In the solemn circumstance of the approaching passion of Christ, the apostles did not cease to indulge the petty rivalry and jealousy, which, during their attendance on Him, they had often manifested. He had had occasion more than once to rebuke them for their disputes about superiority, and yet they were still contending which of them was the greatest. The many marks of His special favor to Peter, the position of leader which this apostle uniformly occupied, and the promise made to him especially, seemed to leave no room for doubting; but the tender love shown to John, and the kindness and affection exhibited to all, led them to question, whether the actual headship of Peter, or the promised office, rendered him absolutely greater than his brethren. Christ had, on a former occasion, brought forward a child to insinuate humility, and stimulate the apostles to its exercise, by the hope of heavenly exaltation;* in this instance He contrasts the spirit which should animate them, with the domineering pride of earthly princes, and offers Himself as the model which they should copy. "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he who is the greatest among you, let him be as the least: and he that is the leader, as he that serveth? For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth." He will not have them act in the lordly spirit of the rulers of this world, or content themselves with flattering titles. Plainly recognising the difference of rank among them, He wishes the greatest to sustain his dignity by the humility of his deportment, even as He had condescended to act as their servant. He then proceeds to intimate the high dignity of all, but marks in express terms the special duty and prerogative of Peter: "You are they who have continued with Me in My temptations: And I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table, and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Thus, in return for their fidelity and attachment He bestows on them a kingdom, even as His Fathat had made Him King. His kingdom is not, indeed, of this world, but of an order far more sublime, according to which the apostles are made priests and kings to their God, partaking of the mysterious banquet, and sitting on thrones of judgment. These honors are common to all: to Peter peculiar privileges are promised. Satan sought to overthrow their thrones and altars, to sift them, even as the wheat is winnowed, and to cast them away as chaff to the wind. In the impenetrable but just counsels of the Deity, he is suffered to accomplish his wishes in some degree: but Christ interposes with His Father to rescue the throne of Peter, and through him to secure all from ruin. "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon,

Luke ix. 48.

† Luke xxii. 25-28. See also Matt. xx. 25.
Assign, or grant.

behold, Satan hath desired to have you,* that he may sift you as wheat: but I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE† THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT: AND THOU, BEING ONCE CONVERTED, CONFIRM THY BRETHREN."§ He had just spoken of the kingdom and thrones of the apostles: He now discloses the dark designs of hell against them: and addressing Peter especially, emphatically assures him, that He had prayed for him in particular, that his faith might not fail. Against him the powers of hell shall not prevail, since they cannot prevail against the Church founded on him. The prayer of Christ is specially offered up for him, as the head of his brethren, whom He charges him to confirm in that faith which cannot fail.

The subsequent fall of Peter is often objected as a proof that he was not the head of the Church; which is true of that time, since although the promise of Christ had been made, and His prayer offered up, the office of chief pastor had not yet been instituted. It was only after His resurrection that our Lord, being about to withdraw His visible presence, gave to Peter the charge of His lambs and sheep. The weakness of one chosen for so high an office must teach us, not to regard in the ministers of Christ, especially in His Vicar, their individual qualities, but the divine authority which they exercise, that our trust may be not in man, but in God. Divine mercy pardoned Peter the base denial of his Master: divine goodness raised him to the highest dignity: divine power was employed to endow him, a frail and sinful man, with an immovable firmness in faith, that, like a rock, he might support the everlasting fabric of the Church.

pas. The English reader, accustomed to the use of the plural pronoun for the singular, is apt not to advert to its force here as embracing all the apostles.

† Περὶ σου. Special prayer was offered for Peter.

This appears to be a Hebraism, denoting the repetition of an action. See Ps. lxxxvi. 7. As Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, He willed likewise that Peter on his part should strengthen his brethren by his exhortations, prayers and example. Maldonat, Genebrard, and other Catholic interpreters give this meaning, which is strongly supported by Grotius, who insists that conversion from sin cannot be meant, since Christ had not yet intimated the fall of Peter. Passaglia, and after him Allies, maintain this interpretation; which is also set forth by Cornelius a Lapide and Rosenmüller, although these present at the same time the more common explanation, conformable to the popular acceptation of the phrase. The ancient Syriac version may be rendered: "turn thou in season;" and may be understood of the act of a superior looking towards those under his charge to direct and animate them. The same verb is used in the Syriac for the turning of Magdalen toward Christ in the garden, (John xx. 14,) and the turning of Peter toward John, (Ib. xxi. 20.)

Luke xxii. 31, 32.

3

CHAPTER III.

The Fathers' Exposition of the Promise.

THE ancient writers of the Church, who are styled FATHERS, are deservedly regarded with veneration for their piety, learning, and zeal. From an early period of the revolutionary career of Luther, he professed an utter disregard for their opinions; in which he was followed by almost all the sectaries of the sixteenth and succeeding centuries: but "the Church of England" as the English Establishment is styled, professed a high veneration for them, notwithstanding the efforts of Middleton and others to lessen their authority. At the present day they are looked up to with increased reverence, especially by those who participate in the sentiments of Dr. Pusey, whilst they are necessarily depreciated by such Protestants as wish to retain an appearance of consistency. In the Catholic Church, the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, in favor of a doctrine, is conclusive evidence of divine tradition; and their concordant exposition of a text of Scripture is a certain guide to its true meaning: but their individual opinions, however worthy of respectful consideration, impose no restraint on our judgment, unless the Church by adopting them add the seal of her authority. In interpreting the Scripture they frequently turned aside from the literal meaning, especially where this was obvious, and had recourse to moral applications, or allegorical expositions, exercising con. siderable ingenuity in applying the divine words to matters of daily practice, or endeavoring to discover, under the surface of the letter, some reference or allusion to the great mysteries which are elsewhere explicitly propounded. This however, should give greater weight to their testimony, when they professedly declare the literal meaning of the sacred text, especially in matters which were exemplified in the government and public usage of the Church. Consequently, their interpretation of the promise recorded in Matthew, cannot fail to arrest the earnest attention of the reader.

TERTULLIAN, a priest of the Church of Carthage, at the close of the second century, is classed among the Fathers, although by his fall into the errors of Montanus in the latter part of his career, he forfeited the glory which he had acquired by his celebrated plea with the heathen magistrates for the Christians, and by his immortal work on "Prescriptions against Heretics." Whilst refuting the absurd pretension of the Gnostics, who were not ashamed to boast of knowledge superior to that of the apostles,

he indignantly asks: "WAS ANY thing concealed from Peter, whO WAS STYLED THE ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH WAS TO BE BUILT, WHO RECEIVED THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, AND THE POWER OF LOOSING AND BINDING IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH?"* He justly judged that Peter, being constituted by Christ the fundamental rock and the ruler of the Church, must have been endowed with the most comprehensive knowledge of divine things. His exposition is the more forcible, as it is not urged with any effort; but given as the obvious meaning, which even his adversaries could not question.

After his fall, the African doctor continued to acknowledge Peter to be the rock on which the Church was built; but as the Montanists denied that the Church could pardon the more enormous sins, he endeavored to explain the power of binding and loosing, as signifying a disciplinary exercise of authority in external government, or of a judicial decision,† or in some other way, so as to elude the proof drawn from it, of the authority to impart forgiveness to the most heinous sinners, on due manifestation of repentance. Feeling the insecurity of his position on these points, he boldly maintained that the power-whatever it might be-was promised to Peter personally-and that it did not embrace his successors, or the Church founded by him, much less the Universal Church. It is not necessary to expose the false and frivolous character of these various expositions, which were devised for the support of the severe principles of his sect, especially since they cannot be consistently advocated by those who, with Pearson and Pusey, admit the continuance in the Church of the power of forgiveness; or indeed by any who will not blindly adopt fanciful interpretations. The calm judgment of Tertullian, whilst he remained united with the Church, must not be set aside on account of subsequent aberrations.

sure.

Early in the third century, ORIGEN, a man of sublime genius and vast erudition, taught with great success in the famous school of Alexandria; but having given loose reins to his imagination, he hazarded many conjectural expositions of Scripture, which drew on him suspicion and cenHis allegorical interpretations carry with them no weight; but when he explains the letter of the text, or testifies a fact, he is to be listened to with attention, especially if he be found to harmonize with the other fathers. Many of his writings have perished; from one of which Eusebius, who wrote but a century after his time, has preserved a precious extract. The historian being desirous to prove by the testimony of the celebrated catechist, the authenticity of the first epistle of St. Peter, recites his words, which imply a commentary on the promise. "PETER," he says, "ON WHOM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS BUILT, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left one epistle which is generally admit

De Præscr. ? xxii.

† L. de Pudicitia, c. xxi.

ted."* This incidental interpretation is the more forcible, as it must be deemed the unstudied expression of the conviction of the writer.

The liberty which Origen elsewhere takes of applying the promise to every believer in Christ, cannot lessen the force of this exposition, which is manifestly literal, and used to distinguish Peter from all others; but his reasoning to prove that each of the faithful is insuperable whilst he clings to Christ, may be fairly applied to establish the unfailing character of the authority of Peter: "FOR NEITHER AGAINST THE ROCK ON WHICH CHRIST BUILT HIS CHURCH, NOR AGAINST THE CHURCH, SHALL THE GATES OF HELL PREVAIL." Heretics in every variety of form assail the truth of Christ as taught in the Church, and endeavor to overthrow her, but in vain: "Every author of a perverse sentiment is a builder of a gate of hell; but many and numberless as are the gates of hell, no gate of hell shall prevail against the rock, or the Church which Christ builds upon the rock." Origen, throughout, insists on the immovable nature of the rock, as well as of the Church, so as inseparably to connect them. His application of the text to every just man is evidently by the way of accommodation; since he even denies that it can be applied to each act of episcopal authority, unless the bishop be a Peter, namely, firm in the conscientious exercise of the power with which he is clothed. In its literal acceptation, it must be restricted to Peter himself, on whom the Church was built, and to his successors in office.

ST. CYPRIAN, who filled the see of Carthage in the middle of the third century, is justly classed among the most illustrious of the fathers.§ In his letter to those who had fallen in persecution, he rebukes some of them who had presumed to address him, as if they were the Church, and employs for this purpose, the words of the promise, in order to show that without the bishop there can be no Church. "Our Lord," he says, "whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, establishing the honor of the bishop, and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say to thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven.' Thence, through the series of times and successions, the order of bishops and the system of the Church flow on; so that the Church is established upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is governed by the same prelates. Since, then, this is the case, I am surprised that some, with audacious temerity, have ventured to write to me in the name of the

L. vi. Hist. Eccl. c. xxi.

† In Matt. t. xii. p. 518.

In Matt. t. xii. p. 522.

For a full account of this martyr, and a luminous analysis of his writings, I refer to the articles with his name published in the Mercersburg Review in 1852, over the initials of Dr. J. W. Nevin, president of Marshall College.