of church organization, having the same relation to the universal church as the foundation has to the building it is a central authority uniting all the parts of the sacred edifice, which rest on it necessarily and inseparably. Peter was constituted the vicegerent of Christ, having received from Him the keys of the kingdom, and consequently a plenitude of authority, delegated however, and subordinate to that of Christ; and the successor of Peter inherits the like power. The primate of the Church is bound to confirm his brethren in the faith, and must maintain the faith once delivered to the saints, and oppose, by all the weight of his authority, every error adverse to its integrity. He is powerful for the truth: powerless against the truth. He must feed the lambs and sheep of Christ with salutary pastures: he must use pastoral vigilance, lest they stray away, and must employ due care to reconduct to the fold those that have actually strayed. Under the image of a good shepherd Christ was pleased to represent Himself, and in giving to Peter the command to feed His lambs and sheep, He imparts the highest authority under the most tender image. In Scripture I discover no limits to this power, other than those which arise from its nature. It cannot be arbitrary and despotic, since it is founded on a divine commission, and is to be exercised in support of truth, and of piety. Every act of this authority must be performed in dependence on Christ, and in strict subordination to Him. It is not difficult thus to reconcile the headship of Peter with that of Christ. The apostle tells us that Christ has instituted the ministry, "that performing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the head, Christ; from whom the whole body, compacted and fitly joined together, by whatever joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity."* Christ is clearly styled the Head in this place in a way that Peter cannot be so designated. Every grace by which the mind is enlightened, and the will moved, and the Church built up in faith and charity, is derived from Christ, not from Peter, whose office is ministerial and external, and totally dependant on the Supreme invisible Head. "Christ is the Head of the Church. He is the Saviour of His body."+ ascribe to Peter headship of this nature? as the Saviour of the Church? God the Father hath made Christ "head over all the Church, which is His body, and the fulness of Him, who is filled all in all." No one recognises Peter as head in this Who has ever thought to Who has ever regarded him • Eph. iv. 15. † Ibid. v. 23. Ibid. i. 22. sense. Christ is "above all principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."* Peter, under Christ, was the visible head of the Church on earth, governing it according to the principles which Christ taught, and in virtue of the authority which He vouchsafed to delegate. Whoever deems such authority derogatory to the headship of Christ, must consider the viceroy of a monarch an antagonist to sovereignty. The wisdom of Christ in appointing a ruler and pastor under Himself, to confirm and unite the brethren, is obvious. Order can be maintained in a body of men only by some authority exercised by one, whatever be its origin, or its limits: and that authority should be proportioned to the importance of the objects to be attained, and the number of persons to be directed, or governed. A certain precedency of rank may suffice in a body, where objects dependent on the will of the members are at stake: but where high interests, independent of the fluctuating views of men, are in question, a binding authority divinely constituted and guarded is necessary. Even among the apostles there was evidently a certain precedency exercised by Peter, whilst our Lord was present. When He had withdrawn from earth, and the apostolic band was augmented by a large number of bishops, and the Church was spread throughout many nations, every appearance of unity would soon have vanished, had there not been a central authority around which all might gather. This became still more necessary, when the apostles closed their career, and their successors were multiplied, and scattered to the utmost bounds of civilization, and beyond it. The confusion of tongues would have ensued, had there not been a divinely-constituted leader. The professed subjection of all to Christ would not have restrained the vagaries of human opinion, or preserved the harmony of believers. Without an infinitude of miracles, in proportion to the number of professors, and the diffusion of religion, there would be no order, no unity, no faith, and the evidence which our Lord referred to, for convincing the world that He was sent by the Father, namely the union of His disciples in the profession of revealed truth, would have been utterly wanting. Whilst Christ was visibly present, the disciples gathered around Him, and were one family, He being the Head: when He was about to withdraw His visible presence, He left Peter at the head of his brethren, pastor of the fold, and ruler of the kingdom. To this Divine arrangement we owe the preservation of the revealed truths and the unity of the Church. * Eph. v. 21. To all the apostles Christ promised the power of binding and loosing, which He conferred on all by authorizing them to remit, or retain sins. He gave to all a mission like that which He had received from His Father. He sent all of them to preach His gospel to every creature, and ordered them to teach all nations, all things whatsoever He had delivered, and promised them His effectual assistance even to the end of time. The apostolic power of each one was like that of Peter, coextensive with the world: but Peter was pastor, ruler and superior. They were all equal in the episcopal character, and even in apostolic authority, with this difference that their power was subordinate to his, that even in their persons unity might be exhibited, and that his universal jurisdiction was a permanent attribute of his office as pastor and ruler, to descend and continue for ever in his successors, whilst theirs was a personal prerogative, whereof the bishops would partake, without enjoying severally its plenitude. This distinction is gathered from the marked manner in which Christ addressed Peter individually, whilst He promised and gave authority to the others in common. Bossuet beautifully observes: "The power divided among many imports its restriction conferred on one alone, over all and without exception, it bears the evidence of its plenitude. All receive the same power, but not in the same degree, nor to the same extent. Jesus Christ commences by the chief, and in the person of the chief developes all his power-in order that we should learn that the ecclesiastical authority, being originally centred in one individual, has been diffused only on the condition that it should always be reflected back on the principle of its unity, and that all they who share in it should be inseparably connected with that See, which is the common centre of all Churches."* * Discours sur l'unité de l'Eglise 1 par. CHAPTER III. EXERCISE OF THE PRIMACY BY ST. PETER. It is impossible not to be struck by the prominent part which Peter acted in the establishment of the Church. Whilst his disciples were awaiting the fulfilment of the promise of Christ, and by prayer preparing for the coming of the Paraclete, Peter arose, and proposed to fill the vacancy which the fall of Judas had occasioned. He is already enlightened to discover the meaning of the sacred oracles, which predicted the treachery of this apostle, and ordered another to take his bishopric he fixes the qualifications of the person to be chosen for this purpose and if he does not himself choose the individual, it is from no defect of power, but to give a laudable example of its moderate exercise. This condescension is justly admired by the eloquent bishop of Constantinople : "Being fervent," St. Chrysostom observes, " and being entrusted by Christ with the care of the flock, and being the leader of the choir, he is always the first to speak.-Why did he not himself alone beseech Christ to give him some one in the place of Judas? Why do not the brethren of themselves undertake the election ?-See how he does all things with the general consent, nothing authoritatively, nothing imperiously-Men brethren, he says. Since the Lord called his disciples brethren, still more should he style them such. Wherefore he addressed them, all being present: Behold the dignity of the Church, and its angelic condition.-Why does he communicate with them on this matter? Lest it become a subject of dispute and they fall into dissensions. He permits the choice to the judgment of the multitude, thus securing their regard for the objects of their choice, and freeing himself from jealousy.-COULD NOT PETER HIMSELF HAVE CHOSEN THE INDIVIDUAL? BY ALL MEANS. But he abstains from doing it lest he should appear to indulge partiality. He is the first to proceed in this matter, because ALL HAVE BEEN DELIVERED OVER INTO HIS HANDS: for to him Christ said: Thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren."* It is pleasing to be able to show in what light this act * Hom. III. in 1 cap. Act. was viewed by so bright an ornament of the Greek Church in the fourth century one of the most illustrious men of antiquity-one occupying the chair of the rival city, the new Rome, who recognises a splendid instance of the moderate use of supreme power in the conduct of Peter on this occasion. A still more illustrious exercise of his high office, as guardian of the faith, occurs in the history of the first Council of Jerusalem. Great excitement was caused at Antioch by certain Judaizing Christians, who insisted that the converts from the Gentiles should be subjected to circumcision and the legal observances. "Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them,"* but were unable to induce all to acquiesce in their judgment; wherefore it was determined that they "and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question." "The apostles and ancients came together to consider of this matter, and when there was much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave them testimony, giving to them the Holy Ghost as well as to us: and made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved even as they." The result of this discourse is worthy of attention: "All the multitude held their peace."† Previously there had been at Antioch great opposition and contest, notwithstanding the reverence due to the apostolic character in Paul and Barnabas the collision of sentiment had been renewed in the Council with considerable feeling. Peter authoritatively speaks, reminds them that he had been chosen to announce the Gospel to the Gentiles, that God had given evidences of his favour towards them, reproaches his brethren with seeking unnecessarily to burden them with the multifarious observances of the ceremonial law, and declares the great principle of faith in Jesus Christ as the only foundation of hope for Jew or Gentile. No sooner has he spoken than all acquiesce: no dissenting voice is heard, no murmur: all opposition ceases: and whoever rises to speak, only confirms, like Paul and Barnabas, by the narrative of miraculous facts, what Peter had declared of the favour shown by God to the Gentiles; or, like James, refers to the prophecies, adding |