St. Peter, His Name and His Office - BestLightNovel.com
You’re reading novel St. Peter, His Name and His Office Part 16 online at BestLightNovel.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit BestLightNovel.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[4] Hippolytus, quoted by Anastasius, p. 216.
[5] Irenaeus, Lib. iii. 18, and iv. 37.
[6] De Monogamia, c. 5.
[7] Augustine, 21 Tract. in Joannem.
[8] Hilary on Psalm 68.
[9] S. Chrys. Tom. 5, (Savile) Hom. 106.
[10] Greg. Naz. Orat. 36.
[11] S. Cyril, Dialog. 1, De Trin. p. 399.
[12] S. Leo. 5 Serm. on Nativity, c. 4 and 5, 12th Serm. on Pa.s.sion, c. 3.
[13] S. Athanasius, Orat. 3, Contr. Arian. Tom. 1, p. 572. Oxf.
Trans. p. 403.
[14] Greg. Nyss. Tom. 2, p. 524. Catechet Oratio, c. 32.
[15] Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, quoted by Photius, cod. 229.
[16] S. Hilary, de Trin. Lib. 8. n. 13.
[17] John xiv. 20.
[18] John xv. 1-2, 5-7.
[19] John xiii. 34-6.
[20] John xv. 12.
[21] Rom. v. 5.
[22] John xiv. 16-18. 26.
[23] John xvi. 7. 13-15.
[24] 1 Cor. xii. 11; Eph. iv. 13.
[25] Eph. iv. 7-16; 1 Cor. xii. 7-13.
[26] Pa.s.saglia, p. 254.
[27] 1 Cor. x. 17.
[28] Mansi, Concil. Tom. 8, 208.
[29] S. Cyprian, de Unitate.
[30] Eph. iv. 4. 8. 11; i. 22; v. 23.
[31] That such was the belief of the most ancient fathers, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, see a most curious admission of the Lutheran Mosheim, in his dissertation, De Gallorum appellationibus, &c. s. 13. And his way of extricating himself is at least as curious as the admission. His words are, "Cyprian and the rest cannot have known the corollaries which follow from their precepts about the Church. For no one is so dull as not to see that between a certain unity of the universal Church, terminating in the Roman pontiff, and such a community as we have described out of Irenaeus and Cyprian, there is scarcely so much room as between hall and chamber, or between hand and fingers. If the _innocence_ of the first ages stood in the way of their antic.i.p.ating the snares which ignorantly and unintentionally they were laying against sacred liberty, those succeeding at least were more sharp-sighted, and it was not long in becoming clear to the pontiffs what force in establis.h.i.+ng their own power and authority such tenets possessed."
So the ancient fathers were not intelligent enough to see that _the hand was joined to the fingers_. But the other alternative was still harder to Mosheim, that Lutheranism was fundamentally heretical and schismatical.
[32] Napoleon.
CHAPTER VIII.
SUMMARY OF PROOF GIVEN FOR S. PETER'S PRIMACY.
It would now seem to be made clear to all that the controversy on S.
Peter's Primacy relates _generally_ to the question of inequality in the Apostolic college, and _specially_ to the question, whether Christ, the Founder of the Church, set any one of the Apostles, and whom of them in particular, over the rest. For as, on the one hand, there would have been no room for the superior dignity of the Primacy, had all the Apostles been completely equal, and undistinguished in honour and authority from each other; so, on the other hand, it is the nature of the Primacy to be incapable of even being contemplated, save as fixed on some certain definite subject.
But to determine the two questions, whether the Apostles stood, or did not stand, on a complete equality, and whether one of them was superior to the rest in honour and dignity, it seemed requisite to examine chiefly four points.
First, the words and the acts of Christ respecting the Apostles.
Secondly, His expressions which seemed to mark the inst.i.tution of a _singular_ authority.
Thirdly, the mode of writing and speaking usually and constantly employed by the Evangelists and other inspired writers.
Lastly, the history of the Church, from its beginning, from which might be drawn conjectures, or even certain proofs, of the power which either all the Apostles had exercised equally, or one had held above the rest.
For should it become plain, from the agreement of these four sources, that a certain one of the Apostles, and that one Simon Peter, had been distinguished from the rest by the acts and words of Christ, and set over the Apostles; had been invariably described by the inspired writers, as the Head and supreme authority; and in the history of the rising Church, been portrayed in a way which could only befit the universal ruler, no difficulty would remain, and there would be arguments abundant to prove that Christ was the author both of the inequality among the Apostles, and of Peter's Primacy.
Now we seem to have proved _absolutely_, what we proposed _hypothetically_. For we have shewn that Christ declared by His whole method of acting, and by solemn words and deeds, that He did not account Peter as one of the rest, but as their Leader, Chief, and Head.
We have shown it to have been the will of Christ to concentrate in Peter the distinctions which belong to Himself, as Supreme Ruler of the Church. For such must be deemed the properties of being the Foundation, the Bearer of the keys, the Holder of universal authority, the Supporter, and lastly, the Chief Shepherd. Of these there is no one which He did not promise to Peter singly, and confer on Peter singly: no one, with which He did not a.s.sociate Peter, and Peter only, in making him the foundation of His Church, bestowing on him the keys, and universal power of binding and loosing, in setting him over his brethren to confirm them, and over His fold as universal Pastor.
We have shown that the Evangelists place almost the same distinction between the Apostles and Peter, as between Peter and Christ, while still among us. For as they set forth Peter as second after Christ, so do they subject the Apostles to Peter; as the acts and words of Christ occupy the foreground in respect to those of Peter, so do his in respect to those of the Apostles; as Christ, in their histories, is pre-eminent above Peter, so is Peter more conspicuous than the Apostles; and as the Gospels cannot be read without seeing in them Christ as the prototype, so neither can they without seeing that Peter approaches the nearest to Christ.
We have shown that S. Paul spoke of S. Peter in no other way than the Evangelists, and that his pre-eminence is evident in S. Paul's Epistles, as well as in the Gospels.
Lastly, we have shown that Peter s.h.i.+nes as the superior luminary in the history of the rising Church. The l.u.s.tre of his deeds in the Acts recalls that of Christ in the Gospels. In the Gospels Christ is named by far most frequently; in the Acts no one occurs so often as Peter. The discourses, the acts, the miracles of Christ occupy every page of the Gospels; and in that portion of the Acts which embraces the history of the whole Church, a very large part has reference to the discourses, the acts, and the miracles of Peter. In the Gospels, Christ leads, the Apostles follow; in the Acts, Peter takes the precedence, the Apostles attend him. In the Gospels, Christ teaches, and the Apostles, in silence, consent; in the Acts Peter alone makes speeches, and explains the doctrine of salvation; the Apostles by their silence consent. In the Gospels, Christ provides for the Apostolic college, guards it from injury, defends it when attacked; in the Acts, Peter provides for filling up the place of Judas, determines the conditions of eligibility, enjoins the election, and defends the Apostles before people, rulers, and chief priests, in quality of their head.
Moreover, he alone is pre-eminent in exercising the triple power of _authoritative Teacher, Judge, and Legislator_. _Of authoritative Teacher_, not only towards Jews and Gentiles, whom he is the first to join to Christ, so that the same person who was the Church's rock and foundation, also became its chief architect; but towards the Apostles likewise, who are taught by his ministry, that the time was come for the blessing of redemption to be extended no less to Gentiles than to Jews, and that the burden of legal rites could not be laid on the Gentile converts without tempting G.o.d. _Of Judge_, because, while the Apostles are silent, he is the first to hear the causes of the faithful, to erect a tribunal, to examine the accused, to issue sentence, and to support and confirm it by inflicting excommunication. Of _Head and Supreme Legislator_, both when he singly visits Christians in all parts, and provides for their needs, or when he uses the prerogative of first voting, and draws with authority the wording of the law to which the rest are to give an unanimous consent.
From this compendious enumeration we draw a multifold proof, both of inequality in the Apostolic college, and of Peter's superiority at once in rank and in real government.
I. For, _first_, a college cannot be considered equal, out of which Christ chose one, Simon Peter, whom, by His words and His actions, He showed to be set over all. Now Christ's whole course of speaking and acting, of which the Gospels give us the picture, tends to exhibit Peter as chosen out from the rest, and set over them.
Accordingly, neither is the college of the Apostles equal, nor can Peter be accounted as one of the rest.