he had singly and peculiarly received the charge of the whole fold, and of the Apostles, as part of it. But Peter, still pondering on the vision, hears a fresh voice from the Spirit, "Behold three men seek thee. Arise, therefore, get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them." He accompanies the messengers and finds Cornelius, "his kinsman and his special friends;" he asks why they have sent for him, whereupon Cornelius informs him of what had past, and concludes, "now therefore all we are present in thy sight, to hear all things whatsoever are commanded thee by the Lord." Peter in reply sets forth to them the heads of Christian doctrine, and as he comes to the words "to Him all the prophets give testimony, that by His name all receive remission of sins, who believe in Him," "the Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the word" of life and truth from his lips. And the Jewish Christians who were with him, being astonished at this reception of Gentiles into the Church by the Holy Spirit’s visible descent, Peter cries, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" "Words," says [52]S. Chrysostome, "of one almost assaulting any that would forbid, and say that should not be," and so "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;" for Peter also, like his Lord,[53] preached in person, but baptized by the hands of others. Are not then the prerogatives of Peter written legibly on this whole narration? First, among all the Apostles he alone is chosen to consecrate to God the first fruits of the Gentiles. Again, through him, as the teacher of all, God makes known to the Apostles themselves when the door was to be opened to the Gentiles. Thirdly, without advising with the rest, he enlarges the fold of Christ, which in Christ’s place he ruled, with the accession of the Gentiles. Fourthly, the building of the Church is thus referred to him alone. Further, he gathers up to himself the Church which is made out of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles; as the foundation he sustains the whole; and when constructed, he binds it together. Lastly, Luke, without having recorded a single speech of any other Apostle, has given five of Peter, thus showing that Peter’s words, as well as his actions, had a higher importance than theirs in the history of the Church’s birth and growth; for, indeed, in the history of the head that of the body is included. On Peter’s[54] return to Jerusalem, "the Apostles and brethren who were in Judea, having heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God,"[55] "they that were of the circumcision contended with him," because he had "gone in to men uncircumcised, and ate with them." Hereupon Peter set forth to them the whole series of events, upon which "they held their peace and glorified God, saying, God then has also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life." Now some in late times have attempted to derogate from Peter’s authority on the strength of this incident. On the other hand S. Chrysostome, not satisfied with setting forth Peter’s rank, and assigning his whole apology to a most gracious condescension, continues, "See how he defends himself, and will not use his dignity as the Teacher, for he knew that the more gently he spoke with them, the surer he was to win them."[56] And what expression can signify Peter’s rank more markedly than the Teacher? And Gregory the Great sets forth Peter’s distinctions, how he alone had received the keys, walked on the waters, healed with his shadow, killed with his word, and raised the dead by his prayer; then he goes on, "and because, warned by the Spirit, he had gone in to Cornelius, a Gentile, a question was raised against him by the faithful, as to wherefore he had gone in to the Gentiles, and eaten with them, and received them in baptism. And yet the same first of the Apostles, filled with so great a grace of gifts, supported by so great a power of miracles, answers the complaint of the faithful by an appeal not to authority but to reason.... For if, when blamed by the faithful, he had considered the authority which he held in holy Church, he might have answered, that the sheep entrusted to the shepherd should not venture to censure him. But if, in the complaint of the faithful, he had said anything of his own power, he would not have been the teacher of meekness. Therefore he quieted them with humble reason, and in the matter where he was blamed even cited witnesses. If, therefore, the Pastor of the Church, the Prince of the Apostles, having a singular power to do signs and miracles, did not disdain, when he was censured, humbly to render account, how much more ought we sinners, when blamed for anything, to disarm our censurers by a humble defence."[57]

Here it occurs to observe with what different eyes Holy Scripture may be read, for just where persons determined to deny Peter’s authority find an excuse for their foregone conclusion, the Fathers draw arguments to praise the moderation with which he exercised that same superior authority.

V. But [58]founded as we have seen the Church to have hitherto been, and at each step of its course advanced, mainly by the authority of Peter, it could not hope to remain in a vigorous and united state without the continual exercise of judicial and legislative power, and diligent inspection. Nor is there, in fact, one of these which Peter did not exercise, and that in a manner to indicate the ruler set over all. For as to the judicial power, do we not hear him saying, "Tell[59] me whether you sold the land for so much;" and, "Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men but to God." And presently the sentence comes forth from him who binds in heaven as well as on earth. "Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out." Here then we have Peter, in the midst of the Apostles, yet acting singly as the supreme judge, and defender of ecclesiastical discipline, on which S. Chrysostome says, "For Peter was terrible, punishing, and convicting the thoughts, to whom they adhered the more both for the sign, and his first speech, and his second, and his third. For he it was who did the first sign, and the second, and the present, which seems to me double, one to convict the thoughts, and another to kill with his command." Then, asking why nobody had announced her husband’s death to Sapphira, "This was fear of the Teacher; this respect of the disciples; this obedience:"[60] where he is mentioned not as a teacher, but the supreme and chief one.

Yet though the other Apostles were judges, with power to bind and to loose, though they were present, and concerned, for "Ananias bringing a certain part, laid it at the feet of the Apostles," not of Peter only, it was not they, but Peter, who entered on the cause of Ananias and Sapphira, passed sentence, and inflicted punishment. Why did he judge singly a cause which was brought before the common tribunal of the Apostles? Because Peter was to have the Primacy in all things; because from him the model of ecclesiastical judgments was to be taken; because the charge of maintaining ecclesiastical discipline belonged in chief to him as the head.

VI. But no less [61]markedly does Luke represent Peter as everywhere visiting the Churches, providing for them as universal pastor, and exercising herein the administrative Primacy. "The Churches," he says, "throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, had peace, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and were multiplied by the consolation of the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass that Peter, as he passed through, visiting all, came to the saints who dwelt at Lydda."[62] In illustration of this we may remember Paul’s charge to Titus:[63] "for this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee." And again, what Luke writes of Paul himself: "After some days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return and visit our brethren in all the cities wherein we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how they do."[64] And what[65] Eusebius, from S. Clement, relates of S. John, that he visited with authority the Churches of Asia, which he had either founded, or specially attended to. By these passages we see the nature of Peter’s visitation, that it was pastoral, and likewise the difference between his and these others, for they were local, but his universal. Titus acted in Crete, the special sphere of his labour, to which S. Paul the founder of that Church had appointed him. Paul and Barnabas propose to visit "our brethren in every city in which we have preached the word of the Lord;" S. John exerts visitatorial power over the churches of that province wherein he dwelt, and that too, apparently, when he was the sole survivor of the Apostolic college, yet did not go into other parts. But Peter’s charge is œcumenical, and therefore his visitation universal. He inspects the labours of others, as well as his own. For he was not the only Apostle at Jerusalem, nor had he singly built up all the churches of Judea, Galileo, and Samaria, yet he alone makes a progress from Jerusalem to all these churches. Though not the Bishop of Jerusalem, over which the Apostle James presides, he goes everywhere, as "the Bishop of Bishops."[66] No other reason coherent with Scripture can we find for this universal inspection of Peter; for all the Apostles were indeed pastors, but he alone set over the whole fold; he alone not limited, like Paul, "to the brethren in every city wherein he had preached." He differs from all others as the universal from the particular, and so S. Chrysostome says of him in this very passage, "like a general he went round surveying the ranks, seeing what portion was well massed together, what in order, what needed his presence. Behold him making his rounds in every direction."[67]

VII. Further, [68]we may see the deference paid to this supreme authority of Peter by the Apostles and ancients at Jerusalem, on occasion of that severest dissension which threatened the unity of the Church, and kindled the greatest agitation, the question whether Gentile converts should be bound to obey the Mosaic ritual law. For "the [69]Apostles and Ancients having assembled to consider of this matter," after "there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them." But why does Peter first rise and decide the cause? Because he was first of the Apostles, and as such supreme arbiter in controversy. But consider what he says. "Men and brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe." By my mouth, he appeals to their knowledge of his election by God to the singular privilege of receiving the Gentiles: in virtue of that election he claims and exercises authority. "And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." God, therefore, has already decided this controversy, by my ministry, whom He specially called thereunto, and by the effects which He caused to accompany it. Then, using words full of force, being, indeed, very like those in which he had answered Ananias and Sapphira, he continues, "now, therefore, why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers, nor we, have been able to bear? But by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe that we shall be saved, in like manner as they also." "How full of power are these words," is the comment of S. Chrysostome,[70] "he says here what Paul has said at great length in the Epistle to the Romans." And then, speaking of the heads of Paul’s doctrine, he adds, "the seeds of all this lie in Peter’s discourse." This, then, is a decision, and given in no hesitating manner, but with severe censure of those who maintained the opposite, as "tempting God," words suitable for him only to use who had authority over all. But how did the council receive them? Though "there had been much disputing before," though the keenest feelings had been excited, and the point involved the strongest prepossessions of the Jewish converts, "all the multitude held their peace." They acquiesced in Peter’s judgment, and now readily "heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." It follows, then, that on a capital point, and in the first council of the Church, Peter occupied a position which befits only the supreme judge of controversies, so that had we no other evidence but this place whereby to decide upon his rank and office, his pre-eminence would be evident. "See," says S. Chrysostome, "he first permits a discussion to arise in the Church, and then he speaks."[71] But is this affected by other persons likewise speaking and voting, as Paul and Barnabas? or by S. James likewise giving his sentence, as an Apostle? or by the whole matter being settled by common consent? As little as to be head involves being all; as to preside over the rest takes from them the power of deliberation, and resolution. Rather it is the office of the Head and the President to take the initiative, and point out the course which others are to follow. For those here present were teachers, and had the prerogative of hearing and judging, as well as Peter; they were bound to weigh the matter in controversy to the best of their power, and to decide on it according to the proportion of faith. They stood to Peter in a relation, not of simple obedience, as the ordinary members of the flock, but of judges, who, though responsible to his superintendence, yet are really judges, pass sentence, and decree by inherent authority. It is no part of the idea of a judge, that he should be supreme and irresponsible: this is the special privilege of the one supreme judge. Objections such as these, therefore, do not take from Peter his Primacy, and quality of Head, but claim for Paul, Barnabas, James, and the other Apostles, the judicial authority and office, which they undoubtedly possessed. Nor again, that, not Peter only, but all, passed the decree in common, as it is written: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;" and as Paul and Timothy "delivered to the cities the decrees to keep that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients."[72] For a decree made in common by many shews not an equality of power in each, but a competent authority to join in that decree. Such acts proceed, not only from equal, but from unequal assemblies. A question, therefore, terminated by common decision, and laws established by common consent, do indeed prove a power to deliberate and decree common to all participating, but do not prove that all, and every, of the judges were equal in their privileges, for who gives to the Ancients the same authority as to the Apostles? This inequality is elsewhere established, and rests on its own proof, but bearing it in mind, we shall see that Peter is the first and chief author of this common decree, and that laws passed by common consent depend on him primarily as Head. Most unsuspicious witnesses of this are the ancient writers, and this is the very conclusion which they drew from the account of this council. Thus, Tertullian, in the second century, speaking of Peter’s singular prerogatives, says, "On him the Church was built, that is, through him: it was he who hanselled the key. This is it. ’Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, &c.’ He, too, first by Christian baptism opened the approach of the heavenly kingdom, by which offences, heretofore bound, are loosed, and those not loosed are bound, according to true salvation. And Ananias he bound with the chain of death: and him that was weak in his feet he delivered from his disease. But likewise, in that discussion as to maintaining the law, Peter, first of all, instinct with the Spirit, and preluding with the vocation of the Gentiles, says, ’And now why tempt ye the Lord, by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which neither we, nor our fathers have been able to bear? But by the grace of Christ we believe that we shall be saved, as also they.’ This sentence both loosed what was given up of the law, and kept binding what was reserved."[73] As clearly, S. Jerome, in the fourth century, writes, that Peter "used his wonted freedom, and that the Apostle James followed his sentence, and all the ancients at once acceded to it, and that the decree was drawn upon his wording."[74] A little later Theodoret wrote to S. Leo, thus: "If Paul, the preacher of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to carry from him the solution to those at Antioch, at issue about living under the law; much more do we, poor and humble, run to your Apostolic throne, to receive from you healing for the wounds of the Churches."[75] Why does he here call Peter, the great, or say that Paul hastened to him for solution of a grave contention? Did not Paul go to all the Apostles? But Peter was the head among them, and had a power in chief—a power above the rest, a "more special" power—of binding and loosing.

VIII. One other [76]instance there is of Peter’s superior dignity, and therefore importance, in the Apostolic college, which if, perhaps, less direct than some of the foregoing, is even more persuasive. For there was an Apostle associated, as we have seen, by our Lord with Peter and John in several favours not granted to the rest; one who with John received from Him the name Boanerges; the elder brother of John, who with him had once asked to sit on the Lord’s right hand and on His left in His kingdom. Now Luke is led in the course of his narrative to mention the martyrdom of this great and favoured Apostle; the first likewise of the Apostolic choir who drank, as he had promised, of His Lord’s baptism, and sealed his labours and trials with his blood. The occasion was a great and striking one. It is thus recorded by Luke. "And at the same time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict some of the Church. And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword." This is the first and the last time that he is mentioned by himself in Luke’s inspired history of the universal Church. Great as he was, so eminently favoured by his Lord, the elder brother of John, nothing is said of the Church’s anxiety for his danger, her prayers for his release, her sorrow at his loss, or her exultation at his triumph by witnessing unto blood. He passed to his throne in heaven with this short record. The more emphatic is the contrast following. "And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the azymes. And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending after the pasch to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him." That is, by the instinct of self-preservation she prayed for her head. A few years later another Apostle, after glorious labours by land and sea, and missions of unrivalled success, was seized and imprisoned in this same city of Jerusalem, and in danger of his life. But we do not hear of prayers being offered up without ceasing even for Paul, the doctor of the nations. The Church’s safety was not bound up with his, any more than with that of James, and therefore not even of the great preacher "in labours more abundant than all," are we told that in the hour of danger "prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him." James and Paul were most distinguished members, but Peter was more. This was an honour reserved for the Head alone, as the life of the Head was peculiarly precious to the whole body. Thus S. Chrysostome explains it. "The prayer is a proof of affection: they all sought for a Father, a kind Father."[77] And then Luke proceeds to give at length Peter’s delivery out of prison by the angel, and his departure in safety to another place. But there is no other solution of such a difference in recording what happened alike to James, to Peter, and to Paul, but that Peter held the place of father in the Lord’s family, of commander in His army, of steward in His household, delivering to each of His servants their measure of wheat in due season. The result,[78] then, of our particular enquiry in the Acts is to demonstrate two things, that Peter discharged the office of Father and Head in the Lord’s family, and that the Church received and admitted him when so acting, with a consciousness that such was the will of Christ.

Now this office did not consist in "lording it" over his brethren, in assuming high titles, and interfering with the ministry of others when exercised in its due course, in rejecting their assistance, or impeding the unanimous exercise of their counsel. On the contrary, the Lord had before prescribed that "the greater" among them should be as the younger, and "the leader" as he that ministers, proposing to them Himself as the great model, who had exercised the highest power with the utmost gentleness, and, being "the Lord," had become "the servant of all." What, then, did this office of Primate consist in? We may say that Peter was undoubtedly such, if he constantly exercised the power of a head in building up the Church, in maintaining discipline, in reconciling dissensions, and in general administration. Now it would be doing Peter wrong to suppose that he usurped as peculiar to himself what equally belonged to all the Apostles; or that, having received the special power of the Holy Ghost, he did not fulfil his own advice to others, "not to lord it over the clergy, but to be made a pattern of the flock."[79] And the four points just mentioned may be reduced to a triple authority, a Primacy magisterial, judicial, and legislative. Let us take in at one glance what has been said of Peter in regard to each of these. As to the magisterial, or power of authoritative teaching, and general administration, Peter is constantly taking the lead, he is the mouthpiece of the Apostles: he alone, or he first, by teaching plants the Churches; he alone, or he in chief, completes them when planted; he it is who by divine revelation given to himself, discloses to the rest the dispensation of God; and he in words full of power sets forth to these assembled in council the course which they are to pursue. As to the judicial, none other judgments are found in that portion of the Acts which contains the history of the whole Church, save those of which he was either the sole or the chief author. Alone he took cognisance of Ananias and Sapphira, and alone he punished them. And Simon he censured in chief, and excommunicated. As to the legislative, Peter alone promulged the law as to receiving the Gentiles; alone he prescribed that for abrogating the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances; and he was the chief author of the decree which expressed in terms his own previous act, and was put forth in common by the Apostles and Ancients.[80]

Again, compare the institution of the Primacy with its exercise. Its institution consisted in three things. 1. That Peter was named by Christ the foundation of the Church, with whom its whole fabric was most intimately to cohere, and from whom it should derive visible unity and impregnable strength:2. That the authority of universal pastor, and the care of the whole fold, was committed to him:3. That to him belonged the confirmation of his brethren, and a power of the keys to which all were subject. Now consider the execution. As foundation of the Church, he gathers up to himself congregations from the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles. As universal pastor, he collects from these three the flock, nourishes, defends, inspects it, and fills up one place of highest rank in the ministry forfeited by the traitor. As confirmer of the brethren, he disclosed to them the heavenly vision signifying the universal calling of the Gentiles, and the abrogation of the Mosaic law. He acts in the Lord’s household as the bearer of the keys, going to all parts, defending and inspecting all. By himself he binds and looses, calling Ananias and Sapphira to his tribunal, and excommunicating the first heretic. So exactly, then, do the institution of the Primacy and the acts of Peter fit into each other, that from the former you may predict the latter, and from the latter prove the former. They are like cause and effect, or an à priori and an à posteriori argument. They are a reciprocal confirmation to each other; just as if by time you calculate the sun’s rising, and see the diffusion of his light, from his having risen you infer his light, and from his light conclude that he has risen. Nor in the Apostolic Church does any one appear to resist or question this office of Peter. Rather upon him all eyes are fixed, for him all are anxious; no Abiram rises up against him with the words of rebellion; "Thou takest too much upon thee, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, wherefore then liftest thou up thyself above the congregation of the Lord?"[81] No Aaron in a moment of delusion cries, "Did the Lord speak by Moses only? hath He not spoken also by us?"

Yet Peter acts not like one out of a number, and occasions of contention are not wanting, strong prepossessions and keen feelings.[82] He is everywhere; his pre-eminence and his control are universal: he can act with severity, and there are some impatient even of a just control. When Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at his feet, none murmured. When he exclaimed, in full council, "now, therefore, why tempt you God?" the whole multitude was silent. When he explained the reception of the Gentiles, those who had murmured "held their peace, and glorified God."[83] But had Peter not possessed, by divine commission, the authority which he exercised, it is clear, from the conduct of Paul, that he would have met with opposition from each in proportion to his advance in Christian perfection. Paul’s censure of his indulgence to the prejudices of the circumcision, proceeding as it did from charity, shews this. But what would Paul, and what would the other Apostles have done, had they seen Peter perpetually taking the lead, and exercising the power of a head, without any special title thereto? Would they not have resisted him to the face, and before all, and declared that there was no difference of authority between them? Yet, not a trace of such resistance appears, while on numberless occasions the Apostles, and the whole assembly of the faithful, yield to him the Primacy, a sign truly that they recognized in him one who had received the place of Christ as visible Head among them. The place of Christ as visible Head, for infinite indeed is the distance between Christ and Peter, as to the headship of mystical influx and the source of grace. Neither he nor any creature has part with Christ as to this latter, of which Paul writes, "that God hath set all things under His feet, and given Him to be Head over all to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all;" of which again, "from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity;" and "the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Saviour of His body:" and all this "to present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing."[84] In this sense Headship belongs to Christ, not only first and chiefly, but absolutely and solely. But, as to the Headship of external government and visible unity, though here also the same Apostle calls Him, "the head of the body the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things He may hold the primacy,"[85] to this Christ Himself has in a measure associated Peter by saying to him specially, "Feed My sheep—follow thou Me." And observe how that divine injunction was fulfilled. For as following our Lord with loving gaze through the Gospels we see every object grouped about that heavenly figure of His; as our eyes rest ever upon Him in the synagogue, in the market-place, among the crowd, before the Pharisees, the elders, the chief priests, healing the sick, raising the dead, supporting and animating His disciples—so turning to the Acts we see a human copy indeed of that Divine portrait, but still one wrought by the Holy Spirit out of our redeemed flesh and blood. We see the fervent Apostle treading in his master’s steps, the centre and the support of his brethren, the first before the Council, and before the people, ready with his words and his deeds, uttering to the dead, as the echo of his Lord, "Arise," and healing the sick with his shadow. With reason, then, do the inspired writers use of Peter and of Christ similar forms of speech, and as they write, "Jesus, and His disciples," "there went with Him His disciples," "there He abode with His disciples," so they write, "Peter standing up with the Eleven," "they said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles," "Peter and the Apostles answering." What above all is remarkable is to observe the same proportion between the figure of Peter and the Apostles in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, as between the figure of our Lord and the Apostles in the Gospel. Such was the power and the will of the Divine Master when He said, "Feed My sheep; follow thou Me." Such the truth of the disciple, answering, "Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee."

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Passaglia, p. 138.

[2] Passaglia, p. 140. St. Chrys. in Acta, Hom. 1.

[3] St. Chrys. Hom. in Ascens., and on Acts, Tom. 3, p. 773.

[4] Acts 17:28-29, and compare 1 Corinthians 12:12-17 with Ephesians 4:16.

[5] Dionys. de Cœl. Hier. cap. 1, § 3.

[6] S. Cyril. Thes. lib. 34, p. 352, and lib. 9, on John, p. 810.

[7] Passaglia, p. 143.

[8] Passaglia, p. 144.

[9] Acts 1:13; Acts 2:13; Acts 3:1-3; Acts 4:19; Acts 8:14.

[10] Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:4; Acts 5:29.

[11] Acts 2:13, Acts 2:37-38; Acts 3:11-12.

[12] St. Chrysostome.

[13] Euthalius, apud Zaccagnium, p. 410.

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

[15] Hom. on beginning of Acts, n. 8. Tom. 3, 764.

[16] Passaglia, p. 148.

[17] Psalms 69:26; Psalms 108:8.

[18] Hom. 3, in Act. n. 1, 2, 3.

[19] [Greek: authentikôs.] [20] [Greek: authentei.] [21] Acts 2:1-47.

[22] On the Acts, Hom. 4, n. 3.

[23] St. Chrysostome, as before.

[24] Passaglia, p. 153.

[25] Acts 1:8; John 15:27.

[26] On Acts, Hom. 7, n. 1.

[27] Acts 4:4.

[28] Acts 3:12-26; Acts 4:8-19.

[29] Acts 3:11, Acts 3:12-26.

[30] Acts 4:7-8.

[31] On Acts, Hom. 8, n. 2.

[32] Acts 2:44; Acts 4:32; John 17:21.

[33] Passaglia, p. 157.

[34] John 15:22-24.

[35] Matthew 10:7.

[36] Mark 16:15-17.

[37] John 20:21.

[38] Compare Acts 9:33, with Mark 2:3-11.

[39] Mark 5:40; Acts 9:39.

[40] Acts 5:12-14.

[41] Matthew 15:30.

[42] Passaglia, p. 163.

[43] Matthew 15:24; Matthew 10:5; Acts 1:8.

[44] St. Cyprian, Ep. 69. St. Jerome, dialogue con. Luciferianos.

[45] Acts 8:14.

[46] Passaglia, p. 174.

[47] Ephesians 3:5; Malachi 1:11.

[48] Acts 9:32.

[49] Bede on this text.

[50] Revelation 7:9.

[51] Hær. 28, s. 3.

[52] Hom. 24 on the Acts, n. 1.

[53] John 4:2.

[54] Passaglia, p. 181.

[55] Acts 11:1-4.

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

[57] Lib. 9. Ep. 39.

[58] Passaglia. p. 188.

[59] Acts 5:8. 3.

[60] On Acts, Hom. 12.

[61] Passaglia, p. 190.

[62] Acts 9:31.

[63] Titus 1:5.

[64] Acts 15:36.

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

[66] So called by Arnobius, on Psalms 138:1-8.

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

[68] Passaglia, p. 192.

[69] Acts 15:6.

[70] Hom. 32, n. 1.

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

[72] Acts 15:28; Acts 16:4.

[73] De Pudicitia, 100:21.

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

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

[76] Passaglia, p. 197.

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

[78] Passaglia, p. 198.

[79] 1 Peter 5:3.

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

[81] Numbers 16:3; Numbers 12:2.

[82] Acts 6:1; Acts 15:2; Acts 11:2.

[83] Acts 11:18.

[84] Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15; Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:27.

[85] Colossians 1:18.