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. iv. 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 v. 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 iii. 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 Oeneas 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 iv. 40. "And when the sun was down, all they that had any

sick with divers diseases brought them to Him. But He, laying

His hands on every one of them, healed them. And devils went

out from many."

Acts v. 15. "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the

streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter

came, his shadow, at the least, might overshadow any of them,

and they might be delivered from their infirmities. And there

came also together to 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 oecumenical, 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 a priori and an a posteriori argument. They are a

reciprocal confirmation to each other; just as if by time you

calculate the sun's rising, and see the diffusion of his light, from

his having risen you infer his light, and from his light conclude

that he has risen.

Nor in the Apostolic Church does any one appear to resist or

question this office of Peter. Rather upon him all eyes are fixed,

for him all are anxious; no Abiram rises up against him with the

words of 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 xvii. 28-9, and compare 1 Cor. xii. 12-17 with Eph. iv. 16.

[5] Dionys. de Coel. Hier. cap. 1, Sec. 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 i. 13; ii. 14; iii. 1-3; iv. 19; viii. 14.

[10] Acts i. 15; ii. 14, 37; iii. 4; v. 29.

[11] Acts ii. 13, 37, 38; iii. 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] Ps. lxix. 26; cviii. 8.

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

[19] Authentikos.

[20] Authentei.

[21] Acts 2.

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

[23] St. Chrysostome, as before.

[24] Passaglia, p. 153.

[25] Acts i. 8; John xv. 27.

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

[27] Acts iv. 4.

[28] Acts iii. 12-26; iv. 8-19.

[29] Acts iii. 11, 12-26.

[30] Acts iv. 7, 8.

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

[32] Acts ii. 44; iv. 32; John xvii. 21.

[33] Passaglia, p. 157.

[34] John xv. 22-4.

[35] Matt. x. 7.

[36] Mark xvi. 15-17.

[37] John xx. 21.

[38] Compare Acts ix. 33, with Mark ii. 3-11.

[39] Mark v. 40; Acts ix. 39.

[40] Acts v. 12-14.

[41] Matt. xv. 30.

[42] Passaglia, p. 163.

[43] Matt. xv. 24; x. 5; Acts i. 8.

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

[45] Acts viii. 14.

[46] Passaglia, p. 174.

[47] Eph. iii. 5; Mal. i. 11.

[48] Acts ix. 32.

[49] Bede on this text.

[50] Apoc. vii. 9.

[51] Haer. 28, s. 3.

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

[53] John iv. 2.

[54] Passaglia, p. 181.

[55] Acts xi. 1-4.

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

[57] Lib. 9. Ep. 39.

[58] Passaglia. p. 188.

[59] Acts v. 8. 3.

[60] On Acts, Hom. 12.

[61] Passaglia, p. 190.

[62] Acts ix. 31.

[63] Titus i. 5.

[64] Acts xv. 36.

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

[66] So called by Arnobius, on psalm 138.

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

[68] Passaglia, p. 192.

[69] Acts xv. 6.

[70] Hom. 32, n. 1.

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

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

[73] De Pudicitia, c. 21.

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

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

[76] Passaglia, p. 197.

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

[78] Passaglia, p. 198.

[79] 1 Pet. v. 3.

[80] Princeps hujus fuit decreti, says St. Jerome to St. Augustine,

Ep. 75, n. 8. inter Augustinianas.

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

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

[83] Acts xi. 18.

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

[85] Col. i. 18.