FOOTNOTES:

When we reflect that the first act of our Lord to Peterwas to look upon him, and to promise him this name, a token of His omnipotence to Simon yet knowing him not, as that seeing him under the fig-tree was to Nathaniel of His omniscience; and that when He chose His twelve apostles, it is said markedly "to Simon He gave the name of Peter," the force of His reply cannot well be exceeded. The promise of our Lord answers part by part to the confession of His apostle. The one says: "Thou art the Christ," that is, the anointed one; the other, "Thou art Peter," that is, the Rock, the name which I gave thee myself: my own title with which I invested thee. The one adds, "the Son of the living God;" the other, "And upon this rock I will build my Church," that is, as it is true what thou confessest, that I am "the Son of the living God," so my power as such shall be shown in building my Church upon thee whom I have long named the Rock, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Not only this, but I will unfold to thee the full meaning of thy name, and declare the gifts which accompany it. "And[23]I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." That is, "The root and the offspring of David," "the holy one and the true one, He that hath the key of David; He that openeth and no man shutteth; shutteth and no man openeth;" as He gave to thee to share His name of the Rock, so He shall give to thee to bear in His name His own symbol of supreme dominion, the key which opens or shuts the true city of David; all ages shall own thee, all nations acknowledge thee, asThe Bearer of the Keys; as long as my Church shall last, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, thy office shall last too; as long as there are souls to be saved, they shall pass by thy ministry into the gate of the Church. And further, as long as there need in my spiritualkingdom laws to be promulgated, precepts issued, sins forgiven, "whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Who, indeed, can adequately express the gifts which the world's Creator and Redeemer here promises to His favoured servant? Thus in the fourth century S. Chrysostome labours to set them forth. "See how He raises Peter to a higher opinion of Himself; and reveals and shews Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises. For what belongs to God alone, to loose sins, and to render the Church immovable in such an assault of waves, and to make a fisherman more solid than any rock, when the whole world was at war with him, these are what He promises to give him; as the Father addressing Jeremias, said: 'I have made thee an iron pillar and a wall,' but him to one nation, whereas the other to the whole world. Willingly would I ask those who wish to diminish the dignity of the Son, which are the greatest gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son. For the Father bestowed on Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son disseminated that of the Father and of Himself through the whole world; andput into the hands of a mortal man power over all things in heaven, when He gave the keys to himwho extended the Church through the whole world, and showed it to be firmer than the heaven."[24]And not many years later S. Leo says, "That which the Truth ordered remains; and blessed Peter persisting in that strength of the rock which he received, has not deserted the guidance, once undertaken, of the Church. For thus was he set before the rest, that while he is called the Rock, while he is declared to be the foundation, while he is appointed the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven,while he is advanced to be the judge of what shall be bound and what loosed, with the condition that his sentence shall be ratified even in heaven,we might learn through the very mysteries of the names given to him, how he was associated with Christ."[25]This association passed, indeed, into the very mind of the Church, for among all the titles given by fathers and councils and liturgies to Peter, and expressing his prerogatives, the one contained in this name is the most frequent. Thus he is termed,[26]"the rock of the Church,"[27]"the rock of the Church that was to be built,"[28]"underlying the building of the Church,"[29]"receiving on himself the building of the Church,"[30]"the immovable rock,"[31]"the rock which the proud gates of hell prevail not against,"[32]"the most solid rock,"[33]"he to whom the Lord granted the participation of His own title, the rock,"[34]"the foundation second from Christ,"[35]"the great foundation of the Church,"[36]"the foundation and basis,"[37]"founding the Church by his firmness,"[38]"the support of the Church,"[39]"the Apostle in whom is the Church's support,"[40]"the support of the faith,"[41]"the pillar of theChurch," and by an authority sufficient alone to terminate all controversy, the great Council of Chalcedon,[42]"the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the basis of the orthodox faith."[43]

Thus, then, we have the name of Peter first promised, next conferred, then explained. And further light will be shed on this by the consideration of the purpose for which names in Holy Writ were bestowed by divine command on individuals, or their former names changed.

Now[44]of names imposed in Scripture there would seem to be three classes. The first and most common arecommemorative, and are for the purpose of recording and handing down to posterity remarkable facts. Such are Peleg, "because in his days the earth wasdivided;" Isaac, from thelaughterof his father and mother; Issachar, areward; Manasseh, "God hath made me toforgetmy labours;" Ephraim, "God hath made me togrow;"[45]and a multitude of others.

The second class may be termedsignificative, being imposed to distinguish their bearers from others by some quality. Such are Jacob, the supplanter; Esau; Edom, the red; Moses, the taken or saved; Maccabæus; Boanerges.[46]

The third and highest class areprophetic, and as such evidently can be imposed by God alone, who foresees the future. They are two-fold: i. Those which foresignify events concerning not so much their bearers as others; such are Shear-jashub, "the remnant shall return;" Jezrael "I will visit;" Lo-ruhamah, "not pitied;" Lo-ammi,"not my people." ii. Those which point out the office and destiny of their bearers; such as Noah, rest; Israel, a prince before God; Joshua, Saviour; Sarah, princess; John, in whom there is grace; and, after the divine name of Jesus, "who saves His people from their sins,"[47]Abraham, and Cephas, or Peter, which two neither commemorate a past event, nor signify a quality or ornament already possessed, but are wholly prophetic, inasmuch as they shadow out the dignity to which the leaders of the two covenants are divinely marked out by the very imposition of their name.

For it will perhaps bring out the pre-eminence and superior authority of Peter, if we consider the very close resemblance and almost identity of the dispensation into which God entered with Abraham, and that which Christ gave to Peter. But first we must observe how the more remarkable things occurring in the New Testament were foretold by types, images, parallelisms, and distinct prophecies in the Old. How[48]both our Lord, the Evangelists, and the Apostles, take pains to point out the close agreement between the two covenants; how the ancient ecclesiastical writers do the like in their contests with early heretics, or in recommending the truth of the Christian faith either to Jew or Gentile. They considered scarcely any proof of the Gospel superior to that which might be drawn by grave and solid inference from the anticipation of Christian truths in the old covenant. Now, among such truths, what concerns Peter is surely of signal importance, as it affects the whole judgment on the form of government which our Lord instituted for His Church.

Again, it may be taken as an axiom that, as a similitudeof causes is inferred from a similitude of effects, so a resemblance of the divine counsels may be inferred from a resemblance of exterior manifestations. As effects are so many steps by which we rise to the knowledge and discernment of causes, so divine manifestations are tokens which unfold God's eternal decrees. Thus if the series of dealings which constitute God's dispensation to Abraham be very much like that other series in which the Scriptures of the New Testament set forth the dispensation given to Peter, we may conclude, first, that the two dispensations may be compared, and, secondly, that from their resemblance, a resemblance in the divine purpose may be deduced.

First,[49]then, "God at sundry times, and in divers manners, speaking to the Fathers" of that covenant of grace, into which He had already entered with our first parents, said to Abram, "Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and I will make of thee a great nation." But when in the last days He began to fulfil that covenant, and to declare His will by His Son, Jesus said to Simon and Andrew, "Follow me, and I will make you to become fishers of men," and to Simon specially, "Fear not, for henceforth thou shalt catch men."[50]

Abram hearkened to God calling him: "So Abram went out as the Lord had commanded him;" and Simon as readily obeyed Christ's vocation: "And immediately leaving their nets they followed Him."[51]

God rewarded Abraham's obedience by the promise of a new name: "Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram, but thou shalt be called Abraham." So Christ honoured Simon, saying, "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas."[52]

No sooner had God unfolded the dignity shadowed forth in the promised name, and bestowed that dignity on Abraham, than He required of him a signal instance of faith and love: "God tempted Abraham, and said to him, Take thy son, thine only begotten, whom thou lovest, and offer him for a holocaust." So Christ required of Simon a proof of faith and of superior love before He either unfolded the excellence of the promised name, or adorned him with that excellency: "He saith to them, Whom say ye that I am?" "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?"[53]

And both were no less ready to show the fortitude of their faith and love than they had been ready to follow the divine calling. For, "Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the sword to sacrifice his son;" and "Simon Peter answering, said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" and again, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee."[54]

Then, as the bestowal of the new name was the reward of the obedience with which each had followed his vocation, so God, moved by their remarkable ensuing faith and charity, explained the dignity contained in that name, and bestowed it when so explained. The following refers to the explanation; "By myself have I sworn, because thou hast done this thing," and "Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say unto thee."

But as to the dignity bestowed, it should be remarked that it is divine, and communicated to each with this resemblance:First, that Abraham thereby becomes the source and parent of all the faithful, and Peter their base and foundation; the one, the author of a seed which shouldequal in number the stars of the heaven and the sand of the sea; the other, the Rock of the Church, which should embrace all nations, tribes, and languages. God says to Abraham, "And multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea-shore." But Christ to Peter, "and upon this rock I will build my Church."Secondly, the blessing thus bestowed from above upon each was not one which should rest in their single persons, but from them and through them should be extended to the universal posterity and society of the faithful; so that all who should believe, to the consummation of time, should gain through them blessing, stability, and victory over the assault of enemies and the gates of hell. The promise to Abraham is clear: "thy seed shall possess the gate of their enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed:" nor less so to Peter, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

But the high excellence of this dignity, embracing, as it does, the whole company of the faithful, was presignified in the very meaning of the name imposed. For of Abraham's name we read, "And thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made thee." Exactly resembling is what is said of Peter's appellation, "Thou art Peter, the Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church."

Nay, we may put in parallel columns the two promises, thus—

1. Thy name shall be1. Thou art Peter,Abraham,2. For a father of many2. And upon this rock Inations have I made thee:will build my Church.

And just as in the former, the second clause contains the reason of the first, so in the latter likewise the two clausescohere, as the name and its explanation. Again, the dignity of the one is expressed as that of the Father; of the other as that of the Rock. Further, those alone can share the blessing of Abraham, who are born of his spirit: and those alone the stability divinely granted to Peter, who refuse by any violence, or at any cost, to be separated from him.

But Abraham was thus raised to be the friend of God, associated in the divine Fathership, and made the teacher of posterity; and therefore, as being such, God would show him His counsels, that through him they might descend to his children. "And the Lord said, Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? for I know that he will command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord." In a precisely similar way, when God would call the Gentiles to the light of the Gospel, He shewed it by a special revelation to Peter alone: "There came upon him an ecstasy of mind; and he saw the heaven opened; and this was done thrice." And the reason of so preferring Peter was God's decree, that through him all other Christians, even the Apostles themselves, might be informed, and convinced. "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." "And thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren."[55]

Finally, as God pronounces Abraham blest, so Christ pronounces Peter; and as He made Abraham the source and fountain-head of blessing and strength to all others, so no less did Christ make Peter. Of the first we read, "I will bless thee, and will make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing;" of the second, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah;—and upon this rock I will build My Church."

In one word, the parallel is as follows between Abraham and Peter. Both receive a remarkable call, and follow it; both are promised and receive a new, and that a prophetical name; of both signal instances of faith and love are required; both furnish these, and therefore do not lose the increase of their reward; to Abraham his prophetical name is explained, and to Peter likewise; Abraham understands his destination to be the Father of all nations, and Peter that he is made the Rock of the universal Church; Abraham is called blest, and so Peter; to Abraham it is revealed that no one, save from him, and through him, shall share the heavenly blessing; to Peter that all, from him, and through him, shall gain strength and stability; it is only through Abraham that his posterity can promise itself victory over the enemy, and only through being built on Peter, the Rock, that the Church will triumph over the gates of hell; in fine, if Abraham, as the teacher of the faithful, is instructed in the divine counsels with singular care, not less is shown to Peter, whom Christ has made the doctor and teacher of all believers.

The gifts thus bestowed on Abraham and Peter arepeculiar, for they are read of no one else in the Holy Scriptures; they are not onlygifts, but arewardfor singular merit; and in their own nature they cannot begeneral. As by them Abraham is put into a relation ofFathership, so that all the faithful become his children, so Peter being called and made the Rock andFoundationof the Church, all its members have a dependence on him.

And if these gifts arepeculiar, no less do they convey a singulardignityandpre-eminence. For it follows that, as S. Paul says,[56]that all the faithful are children of Abraham, being heirs not of his flesh, but of his spirit and faith;so no one is, or can be, a part of the Church's building, who rests not on Peter as the foundation. For the same God who said to Abraham, "Thy name shall no longer be called Abram, but Abraham shall be thy name," said also to Simon, "Thou shalt not be called Simon, but Cephas;" the same God who said to the former, "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed," said to the latter, "Upon this Rock I will build my Church."

What is the source of this pre-eminence in both? To both the same objection may be made, and for both the same defence.

How should blessing and adoption be propagated from Abraham, as a sort of head, into the whole body of the faithful? Because Abraham is considered as joined with that mighty Seed his offspring, whencein chiefandprimarilythe salvation of all depends; because Abraham is made byparticipationpartner of that dignity whichnaturallyandsubstantiallybelongs to the Seed that was to spring from him. God Himself has told us this, and His Apostle S. Paul explained it. For as we read that it was said to Abraham, "In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed," so God Himself has told us thatin thee, by thee, meansin, by thy seed. Hence S. Paul:[57]"To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He saith not, seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." So that the divine words, "In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed," give this meaning: "As thou shalt give flesh to my only begotten Son whom I cherish in my bosom, whence He shall be called at once 'the Son of God and the Son of Abraham,'[58]so He makes thee a partner of His dignity and excellence, whence, if not the source andorigin, yet thou shalt be a broad stream of blessing to be poured out on all nations."

Now just in the same manner is Peter the Rock of the Church, and the cause next to Christ of that firmness with which the Church shall remain impregnable to the end. For therefore is he the Rock and Foundation of the Church, because he has been called into a sort of unity with Him of whom it is said, "Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on it shall not be ashamed:" and in whom, as Paul explains, "the whole building fitly framed together increaseth unto a holy temple in the Lord."[59]Therefore is he the Church's Rock, because as he, by his own confession, declared the Godhead of the Foundation in chief, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," so from Him, who is the chief and substantial Foundation, he received the gift of being made partner in one and the same property: "And I too say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;" one with Me by communication of My office and charge, My dignity and excellency. Hence the stability of Peter is that of Christ, as the splendour of the ray is that of the sun; Peter's dignity that of Christ, as the river's abundance is the abundance of the fountain. Those who diminish Peter's dignity may well be charged with violating the majesty of Christ; those who are hostile to Peter, and divorced from him, stand in the like opposition to Christ.

Now this parallel is an answer[60]to those who object to Peter's supereminence as the Foundation, that this dignity is entirely divine, surpassing by an almost infinite degree the capacity of man. For is not that a divine dignity which consists in the paternity of all the faithful? Is notthat prerogative beyond man's capacity by which one becomes the author of a blessing diffused through all nations? Yet no one denies that such a dignity and such a prerogative were granted to Abraham. In divine endowments, therefore, theirfullandnatural possessionmust be carefully distinguished from theirlimitedandanalogous participation. The one, as inherent, cannot fall to the creature's lot; the other, as transferable, may be granted as God pleases. For what further removed from man than the Godhead? Yet it is written, "I have said, ye are Gods."[61]

Not weightier is the other objection, that the office of being the Foundation is too important to be entrusted to human care. Was there less difficulty in blessing being diffused from one man among all nations? Rather we must look on man not as he is by, and of, himself, apart from God, and left to his own weakness, but as upborne by divine power, according to the promise, "Behold, I am with you all days, until the consummation of the world." Who can doubt that man, in union with God, may serve for a foundation, and discharge those offices in which the unity of a structure consists? It is confidently and constantly objected, that "other foundation no man can lay beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."[62]As if what has been laid by Christ Himself, and consists in the virtue of Christ alone, can be thought other than Christ; or as if it were unusual, or unscriptural, for things proper to Christ to be participated by men. Therefore the chief difficulties against Peter's pre-eminence, and character as the Foundation, seem to spring from the mind failing to realise the supernatural order instituted by God, and the perpetual presence of Christ watching over His Church.

Thus it is no derogation to Abraham's being the Father of the faithful, or to the hierarchy of the Church instituted by Christ Himself, that our Lord says,[63]"Call none your father upon earth, for one is your Father who is in heaven;" inasmuch as Scripture abundantly proves that divine gifts are richly conferred upon men. What more divine than the Holy Spirit? Yet it is written,[64]"And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever." What a higher privilege than filial adoption? Yet it is said,[65]"Ye have received the spirit of filial adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father." What a greater treasure than co-inheritance with Christ? Yet we read,[66]"but if children, also heirs: heirs of God, but joint heirs with Christ." What higher than the vision of God? Yet S. Paul bears witness,[67]"We see now through a glass darkly, but then face to face." What more wonderful than the power of remitting sins? Yet this very power is granted to the Apostles,[68]"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." What further from human weakness than the power of working miracles? Yet Christ establishes this,[69]"Amen, amen, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works which I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do." Indeed, the participation and communion of heavenly gifts have the closest coherence with that supernatural order, which God in creating man chose, and to which He called fallen man back through His only begotten Son; with that dispensation of Christ by which He loved the Apostles as He Himself was loved by the Father, by which He called them,[70]"not servants, but friends," and gave them thatglory which He had Himself received from the Father. And the tone of mind which denies Peter's prerogative as the Foundation of the Church, under pretence that it is an usurpation of divine power, tends to deny some one or all of the privileges just cited, and, as a fact, does deny some of them. It is[71]wonderful to see how only common and vulgar things are discerned by modern eyes, where the Fathers saw celestial and divine gifts. Those without the Church have fallen away as well from the several parts and privileges, from what may be called the standing order, of the Incarnation, as from its final purpose and scope; and it is much if they would not charge with blasphemy that glorious saying put forth by the greatest of the Eastern, as by the greatest of the Western Fathers, "that God became man, in order that man might become God."[72]

Was, then, S. Chrysostome wrong when he said that our Lord, in that passage of Matthew, showed a power equal to God the Father by the gifts which He bestowed on a poor fisherman? "He who gave to him the keys of the heavens, and made him Lord of such power, and needed not prayer for this, for He did not then say, I prayed, but, with authority, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of heaven."[73]Was he wrong when he called him "the chosen of the Apostles, the mouth-piece of the disciples, the head of the band, the ruler over the brethren?"[74]Or where he saw these prerogatives in the very name of Peter, observing, "When I say Peter, I mean the impregnable rock, the immovable foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples?"[75]

To sum up, then, what has been hitherto said, we have advanced so far as this; first the promise, and then the bestowal of a new name, expressing a singular pre-eminence, and in itspropersense befitting Christ alone, have distinguished Simon from the rest of the apostles. But much more the power signified by that name, and explained by the Lord Himself, carries far higher Peter's privilege, and indicates him to be the possessor of authority over the Apostles. For if Simon is the Rock of the Church, and if the property of Foundation, on which the structure of the Church rests, belongs to him immediately after Christ, and analogously with Christ, there arises this relation between Christ and Simon, that as He is first, and chiefly, and by inherent power, so Simon is secondarily, by participation and analogy, that which underlies, holds together, and supports the Apostles and the whole fabric of the Church.

Now such a relation carries with it not merely precedency of honour, but superior authority. The strength of the Apostles lay in their union with Christ, and subordination to Him. The like necessity of adhering to Peter is expressed in his new name. Take away that subordination, and you destroy the very image by which the Lord chose to express Peter's dignity; and you remove, likewise, Peter's participation in that property which the Lord communicated to him in the name of the Rock. For if the Apostles needed not to be joined with him, he had no title to be called the Foundation; and if he had no coactive power over the Apostles, he did not share the property by which Christ is the Rock and Foundation. Thus the name, and the dignity expressed by the name, show Peter to have been singly invested by the Lord with both honour and power superior to all the Apostles.[76]

FOOTNOTES:[1]John xvii.[2]Matt. xvi. 18.[3]Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.[4]Matt. v. 14; Psalm xlvii. 2; cxxxi. 13, 14.[5]1 Tim. iii. 15.[6]John x. 11-16.[7]Eph. v. 32, 30.[8]Mark iii. 13.[9]Dan. ix. 26.[10]1 John i. 1.[11]Luke xxii. 26.[12]Vid. John i. 42; Mark iii. 16; Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 32; John xxi. 15.[13]Passaglia, p. 35-7.[14]John i. 35-42.[15]S. Chrysostome on the text. S. Cyril on John i. 42.[16]Isai. xxviii. 16; Ps. cxvii. 22; Dan. ii. 35; Zach. iii. 9; Eph. ii. 20.[17]Theodoret on Dan. ii. 34.[18]Ambrose on Luke, Lib. 6, n. 97.[19]Serm. iv. 2.[20]For the name Boanerges, which in one place is given to the two sons of Zebedy, is in the first place a joint name; secondly, it is nowhere else referred to, and does not take the place of their birth-names; thirdly, it indicates not an official dignity, but an inward disposition. We cannot doubt that such a name bestowed on the two brothers was a mark of great distinction, but, for the above reasons, it cannot come into competition with the name of Peter. See Passaglia, p. 44, n. 38.[21]Mark iii. 14; Matt. x. 1; Luke vi. 14.[22]Cont. Marcion. L. 4, c. 13.[23]Apoc. xxii. 16; iii. 7.[24]S. Chris. on Matt. 16, Hom. 54.[25]S. Leo, Serm. 3 on his anniversary.[26]Hilary of Poitiers on Matt. xv. n. 6; on Ps. cxxxi. n. 4; on the Trinity, L. 6, n. 20. Gregory Naz. Orat. 26, p. 453. Ambrose in his first hymn, referred to also by Augustine, Retract. lib. 1, c. 21, and Epiph. in ancor. n. 9.[27]Tertullian de monogam. c. 8. Origen on Ps. 1, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. I. 6, c. 25. Cyprian, Ep. 71, and Firmilian, among Cyprian's letters, 75.[28]Basil cont. Eunom. lib. 2, n. 4. Zeno. lib. 2, tract. 13, n. 2.[29]By the same.[30]Epiphan. hær. 59, n. 7.[31]August. in Ps. cont. par. Donati. Leo, serm. 98.[32]Theodoret, ep. 77.[33]Maximus of Turin, serm. pro natali Petri et Pauli.[34]Greg. Nazian. in hom. archieratico inserta.[35]Origen on Exod. hom. 5, n. 4.[36]Gallican sacramentary, edited by Mabillon, T. I. Mus. Ital. p. 343. Synod of Ephesus, act. 3.[37]Peter Chrysologus, serm. 154.[38]Ambrose on Virginity, c. 16.[39]Ambrose on Luke, lib. 4, n. 70.[40]Chrysostome, hom. on debtor of ten thousand talents, Tom. 3, p. 4.[41]Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, in Act. 3 of Council of Ephesus.[42]Council of Chalcedon, act. 3. in deposing Dioscorus.[43]For the above references see Passaglia, p. 400.[44]Vid. Passaglia, p. 54, note 47.[45]Gen. x. 25; xvii. 19; xxx. 18; xii. 51, 52.[46]Gen. xxv. 26; xxvii. 36; xxv. 25; xxv. 30; Exod. ii. 10; 1 Macc. ii. 4; Mark iii. 17.[47]Isai. vii. 3; Os. i. 4, 6, 9; Gen. v. 29; xxxii. 28; Numb. xiii. 17; Gen. xvii. 15; Matt. iii. 1.[48]Passaglia, p. 51.[49]Passaglia, p. 52.[50]Gen. xii. 1; Mark 1. 16, 17; Luke v. 10.[51]Gen. xii. 4; Mark i. 18.[52]Gen. xvii. 5; John i. 42.[53]Gen. xxii. 1; Matt. xvi. 15; John xxi. 15.[54]Gen. xxii. 10; Matt. xvi. 16; John xxi. 15.[55]Gen. xviii. 17; Acts x. 10; xv. 7; Luke xxii. 32.[56]Gal. iii. 7.[57]Gal. iii. 16.[58]Matt. i. 1.[59]Is. xxviii. 16; Eph. ii. 21.[60]Passaglia, p. 58.[61]Ps. lxxxii. 6, with John x. 34.[62]1 Cor. iii. 11.[63]Matt. xxiii. 9.[64]John xiv. 16.[65]Rom. viii. 15.[66]Rom. viii. 17.[67]1 Cor. xiii. 12.[68]John xx. 23.[69]John xiv. 12.[70]John xv. 9, 15.[71]Passaglia, p. 442. n. 38.[72][Greek: O tou Theou Logos enênthrhôpêsen H hina hêmeis theopoiêthômen.] St. Athan. de Incarn. Factus est Deus homo, ut homo fieret deus. St. Aug. Serm. 13, de Temp.[73]S. Chrys. Tom. vii. 786. Hom. 82, in Matt.[74]Tom. viii. 525. Hom. 88, in Joan.[75]Hom. 3, de Pœnitentia. Tom. ii. 300.[76]Passaglia, p. 48, 9.

[1]John xvii.

[2]Matt. xvi. 18.

[3]Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

[4]Matt. v. 14; Psalm xlvii. 2; cxxxi. 13, 14.

[5]1 Tim. iii. 15.

[6]John x. 11-16.

[7]Eph. v. 32, 30.

[8]Mark iii. 13.

[9]Dan. ix. 26.

[10]1 John i. 1.

[11]Luke xxii. 26.

[12]Vid. John i. 42; Mark iii. 16; Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 32; John xxi. 15.

[13]Passaglia, p. 35-7.

[14]John i. 35-42.

[15]S. Chrysostome on the text. S. Cyril on John i. 42.

[16]Isai. xxviii. 16; Ps. cxvii. 22; Dan. ii. 35; Zach. iii. 9; Eph. ii. 20.

[17]Theodoret on Dan. ii. 34.

[18]Ambrose on Luke, Lib. 6, n. 97.

[19]Serm. iv. 2.

[20]For the name Boanerges, which in one place is given to the two sons of Zebedy, is in the first place a joint name; secondly, it is nowhere else referred to, and does not take the place of their birth-names; thirdly, it indicates not an official dignity, but an inward disposition. We cannot doubt that such a name bestowed on the two brothers was a mark of great distinction, but, for the above reasons, it cannot come into competition with the name of Peter. See Passaglia, p. 44, n. 38.

[21]Mark iii. 14; Matt. x. 1; Luke vi. 14.

[22]Cont. Marcion. L. 4, c. 13.

[23]Apoc. xxii. 16; iii. 7.

[24]S. Chris. on Matt. 16, Hom. 54.

[25]S. Leo, Serm. 3 on his anniversary.

[26]Hilary of Poitiers on Matt. xv. n. 6; on Ps. cxxxi. n. 4; on the Trinity, L. 6, n. 20. Gregory Naz. Orat. 26, p. 453. Ambrose in his first hymn, referred to also by Augustine, Retract. lib. 1, c. 21, and Epiph. in ancor. n. 9.

[27]Tertullian de monogam. c. 8. Origen on Ps. 1, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. I. 6, c. 25. Cyprian, Ep. 71, and Firmilian, among Cyprian's letters, 75.

[28]Basil cont. Eunom. lib. 2, n. 4. Zeno. lib. 2, tract. 13, n. 2.

[29]By the same.

[30]Epiphan. hær. 59, n. 7.

[31]August. in Ps. cont. par. Donati. Leo, serm. 98.

[32]Theodoret, ep. 77.

[33]Maximus of Turin, serm. pro natali Petri et Pauli.

[34]Greg. Nazian. in hom. archieratico inserta.

[35]Origen on Exod. hom. 5, n. 4.

[36]Gallican sacramentary, edited by Mabillon, T. I. Mus. Ital. p. 343. Synod of Ephesus, act. 3.

[37]Peter Chrysologus, serm. 154.

[38]Ambrose on Virginity, c. 16.

[39]Ambrose on Luke, lib. 4, n. 70.

[40]Chrysostome, hom. on debtor of ten thousand talents, Tom. 3, p. 4.

[41]Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, in Act. 3 of Council of Ephesus.

[42]Council of Chalcedon, act. 3. in deposing Dioscorus.

[43]For the above references see Passaglia, p. 400.

[44]Vid. Passaglia, p. 54, note 47.

[45]Gen. x. 25; xvii. 19; xxx. 18; xii. 51, 52.

[46]Gen. xxv. 26; xxvii. 36; xxv. 25; xxv. 30; Exod. ii. 10; 1 Macc. ii. 4; Mark iii. 17.

[47]Isai. vii. 3; Os. i. 4, 6, 9; Gen. v. 29; xxxii. 28; Numb. xiii. 17; Gen. xvii. 15; Matt. iii. 1.

[48]Passaglia, p. 51.

[49]Passaglia, p. 52.

[50]Gen. xii. 1; Mark 1. 16, 17; Luke v. 10.

[51]Gen. xii. 4; Mark i. 18.

[52]Gen. xvii. 5; John i. 42.

[53]Gen. xxii. 1; Matt. xvi. 15; John xxi. 15.

[54]Gen. xxii. 10; Matt. xvi. 16; John xxi. 15.

[55]Gen. xviii. 17; Acts x. 10; xv. 7; Luke xxii. 32.

[56]Gal. iii. 7.

[57]Gal. iii. 16.

[58]Matt. i. 1.

[59]Is. xxviii. 16; Eph. ii. 21.

[60]Passaglia, p. 58.

[61]Ps. lxxxii. 6, with John x. 34.

[62]1 Cor. iii. 11.

[63]Matt. xxiii. 9.

[64]John xiv. 16.

[65]Rom. viii. 15.

[66]Rom. viii. 17.

[67]1 Cor. xiii. 12.

[68]John xx. 23.

[69]John xiv. 12.

[70]John xv. 9, 15.

[71]Passaglia, p. 442. n. 38.

[72][Greek: O tou Theou Logos enênthrhôpêsen H hina hêmeis theopoiêthômen.] St. Athan. de Incarn. Factus est Deus homo, ut homo fieret deus. St. Aug. Serm. 13, de Temp.

[73]S. Chrys. Tom. vii. 786. Hom. 82, in Matt.

[74]Tom. viii. 525. Hom. 88, in Joan.

[75]Hom. 3, de Pœnitentia. Tom. ii. 300.

[76]Passaglia, p. 48, 9.

Having promised[1]and bestowed on Simon a new name, prophetic of the peculiar position which he was to occupy in the Church, and having set forth the meaning contained in that name in terms so large and magnificent, that, as we have seen, the greatest saints and fathers have felt it impossible to exhaust their force, our Lord proceeded toeducatePeter, so to say, for his especial charge of supreme ruler. He bestowed upon him, in the course of His ministry, tokens of preference which agree with the title thus solemnly conferred; and He instructed him with all the care which we should expect to be given to one who was to become the chief doctor of Christians. Such instruction may be said to consist in two things, a more complete knowledge of the Christian revelation, and a singular apprehension of its divine proofs.

Now, innumerable as are the particulars in which the Christian revelation consists, they may yet be gathered up mainly into two points, which meet in the Person of our Lord, and are termed by the ancient fathers who have followed this division, theTheology, and theEconomy. There is the Divine Nature, that "form of God," which our Lord had from the beginning in the bosom of the Father; and there is the human nature, that "form of a servant," which "in the economy or dispensation of the fulness of times" He assumed, in order that He might purchase the Church with His blood, and[2]"re-establish all things inheaven and on earth." All, therefore, in the Christian faith which concerns "the form of God" is termed the Theology; all which contemplates "the form of a servant," the Economy.

But the heavenly origin and certain truth of both these parts of Christian faith are proved partly by the fulfilment of prophecy, and partly by the working of miracles. To both our Lord perpetually appealed, and His apostles after Him, and those who have followed them. One, then, who was to be the chief ruler and doctor of Christians, needed especial instruction in the Theology, and Economy, especial assurance of the fulfilment of prophecy, and the working of miraculous power. Now Peter was specially selected for this instruction and that assurance.

The whole teaching of our Lord, indeed, and the innumerable acts of power and words of grace with which it was fraught, were calculated to convey these to all the Apostles. But while they were witnesses in common of that teaching in general, some parts of it were disclosed only to Peter and the two sons of Zebedy. Perhaps there is no incident in the Gospel history, which set forth in so lively a manner, and so convincingly proved, the mysteries concerning the union of "the form of God" and "the form of a servant," as the Transfiguration. The retreat to the "high mountain apart," and in the midst of that solitary prayer, "the face shining as the sun," and "the robes white as light," the presence of Moses and Elias, conversing with Him on the great sacrifice for sin, "the bright cloud which encompassed them," and the voice from out of it, proclaiming "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear Him;" so impressed themselves on the great Apostle, that after long years he appealed to them in proof that he and his brethren had not taught "cunningly devisedfables, when they made known the power and presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, but had been eyewitnesses of His majesty, when He received from God the Father honour and glory, this voice coming down to Him from the excellent glory, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I have pleased myself: hear ye Him.' And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with Him in the holy mount." Among all the Apostle's experience of the three years' ministry, by the shore and on the waves of the lake of Galilee, in the cornfields, or on the mountain side, in the noon-day heat, or midnight storm, even in the throng which cried 'Hosannah!' and 'Crucify Him!' this stood out, until "the laying aside of his fleshly tabernacle," as "the Lord had signified to Him."[3]For[4]what indeed was not there? the plurality of persons in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, the true, and not adopted, Sonship of the latter, His divine mission unto men; the new order of things resulting from it, and the summing up under one head of all things in heaven and in earth; the sealing up and accomplishing of the law and the prophets, by the presence of their representatives, Moses and Elias, a most wonderful and transporting miracle; and the command implicitly to obey Him in whom the Father was well pleased. Thus the Transfiguration may be termed the summing up of the whole Christian revelation.

But now of this we read that "after six days Jesus taketh unto HimPeter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart." These three alone of the twelve. Yet does He not associate the sons of Zebedy with Peter in this privilege? Needful no doubt it was that so splendid an act should have a suitable number of witnesses, and that as His future glory shouldhave[5]three witnesses from heaven, and as many from earth, so this, its rudimental beginning, should be attested by three as from heaven, God the Father, Moses, and Elias, and by three from earth, Peter, James, and John. Dear to Him likewise, next to Peter, and most privileged after Peter, were the sons of Zebedy; yet a distinction is seen in the mode in which they are treated even when joined together in so great a privilege. For in all the three accounts Peter is named first; "He taketh to Him Peter, and James, and John." They likewise are called by their birth-name, he by his prophetic appellation of the Rock; they are silent, but he speaks; "Peter answering, said;" nor only speaks, but in the name of all; "It is goodfor usto be here," as if their leader. And, fifthly, he is named specially, they as his companions; "but Peter,and they that were with him, were heavy with sleep."[6]Thus even when three are associated in a special privilege above the Twelve, Peter is distinguished among the three.

But if there was one other occasion on which above all "the form of the servant" was to be set forth in the most awful, and the most endearing light, it was on that evening, "the hour" of evil men and "the power of darkness," when "the righteous servant who should justify many" was about to perform the great, central, crowning act of His mediation. Then we read that "He said to His disciples, Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray."[7]And then immediately "taking with Him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedy, He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad." Yet here again, even in the association with the sons of Zebedy, Simon is distinguished, for he is named first; and by the illustrious name of Peter, the Rock; and as the leader of the others, for, says Matthew, Christ after His first prayer,"comes to His disciples, and finds them sleeping, andsays to Peter, What, couldyenot watch with me one hour?" Why the change of number, Peter in the singular,yein the plural? Why the blame of Peter, involving the blame of the rest? Because the members are censured in the head.

In these two signal instances our Lord, while preferring Peter and the two sons of Zebedy to the rest of the Twelve, yet marks a gradation likewise between them and Peter. And these two set forth the Theology and Economy, in the most emphatic manner.

And as the supreme preceptor must not only be acquainted with the truth which he has to deliver, but with the evidence on which it rests, so is Peter specially made a witness of his Lord's "power and presence" and "the works which no other man did." In that remarkable miracle of raising to life the ruler of the synagogue's daughter we read, "He admitted not any man to follow Him, but Peter and James, and John the brother of James;"[8]where, as before, and always, Peter is mentioned first, and by the prophetic name of his Primacy.

From[9]all which we gather four points; 1. Several things are mentioned in the Gospels which Christ gave to Peter, and not to the rest of the Apostles: 2. But nothing which He gave to them together, and not to Peter with them. 3. What He seemed to give to them in common, yet accrue to Peter in a special manner, who appears among the Apostles not as one out of the number, but their destined head, by the name, that is, of Peter, so markedly promised, bestowed, and wonderfully explained by our Lord, of which, as we have seen, S. Chrysostome, an eastern Patriarch, as well as a great Saint and Father, observed,"When I say Peter, I mean the impregnable Rock, the immovable foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples." 4. Either we are not to take Christ's dealing as the standard of Peter's dignity, and destination, or we must admit that he was preferred to the rest, and made the supreme teacher of the faithful.

S. Matthew records the incidents of the officers asking for the payment of the didrachma which all the children of Israel were bound to contribute to the temple; and his words show us a fresh instance of honour done to Peter, and a fresh note of his superiority. "When they were come to Capharnaum, they that received the didrachma came to Peter and said to him, Doth not your master pay the didrachma?"[10]But why should they come tohim, and ask, not ifhismaster, but "your" master, the master of all the Apostles, paid the census, save that it was apparent, even to strangers, that Peter was the first and most prominent of the company? Why use him rather than any of the others, for the purpose of approaching Christ? "As Peter seemed to be first of the disciples," says S. Chrysostome, on the text, "they go to him." The context naturally suggests this reason, and the ancient commentators remarked it. But what follows is much more striking. Peter answered, Yes, that is, that his master observed all the laws of Moses, and this among the number. As he went home he purposed, no doubt, to ask our Lord about this payment, but "when he was come into the house Jesus prevented him," having in His omniscience seen and heard all that had passed, and He proceeded to speak words involving His own high dignity, followed by a singular trial of Peter's faith, and as marked a reward of it when tried. "What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, ofwhom do they receive tribute or custom? of their own children or of strangers? And he said, Of strangers. Jesus said to him, Then the children are free." Slight words in seeming, yet declaring in fact that most wonderful truth which had formed so shortly before Peter's confession, and drawn down upon him the yet unexhausted promise; for they expressed, I am as truly the natural Son of that God, the Sovereign of the temple, for whom this tribute is paid, as the children of earthly sovereigns, who take tribute, are their sons by nature. Therefore by right I am free. "But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea and cast in a hook; and that fish which shall first come up, take; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater; take that and give it to them for Me and thee." Declaring to His favoured disciple afresh that He is the true, and not the adopted, Son of God, answering his thoughts by anticipation, and expressing His knowledge of absent things by the power of the Son of God, He tries his faith by the promise of a fresh miracle, which involved a like exercise of divine power. Peter, in proceeding to execute His command, must make that confession afresh by deed, which he had made before by word, and which his Lord had just repeated with His own mouth. How else could he go to the lake expecting to draw at the first cast a fish in whose mouth he should find a coin containing the exact amount due to the temple for two persons? But what followed? What but a most remarkable reward for the faith which he should show? "Take that and give it to them for Me and thee." There are looks, there are tones of the voice, which convey to us more than language. So, too, there are acts so exceedingly suggestive, that without in anyformalway proving, they carry with them the force of the strongest proof. And so, perhaps, never did our Lord in amore marked mannerassociatePeter with Himself than here. It was a singular distinction which could not fail to strike every one who heard it. Thus S. Chrysostome exclaims,[11]"You see the exceeding greatness of the honour;" and he adds, "wherefore, too, in reward for his faith He connected him with Himself in the payment of the tribute;" and he remarks on Peter's modesty, "for Mark, the disciple of Peter, seems not to have recorded this incident, because it pointed out the great honour bestowed on him; but he did record his denial, while he was silent as to the points which made him conspicuous, his Master perhaps begging him not to say great things about him." Indeed,howcould one of the disciples be more signally pointed out than by this incident, as "the faithful and wise steward, whom the Lord would set over His household, to give them their portion of food in due time?"

Other fathers, as well as S. Chrysostome, did not fail to see such a meaning in this passage; but let us take the words of Origen as pointing out the connection of this incident with the important question following. His words are: "It seems to me that (the disciples) considering this a very great honour which had been done to Peter by Jesus, in having put him higher than the rest of His disciples, they wished to make sure of what they suspected by asking Jesus and hearing His answer, whether, as they conceived, He judged Peter to be greater than them; and they also hoped to learn the cause for which Peter was preferred to the rest of the disciples. Matthew, then, wishing to signify this by these words, "take that and give it to them for Me and thee," added, "on that day the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?"[12]

For, indeed, why should they immediately ask this question? The preceding incident furnishes a natural and sufficient cause. The Apostles, it seems, were urged by the plainness of Christ's words and acts to inquire who among them should have the chief authority. Who will not agree with S. Chrysostome: "The Apostles were touched with a human infirmity, which the Evangelist too signifies in the words, 'in that hour,' when He had honoured him (Peter) before them all. For though of James and John one of the two was the first-born," (alluding to an opinion that the tax was paid by the first-born,) "He did nothing like it for them. Hence, being ashamed, they confessed their excitement of mind, and do not say plainly, Why hast thou preferred Peter to us? Is he greater than we are? For this they did not dare; but they ask indefinitely, Who is the greater? For when they saw three preferred to the rest, they felt nothing like this; but when one received so great an honour, they were pained. Nor were they kindled by this alone, but by putting together many other things. For He had said to him, 'I will give to thee the keys,' and 'Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,' and here 'Give it to them for Me and for thee;' and also they were pricked at seeing his confidence and freedom of speech."[13]

Thus their question, if it did not express, at least suggested this meaning, "Speak more plainly and distinctly whether Peter is to be the greater and the chief in the Church, and accordingly among us," and so they seem to have drawn from our Lord's act a conclusion which they did not see in the promising or bestowing the prophetic name of Peter, nor even in the promises conveyed inexplaining that name, and were vexed at the preference shown to him.

And if[14]any be inclined to conclude from hence that our Lord's words and acts to Peter had not been of any marked significancy, they should be reminded that the very clearest and plainest things were sometimes not understood by the Apostles, before the descent of the Holy Spirit on them. This was specially the case with the things which they were disinclined to believe. Thus our Lord again and again foretold to them His passion in express terms, but we are told, "they understood none of these things."[15]He foretold, too, His resurrection, yet they did not the least expect it, and they became at length fully assured of the fact before they remembered the prediction. Strange as these things seem, yet probably everyone's private experience will furnish him with similar instances of a veil being cast upon his eyes, which prevented his discerning the most evident things, towards which there was generally some secret disinclination.

But[16]how did our Lord answer their question? Did He remove at once the ground of their jealousy by declaring that in the kingdom of heaven no one should have pre-eminence of dignity, but the condition of all be equal? On the contrary, He condemns ambition and enjoins humility, but likewise gives such a turn to His discourse as to insinuate that there would be one pre-eminent over the rest.[17]"Jesus calling unto Him a little child, set him in the midst of them, and said, Amen I say unto you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom ofheaven." Then He adds, "whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." Thus He did not exclude the pre-eminence of that "greater one," about which they asked, but pointed out what his character ought to be. But this will be much clearer from a like enquiry, and the answer to it, recorded by S. Luke.

For even at the last supper, our Lord having told them that He should be betrayed, and was going to leave them in the way determined for Him, there was not only an enquiry among them which of them should do that thing, but also, so keenly were their minds as yet, before the coming down of the Holy Spirit, alive to the desire of pre-eminence, and so strongly were they persuaded that such a superior had not been excluded by Christ, but rather marked out and ordained, "there was a strife among them which of them should seem to be greater." Now our Lord meets their contention thus: "The[18]kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so; but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; 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. And 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 in My kingdom; and may sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Back to Index Next