FOOTNOTES:

When they had seen thatAs to Peter was that ofto me was committed the Gospelthe circumcision,of the uncircumcision,For He who wrought inWrought in me also amongPeter, to the Apostleship ofthe Gentiles,the circumcision,[15]James, and Cephas, andGave to me and BarnabasJohn, who seemed to bethe right hand of fellowship;pillars,

where it would appear that James and John stand in the like relation to Cephas, as Barnabas and Titus, just before mentioned, to Paul. And S. Chrysostome, who, it must be remarked, reads Cephas, and not James, first, as do some manuscripts and many Fathers, observes, "where it was requisite to compare himself, he mentions Peter only, but were to call a testimony, he names three together and with praise, saying, 'Cephas, and James, and John, who seemed to be pillars.'" And further, Paul "shows himself to be of the same rank with them, and matches himself not with the rest, but with the leader, showing that each of them enjoyed the same dignity,"[16]that is, of theApostolic commission, and the divine cooperation. And Ambrosiaster explains the parallel: "Paul names Peter only, and compares him to himself, as having received the Primacyfor the founding of the Church, he being in like manner elected to hold a Primacyin founding the Churches of the Gentiles, yet so that Peter, if occasion might be, should preach to the Gentiles, and Paul to the Jews. For both are found to have done both." And presently, "by the Apostles who were the more illustrious among the rest, whom for their stability he names pillars, and who were ever in the Lord's secret council, being worthy to behold His glory on the mount," (where Ambrosiaster confuses James, the brother of the Lord, with James the brother of John,) "by these he declares to have been approved the gift which he received from God, that he should be worthy to hold the Primacy in the preaching of the Gentiles, as Peter held it in the preaching of the circumcision.And as he assigns to Peter for companions distinguished men among the Apostles, so he joins Barnabas to himself; yet he claims to himself alone the grace of the Primacy as granted by God, like as to Peter alone it was granted among the Apostles.[17]

Now Baronius proves that the above words cannot be taken of a division of jurisdiction, and that the singular dignity of Peter is marked in them. "For as a mark of his excellence Christ Himself, who came to save all men, with whom there is no distinction of Jew and Greek, was yet called 'minister of the circumcision,' by Paul, (Rom. xv. 8,) a title of dignity, according to Paul's own words, for theirs was 'the adoption of children, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,' while 'theGentiles praise God for His mercy,' But just as Christ our Lord was so called minister of the circumcision, as yet to be the Pastor and Saviour of all, so Peter too was called the minister of the circumcision, in such sense as yet to be by the Lord constituted (Acts ix. 32,) pastor and ruler of the whole flock. Whence S. Leo, 'out of the whole world Peter alone is chosen to preside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the Apostles, and the collected Fathers of the Church, so that though there be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter rules all by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules by Sovereign power.'"[18]

The parallel, then, drawn by Paul between himself and Peter, distinctly conveys that as he was superior to Barnabas and Titus, and used their cooperation, so was Peter among the Apostles, and specially the chief ones, James and John, as their leader and head. For what is the meaning of the words, "He who wrought in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision?" Was the Apostleship of the circumcision entrusted to Peter only? It needs no proof that it was also entrusted to James and John, nay, Paul himself immediately says so, "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, thatweshould go unto the Gentiles, andtheyunto the circumcision." Why then does Paul so express himself as to intimate that the Gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter only? For the same reason that he said that to himself "was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision," and that God "wrought in me also among the Gentiles." Now Barnabas likewise had been[19]separated by the Holy Ghost Himself for the Gentile mission; Barnabas,too, and Titus were discharging the office of ambassadors for Christ among the Gentiles: "thatwe," Paul says, not I, "should go to the Gentiles." The terms, therefore, used by Paul both of himself and Peter, do notexcludethe rest, but express thesuperiorityof the one named singly before the rest, as if he alone held the charge. Their fittest interpretation, then, will be, "The Apostles saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was no less given to meabovethe rest, than the Gospel of the circumcision to Peterabovethe rest; for He who wrought in Peterabovethe rest in the Gospel of the circumcision, wrought also in meabovethe rest in the Gospel of the uncircumcision." But what can set forth S. Peter's dignity more remarkably than to exhibit him in the same light of superiority among the original Apostles, as S. Paul was among S. Barnabas and his other fellow-workers?

Further confirmation of this is given by the argument with which he refutes the calumny urged against him of disagreement with the Apostles. For while he appeals to themin general, and to his union with them, he likewisespecifiesthe point which favoured that union. It was the parallel between himself and Peter, as we have seen; it was the exact resemblance between his mission and that of Peter, which was the cause of their joining hands: they approve Paul's Apostleship because they see that it follows the type of Peter's.

And other words of Paul which follow, prove not only the point of his own cause, but the source of Peter's singular privileges. "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed: for before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were comehe withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?" For why did Paul here censure Peteronly? By his own account not only Peter, but the rest, and Barnabas himself amongst them, set apart as he was by the Holy Ghost to preach to the Gentiles, did not defend Christian liberty, as they ought to have done. Why, then, does he single out Peter among all these, resist him to the face, and so firmly censure all, in his person? No answer can be given but one: that by this dissembling of Peter the zealots of the law gathered double courage to press against Paul their calumny of dissension from Peter, and to infer that he had run in vain, from the indulgence which Peter showed; that Peter's authority with all was so great that his example drew the pastors and their flocks alike to his side, and that it was requisite to correct the members in the head. From this S. Chrysostome proves that it was really the Apostle Peter, which some, as we shall soon see, denied: "For to say, that I resisted him to the face, and to put this as a great thing, was to show that he had not reverenced the dignity of his person. But had he said it of another, that I resisted him to the face, he would not have put it as a great thing. Again, if it had been another Peter, his change would have not had such force as to draw the rest of the Jews with him. For he used no exhortation, nor advice, but merely dissembled, andseparated himself, and that dissembling and separation had power to draw after him all the disciples,on account of the dignity of his person."[20]Again, another writer of the fourth century tells us this: "Therefore he inveighs against Peter alone, in order that the rest might learn in the person of him who is the first."[21]It was, then, Peter's primacy, and the necessity of agreeing with him thence arising, which led Paul to resist him publicly, and, disregarding the conduct of the rest, to direct an admonition to him alone. "So great," S. Jerome tells us, on these two passages, "was Peter's authority, that Paul in his epistle wrote, 'Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.' And again in what follows, 'After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,'showing that he had no security in preaching the Gospel, unless it were confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those who were with him."[22]

But this passage,[23]concerning the reprehension of S. Peter by S. Paul, has afforded so signal an instance "of the unlearned and unstable wresting Scripture to their own proper destruction,"[24]that we must dwell a little longer upon it. First, the Gnostics and the Marcionites quoted it to accuse the Apostles of ignorance, and to favour their own claim to a progressive light. In Peter, they would have it, there was still a taint of Judaism. Next Porphyry, who "raged against Christ like a mad dog,"[25]tried by this passage to weaken theauthority of the Apostles, and to convict Paul of ambition and rashness, who censured the first of the Apostles and the leader of the band, not privately, but openly before all, as S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome tell us. Julian the apostate succeeded these, and tried, by means of Paul's contention with Peter, to bring discredit on the religion itself. For who, he asked, could value a religion whose chief teachers were guilty of hypocrisy, ignorance, and ambition? And in complete accordance with the spirit of these, all, who, since the sixteenth century, have attempted to impugn S. Peter's prerogatives, have rested their chief effort on the exaggeration and distortion of this reprehension. "This," says Baronius, "is the stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, on which a great number have dashed themselves. For those, who without any diligent consideration have superficially interpreted a difficult statement, have gone so far in their folly as either to accuse Paul of rashness for having inveighed against Peter not merely with freedom, but wantonness, or to calumniate Peter as a hypocrite, for acting with dissimulation; or to condemn both, for not agreeing in the same rule of faith."[26]

In most remarkable contrast with these stand out three several interpretations, which prevailed in early times, all differing from each other in points, but all equally careful to maintain the dignity of Peter, and to clear up the conduct of Paul. First, from S. Clement of Alexandria in the second century up to S. Chrysostome in the fourth, we find a number of Greek writers asserting that it was not the Apostle Peter, who was here meant, but another; S. Jerome gives their reasons thus: "there are those who think that Cephas, whom Paul here writes that he resistedto the face, was not the Apostle Peter, but another of the seventy disciples so called, and they allege that Peter could not have withdrawn himself from eating with the Gentiles, for he had baptized Cornelius the centurion, and on his ascending to Jerusalem, being opposed by those of the circumcision who said, 'why hast thou entered in to men uncircumcised, and eaten with them?' after narrating the vision, he terminates his answer thus: 'If, then, God hath given to them the same grace as to us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should withstand God?' On hearing which they were silent, and glorified God, saying: 'Therefore to the Gentiles, also, God hath given repentance unto life.' Especially as Luke, the writer of the history, makes no mention of this dissension, nor even says that Peter was at Antioch with Paul; and occasion would be given to Porphyry's blasphemies,if we could believe either that Peter had erred, or that Paul had impertinently censured the prince of the Apostles."[27]

But this interpretation, contrary both to internal evidence and to early tradition, and suggested only by the anxiety to defend S. Peter's dignity, did not prevail. Another succeeded, supported by S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, and the greatest Greek commentators, and for a long time by S. Jerome, even more remarkably opposed to the apparent sense of the passage, and only, as it would seem, dictated by the same desire to defend the dignity of S. Peter, and the conduct of S. Paul. Admitting that it was really Peter who was here mentioned, they maintained that it was not a real dissension between the two Apostles, but apparent only, and arranged both by the one and the other, to terminate the question more decidedly.S. Chrysostome[28]sets forth at great length this opinion: "Do you see," says he, "how S. Paul accounts himself the least of all saints, not of Apostles only? Now he who was so disposed with respect to all, both knew how great a prerogative Peter ought to enjoy, and reverenced him most of all men, and was disposed towards him as he deserved. And this is a proof. The whole earth was looking to Paul; there rested on his spirit the solicitude for the Churches of all the world. A thousand matters engaged him every day; he was besieged with appointments, commands, corrections, counsels, exhortations, teachings, the administration of endless business; yet giving up all these, he went to Jerusalem. And there was no other occasion for this journey save to see Peter, as he says himself: 'I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter.' Thus he honoured him, and preferred him to all men." Suspecting, too, that an accusation against Peter's unwavering faith, might be brought from the words, "fearing those of the circumcision," he breaks out, 'What say you? Peter fearful and unmanly? Was he not for this called Peter, that his faith was immovable? What are you doing, friend? Reverence the name given by the Lord to the disciple. Peter fearful and unmanly! Who will endure you saying such things?'"

Now compare[29]together these two interpretations of the Greek Fathers with that of the reformers and their adherents since the sixteenth century. A more complete antagonism of feelings and principles cannot be conceived. I. There is not a Greek Father who does not infer the singular authority of Peter from the first and second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. There is not an adherentof the reformers who does not trust that he can draw from those same chapters matter to impugn S. Peter's Primacy. II. The Greek Fathers anxiously search out every point which may conduce to Peter's praise. The adherent of the reformers suppresses all such, and seems not to see them. III. If anything in Paul's account seems at first sight to tell against Peter's special dignity, the Greek Fathers are studious carefully to remove it; the adherents of the reformers to exaggerate it. IV. The Greek Fathers prefer slightly to force the obvious meaning of the words, and to desert the original interpretation, rather than set Apostles at variance with each other, or admit that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, was not treated with due deference. The adherents of the reformers intensify everything, take it in the worst sense, and are the more at home, the more bitterly they inveigh against Peter.

Now turn to the third interpretation, that of the Latin Fathers. They admit both that it was Peter and that it was a real dissension, but they are as anxious as the Greek to defend Peter's dignity. Thus Tertullian:[30]"If Peter was blamed—certainly it was a fault ofconduct, not ofpreaching." And Cyprian:[31]"not even Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disagreed with him respecting circumcision, claimed aught proudly, or assumed aught arrogantly to himself, saying that he held the Primacy, and that obedience rather was due to him by those younger and later." And Augustine: "Peter himself received with the piety of a holy and benignant humility what was with advantage done by Paul in the freedom of charity. And so he gave to posterity a rarer and a holier example, that they should not disdain, if perchance they left the right track,to be corrected even by their youngers,than Paul, that eveninferiorsmight confidently venture to resistsuperiors, maintaining brotherly charity, in the defence of evangelical truth. For better as it is on no occasion to quit the proper path, yet much more wonderful and praiseworthy is it, willingly to accept correction, than boldly to correct deviation. Paul then has the praise of just liberty, andPeter of holy humility: which, so far as seems to me according to my small measure, had been a better defence against the calumnies of Porphyry, than the giving him greater occasion of finding fault: for it would be a much more stinging accusation that Christians should with deceit either write their epistles, or bear the mysteries of their God."[32]

Now, to see the[33]fundamental opposition between the Greek and Latin Fathers, and the reformers, let us observe that, though there are three ancient interpretations of this passage, differing from each other, the first denying that the Cephas so reprehended by Paul, was the chief of the Apostles, the second affirming this, but reducing the whole contention to an arrangement of prudence between the two Apostles, and the third maintaining the reality of the reprehension, yet all three have in common the reconciling Peter's chief dignity with the reprehension of him, and the two latter, besides, are much more careful to admire his modesty, than Paul's liberty, and make the most of every point in the narration setting forth Peter's Primacy. On the other hand the reformers use this reprehension as their sharpest weapon against his authority, praise Paul's liberty to the utmost in order to depress that authority, hunt out everything against Peter, and pass over everything for him. It is equally evident that their motive in this runs counter to the faith universal in the Church during the first four centuries; and that their inference cannot beaccepted without rejecting all Christian antiquity, and the very sentiments expressed by Paul himself, as we have seen, towards Peter.

But as to the reprehension itself, it would seem to have been not on a point ofdoctrineat all, but ofconduct. S. Peter had long ago both admitted the Gentiles into the Church, and declared that they were not bound to the Jewish law. But out of regard to the feelings of the circumcised converts, he pursued a line of conduct at Antioch, which they mistook to mean an approval of their error, and which needed, therefore, to be publicly cleared up. Accordingly, Peter's fault, if any there were, amounted to this, that having, with the best intention, done what was not forbidden, he had not sufficiently foreseen what others would thence infer contrary to his own intention. Can this be esteemed either a dogmatic error, or a proof of his not holding supreme authority? But theeventbeing injurious, and contrary to the truth of the Gospel, why should not Paul admonish Peter concerning it? But very remarkable it is, that he quotes S. Peter's own example and authority, opposes the antecedent to the consequent fact, and maintains Gospel liberty by Peter's own conduct. S. Chrysostome remarked this. "Observe his prudence. He said not to him, Thou dost wrong, in living as a Jew, but he alleges his former mode of living, that the admonition and the counsel may seem to come not from Paul's mind, but from the judgment of Peter already expressed. For had he said, Thou dost wrong to keep the law, Peter's disciples would have blamed him, but now, hearing that this admonition and correction came not from Paul's judgment, but that Peter himself so lived, and held in his mind this belief, whether they would, or would not, they were obliged to be quiet."[34]

FOOTNOTES:[1]Passaglia, p. 206.[2]1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 22; ix. 5: xv. 5.[3]Passaglia, p. 124-6.[4]S. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Hom. 3, n. 2. Theodoret on text.[5]2 Cor. viii. 23; Rom. xvi. 7.[6]John vii. 5.[7]In 1 Cor. Hom. 21. n. 2.[8]Passaglia, p. 208.[9]Gal. i. 16-19.[10]Theodoret and Chrysostome on the text, and on John, Hom. 88.[11]De Præsc. c. 23.[12]Comm. in Gal. i. 18. Mai nova collectio. Tom. 3.[13]Ambrosiaster and S. Jerome on the text.[14]S. Thomas Cant. Epist. Lib. i, 97.[15]An argument has been drawn by some against S. Peter's primacy from S. Paul here placing S. James first. Now as to this we must remark that some most ancient manuscripts, and the original Latin version, read "Peter, and James, and John," and that this is followed by Tertullian, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Theodoret, Jerome, Irenæus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cassiodorus, of whom Jerome is the more important, in that he had studied so many ancient commentaries before writing his own. But supposing that the vulgar reading is the true one, Peter's being once placed by S. Paul between S. James and S. John will not counterbalance the vast positive evidence for his primacy. Those who wish to see the probable reasons why S. James was here placed first, may consult Passaglia, b. 1, c. 14, who treats of the question at length. Perhaps S. Paul, narrating historically a past incident, recalled them to his recollectionin the order of time, in which they received him: and S. James, residing constantly at Jerusalem, might very probably have seen him first.[16]S. Chrys. in Gal. c. 2.[17]Comm. on Gal. ii. 7, 8.[18]Baron. Ann.A. D.51. § 29. S. Leo. Serm. 4.[19]Acts xiii. 2.[20]Hom. on, I resisted Him to the face, n. 15.[21]Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii. 14.[22]Epist. inter. Augustin. 75, n. 8.[23]Passaglia, p. 217.[24]2 Pet. iii. 16.[25]S. Jerome.[26]Ad. Ann. 51, § 32.[27]S. Jerome on Gal. ch. 2.[28]Homily on the text, I resisted him to the face, n. 8, Tom. 3, p. 368.[29]Passaglia, p. 232.[30]De Præse. c. 24.[31]Cyprian, Ep. 71.[32]Ep. 82, n. 22.[33]Passaglia, p. 240.[34]Hom. on text, n. 17.

[1]Passaglia, p. 206.

[2]1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 22; ix. 5: xv. 5.

[3]Passaglia, p. 124-6.

[4]S. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Hom. 3, n. 2. Theodoret on text.

[5]2 Cor. viii. 23; Rom. xvi. 7.

[6]John vii. 5.

[7]In 1 Cor. Hom. 21. n. 2.

[8]Passaglia, p. 208.

[9]Gal. i. 16-19.

[10]Theodoret and Chrysostome on the text, and on John, Hom. 88.

[11]De Præsc. c. 23.

[12]Comm. in Gal. i. 18. Mai nova collectio. Tom. 3.

[13]Ambrosiaster and S. Jerome on the text.

[14]S. Thomas Cant. Epist. Lib. i, 97.

[15]An argument has been drawn by some against S. Peter's primacy from S. Paul here placing S. James first. Now as to this we must remark that some most ancient manuscripts, and the original Latin version, read "Peter, and James, and John," and that this is followed by Tertullian, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Theodoret, Jerome, Irenæus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cassiodorus, of whom Jerome is the more important, in that he had studied so many ancient commentaries before writing his own. But supposing that the vulgar reading is the true one, Peter's being once placed by S. Paul between S. James and S. John will not counterbalance the vast positive evidence for his primacy. Those who wish to see the probable reasons why S. James was here placed first, may consult Passaglia, b. 1, c. 14, who treats of the question at length. Perhaps S. Paul, narrating historically a past incident, recalled them to his recollectionin the order of time, in which they received him: and S. James, residing constantly at Jerusalem, might very probably have seen him first.

[16]S. Chrys. in Gal. c. 2.

[17]Comm. on Gal. ii. 7, 8.

[18]Baron. Ann.A. D.51. § 29. S. Leo. Serm. 4.

[19]Acts xiii. 2.

[20]Hom. on, I resisted Him to the face, n. 15.

[21]Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii. 14.

[22]Epist. inter. Augustin. 75, n. 8.

[23]Passaglia, p. 217.

[24]2 Pet. iii. 16.

[25]S. Jerome.

[26]Ad. Ann. 51, § 32.

[27]S. Jerome on Gal. ch. 2.

[28]Homily on the text, I resisted him to the face, n. 8, Tom. 3, p. 368.

[29]Passaglia, p. 232.

[30]De Præse. c. 24.

[31]Cyprian, Ep. 71.

[32]Ep. 82, n. 22.

[33]Passaglia, p. 240.

[34]Hom. on text, n. 17.

The doctrine[1]of S. Paul has brought us to a most interesting point of the subject, what, namely, is the principle of unity in the Church. A short consideration of this will shew us how the office of S. Peter enters into and forms part of the radical idea of the Church, so that the moment we profess our belief in one holy Catholic Church, the belief is likewise involved in that Primacy of teaching and authority which makes and keeps it one.

The principle of unity, then, is no other than "the Word made flesh:" that divine Person who has for ever joined together the Godhead and the Manhood. Thus, S. Paul speaks to us of God "having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the fulness of times,to gather together under one head all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth:" at whose resurrection, "He set all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all." And again, "the head of every man is Christ;—and the head of Christ is God." "And we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another:"[2]as, again, he sets forth at length in the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians,calling that one body by the very name of Christ.

With one voice the ancient Fathers[3]exult in this as the great purpose of His Incarnation. "The work," says S. Hippolytus,[4]"of His taking a body, is the gathering up into one head of all things unto Him." "The Word Man," says S. Irenæus,[5]"gathering all things up into Himself, that as in super-celestial, and spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is the chief, so also in visible and corporeal things He may hold the chiefship, assuming the Primacy to Himself, and joining Himself as Head to the Church, may draw all things to Himself, at the fitting time." And again, "The Son of God was made Man among men, to join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God;" or, as Tertullian says,[6]"that God might shew that in Himself was the evolution of the beginning to the end, and the return of the end to the beginning." And Œcumenius, "Angels and men were rent asunder; God then joined them, and made them one through Christ." S. Gregory Thaumaturgus breaks out, "Thou art He that didst bridge over heaven and earth by Thy sacred body." And Augustine,[7]"Far off He was from us, and very far. What, so far off as the creature and the Creator? What, so far off as God and man? What, so far off as justice and iniquity? What, so far off as eternity and mortality? See how far off was 'the Word in the beginning, God with God, by whom all things were made.' How, then, was He made nigh, that He might be as we, and we in Him? 'The Word wasmade flesh.'" "Man, being assumed, was taken into the nature of the Godhead," says S. Hilary:[8]and S. Chrysostome,[9]"He puts on flesh, that He who cannot be held may be holden:" "dwelling with us," says Gregory[10]of Nazianzum, "by interposing His flesh as a veil, that the incomprehensible may be comprehended." "For since," adds S. Cyril,[11]"man's nature was not capable of approaching the pure and unmixed glory of the Godhead, because of its inherent weakness, for our use the only-begotten one put on our likeness." "In the assumption of our nature," says S. Leo,[12]"He became to us the step, by which through Him we may be able to mount unto Him:" "the descent of the Creator to the creature is the advance of believers to things eternal:" and, "it is not doubtful that man's nature has been taken into such connection by the Son of God, that, not only in that Man who is the first-born of all creation, but even in all His saints, there is one and the same Christ: and as the Head cannot be divided from the limbs, so neither the limbs from the Head. For though it belong not to this life, but to that of eternity, that God be all in all, yet even now He is the undivided inhabitant of His temple, which is the Church." For all the above is contained in our Lord's own words, "that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee," on which S. Athanasius[13]says, "that all, being carried by Me, may be all one body and one spirit, and reach the perfect man:"—"for, as the Lord having clothed Himself in a body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word, being assumed throughHis flesh." S. Gregory,[14]of Nyssa, has unfolded this idea thus: "since from no other source but from our lump was the flesh which received God, which, by the resurrection, was together with the Godhead exalted; just as in our own body the action of one organ of sense communicates sympathy to all that which is united with the part, so, just as if the whole nature (of man) were one living creature, the resurrection of a part passes throughout the whole, being communicated from the part to the whole, according to the nature's continuity and union." And another,[15]interpreting the words, "that they all may be one," "thus I will, that they being drawn into unity, may be blended with each other, and becoming as one body, may all be in Me, who carry all in that one temple which I have assumed; the temple, namely, of His Body." And lastly, S. Hilary[16]deduces this not only from the Incarnation, but from the Blessed Eucharist. "For, if the Word be really made flesh, and we really receive the Word as flesh, in the food of the Lord, how is He not to be thought to remain in us naturally, since, both in being born a man, He assumed the nature of our flesh, never to be severed from Him, and has joined the nature of His flesh to the eternal nature under the sacrament of the flesh to be communicated to us."

So deep in the junction of the divine and human natures in our Lord's adorable Person lies the root of unity for that humanity which He purchased with His blood. It is in virtue of this headship that the whole mystical body is one, and "we all members one of another." By this headship our Lord nourishes and cherishes the Church,and communicates to her incessantly that stream of grace by which she lives. And as this headship flows from the union of the Godhead and Manhood, so it is inseparable from His Person, and incommunicable. But He has Himself, in His parting discourse, recorded by S. John, dwelt upon the great sacrament of unity, the result of this headship, and set it forth as the sign and seal of His own divine mission, and the one convincing proof of His religion's superhuman origin. By following His words we shall see that this unity is not simple but fourfold, and we shall trace the mutual relation and subordination to the divine Headship of its several kinds.

1. And first, "In[17]that day," says He, that is, after His own resurrection, "ye shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you," whereby He declares that, in the completion of the dispensation, the union between Himself and the faithful shall be such as to image out the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. Which again is further expressed, "I[18]am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, He will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.... I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without Me you can do nothing. If any one abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you." In these words He sets forth that union of mysticalinflux, by cooperation with which His disciples keep His words and abide in His love, and of which He is Himself the immediate principle.

2. But He does not stop at this interior and invisible union between His disciples and Himself: He speaks likewise of a new and special command, and of a special gift, by which their union with each other should be known. "A[19]new command I give unto you, that you love one another: as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one to another." And again, "This[20]is My command, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this hath no man, that any one lay down his life for his friends.—These things I command you, that you love one another." But the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord was about to send forth, is the efficient principle of the love here enjoined, by His substantial indwelling, as we are told, "The[21]charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us." From Him, therefore, bestowed by the Head of the Church, springs that unity of charity, which, being itself internal, is shown in outward signs, and constitutes that distinctive spirit of the Christian people, the spirit characterising it, and analogous to the national spirit in civil organization.

3. But our Lord likewise speaks of a third unity, springing from the direction of one and the same divine Spirit. "And[22]I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever: the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him:but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you." "The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you." "It[23]is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." "But when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak; and the things that are to come, He shall show you. He shall glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it to you." Of the nature of this unity we may judge by the gifts and offices assigned to that Spirit and Paraclete from whom it springs. Now He is repeatedly termed "the Spirit of truth," and His office, tosuggest, toannounce, toteach, andto lead into all truth. This unity, therefore, is opposed to the division produced by ignorance and error, and so is the unity of faith, or Christian profession. Thus our Lord promises, besides the unity of charity, that of faith, the efficient principle of which, as well as of the former, is contained in the communication of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true in the supernatural order of divine gifts, than in the order of nature, that the first cause produces its effects by means of second causes. And here, as often as the Lord promises the Spirit of truth, He promises Himto the Apostles, and assures His perpetual abidance with them and the successors in their charge, thus, "That He may abide with you for ever:" "He shall abide with you, and shall be in you:" "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to yourmind which I have said unto you:" "Whom I will send unto you from the Father:" "I will send Him unto you:" "He shall lead you into all truth:" "He shall show you the things that are to come." And so the unity of faith may be expected from itssupremecause, the Holy Spirit the Paraclete,through the mediumof the Apostles and their legitimate successors: the Holy Spirit in itsultimate, but they itssubordinateprinciple: He is thesource, but they thechannel. Thus to trust to the invisible action of the Spirit, but to despise the office and direction of the teachers ordained by Christ, in the very virtue of that Spirit, is to reject His divine institution, and to risk a shipwreck of the promised gift of faith and truth.

For in exact accordance with our Lord's words here, S. Paul has set forth not only the institution, but the source, as well as the end and purpose, of the whole visible hierarchy. It is instituted by our Lord, as an act of His divine headship; its source is in "one and the same Spirit dividing to every one according as He will;" its end and purpose is, "the edifying the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of faith."[24]

Each of these points is important. Our Lord's divine headship over the Church, all encompassing, as it is, and the spring of all blessing and unity, does not dispense with the establishment of a visible hierarchy, but rather is specially shown therein. And again, the Holy Spirit is the source and superior principle of all spiritual gifts to all, but yet He actsthroughthis hierarchy. He is the spirit who maintains faith and truth, but it is by the instruments of His own appointing.

Now these three points, the bestowal of all spiritual gifts and offices by Christ in virtue of His mystical headship, theHoly Spirit being the one superior principle of such gifts and offices, and His manifold operation therein through the visible hierarchy, are set forth most distinctly in two passages of S. Paul, the twelfth chapter of the First to the Corinthians, and the fourth chapter to the Ephesians. "To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ. Wherefore he saith, Ascending on high He led captivity captive; He gave gifts to men. Now that He ascended, what is it but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the Head, even Christ; 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 manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. To one indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another, faith, in the same Spirit; to another, the grace of healing, in one Spirit; to another, the workingof miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of speeches. But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as He will. For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free, and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink."[25]

Thus, then, we have been brought by the words both of our Lord and of S. Paul, through an inward invisible unity, that of mystical influx from the vine to its branches, and again, that of charity, and that of faith and truth, to an outward and visible unity, one of social organization, called forth by the great Head for the purpose of exhibiting, defending, maintaining, and conveying the former, since it is expressly said that He gave it "for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ," and in order that "we may be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine." And the inward source and cause of this unity are indeed invisible, being the Holy Spirit of God, sent down by Christ, when He ascended up on high, to dwell permanently among men, but its effects are external and most visible, even the growth of a body "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ," a body which has an orderly arrangement of all its parts, and a hierarchy of officers to continue till the end of all. And the function of this hierarchy is one never to be superseded, and which none but itself, the organ of the Holy Spirit, can perform, namely, to bring its members "tomeet in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." As our Lord says, in the promise, before His passion, "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you (the Apostles) another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth," so S. Paul of the accomplishment after His ascension, "He gave some Apostles and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors," yet "all these things worketh one and the same Spirit." For as the divine Head took to Himself a body, bridging thereby the worlds of matter and of spirit, and as "in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godheadcorporally," so in His Church, in perfect analogy with the Archetype, the visible is the channel of the invisible, and the outward organization is instinct with inward life, and the hierarchy is the gift of the mystical Head, and the instrument of the one sanctifying Spirit. To think otherwise, to disregard the external framework, under a pretence of exalting the inward spirit, is to undo so far the work of the Incarnation, and to renew the insanity of those early heretics who in one way or another would "dissolve" Christ; for there is no less "one Body," than there is "one Spirit."

But if His headship of mystical influx isaloneandimmediatelysufficient, as is so often objected, for the maintenance of external unity, to what end is the creation of this visible hierarchy? For the objection that the invisible headship of Christ renders a visible headship unnecessary, and indeed an infringement on His sole divine prerogative, whatever force it may have, tells not more against an œcumenical head of the Church, than against every order and officer of the hierarchy. These all, and with them the whole system of sacraments as well as symbols, become alike unnecessary and even injurious,if each member of the mystical body be knit to Christimmediatelywithout any outward framework. And with what face especially can those maintain that the bishop is the visible head of each diocese, and in being such does not contradict, but illustrate, the headship of Christ, who yet deny that there is one in the whole Church put in the like place over bishops, and see in such an appointment an infringement on the office of Christ? Such an argument is so profoundly illogical and inconsistent, that one has difficulty in believing it to be seriously held, or is hopeless of bringing conviction to those who cannot see an absurdity.

Let those, then, who confound together the supreme Headship of Christ over His Church, whereby He communicates to it life and grace, with the inferior and subordinate headship of external unity, see to what their objection tends. It stops at nothing short of destroying the whole visible hierarchy, and the sacramental grace of which it is the channel. Holy Scripture, on the contrary, tells us in these passages that the providence by which the Church is governed resembles that by which this outward universe is ruled, in the subordination of second causes to the supreme cause. Christ repeats as Redeemer His work as Creator, to give life and force to these second causes, and while He works in the members of His body both "to will and to do," bestows on them the privilege of cooperating with Him. Thus the dignity of supreme Head which belongs to Christ, and is incommunicable, no more takes away the ministry of the external head who is charged with the office of effecting and maintaining unity, than it impedes the ministry of "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors," towhom Christ entrusted the Church, that by their means it might be brought to sanctity and perfection.

4. And these words bring us to the fourth unity mentioned by our Lord. For not until "He ascended up on high" did "He give gifts to men." And this visible hierarchy, the sign and token of His mystical Headship, and fostering care, is by Him quickened and informed with the Holy Spirit, when He is Himself invisible at the right hand of the majesty of God. This absence, too, is what He foretold, saying, "And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee; Holy Father, keep them in Thy name whom Thou hast given Me; that they may be one, as we also are. While I was with them, I kept them in Thy name.—And now I come to Thee."—These words of our Lord show that it was His will that His believers should be no less one among each other, by an outward and visible union, than they were one by the internal bond of charity, the guidance of one Spirit of truth, and the influx of the one Vine. And so far we have seen that, to guard and maintain that unity under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, He called forth the visible hierarchy, in all its degrees. But what, then, was the external root and efficient principle of this visible hierarchy, when He was gone to the Father? Did He not likewise provide for the loss occasioned by His own absence, which He had foretold? The argument of S. Paul proves that He did so provide, as well as His own words. For S. Paul declares the Church to be "one Body." Was it then a body without a head, or a body with a head invisible? Or did the Lord of all, having with complete wisdom framed His mystical body in all its parts and proportions, and having setfirstApostles, and then in their various degree, doctors andpastors, in one single, and that the main point, reverse the analogy of all His doings? Did He appoint every officer in His household, except the one who should rule all? Did He construct the entire arch, save only the keystone? Did He make a bishop to represent His person, and be the centre of visible unity in every diocese, but none to represent that person in the highest degree and to be the centre of unity to the whole Church? Was it the end of His whole design "to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed," in order that there might be "One Fold," and did He fail to add, "One Shepherd?" Yet S. Paul declares that "there are many members, but one body." How can the distinct and diverse members be reduced to the unity of a body, but by the unity of the head, as the efficient principle? In accordance with which we may observe that never is the image of a body used in Scripture to represent the Church, but it is thereby shown to be visible; and never is it compared with a body as a type, but that body is shown complete with its head. Such are the well-known images of one House, Kingdom, City, Fold, and Temple, to which we have had so often to appeal. Even the unity of things in themselves dissimilar is derived in Scripture from the unity of the Head. Thus the man and the woman are said in marriage to be one, and that in a great mystery, representing Christ and the Church, but this, because "the husband is the head of the wife." And Christ is said to be one with the faithful, because "the head of every man is Christ:" and God one with Christ, because "the head of Christ is God." If, then,[26]the Church is one body, it receives,according to the reasoning of Holy Scripture, that property from the unity of its head.

But such a one body, while yet militant upon earth, S. Paul declares it to be, setting forth at the same time the various orders of its hierarchy. Is it then a body complete, or incomplete? With a head or without one? For it is no reply to say that it has indeed a head, but one invisible. That invisible headship did not obviate, as we have seen, the necessity of a visible hierarchy: why then does it obviate the like and even more striking necessity, that the hierarchy too must have its visible head? If it was, so to say, the very first act of our Lord's supreme headship over all to the Church—the very token that He had led captivity captive—to quicken the visible ministry which He had established by sending down the Holy Spirit to abide with it for ever, is the one place most necessary in that ministry to be the only one left vacant by Him? Is the one officer most fully representing Himself to be alone omitted? "Theperfectingof the saints" (a metaphor taken as we have seen, from the exact fitting together of the stones in a building,) and "the edifying of the body of Christ," are described as the end to be reached by those to whom "the work of the ministry" is committed, but as this applies in a higher degree to the Bishop than to the priest, so it applies in the highest of all to the Bishop of bishops.

Again, God's method of teaching by symbols, which runs through the whole Scripture, and the institution of Sacraments, proves to us His will to lead us on from the visible to the invisible, and to make the former a channel to the latter. For "we are all baptized into one body," and the outward act both images and conveys the inward privilege. And again in the highest conceivable instance, "because the head is one, we being many are one body, who all partakeof that one bread."[27]In like manner the outward unity of the Church must accurately represent, and answer to the inward, which, we know, is derived from the Person of Christ, who is its head. And so that Person must be specially represented in the outward unity.

And this is one reason why no unity of a college, whether of Apostles, or of Bishops, will adequately express that visible headship of which our Lord's Person is the exemplar. For the root of all lies in a personal unity, that of the Godhead and Manhood, and therefore a merely collective or representative unity cannot express it. And if the Apostle wrote, "God hath set in the ChurchfirstApostles," yet he also wrote that the grand result, "the perfecting of the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ," was due to the ministry, not only of Apostles, but of prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors, each in their degree; they all conspire to a joint action, which does not impede the existence of distinct orders in the hierarchy. And his expression that the Apostles arefirstin this hierarchy, without defining their mutual relations to each other, does not exclude those other passages of Scripture whichdodefine those relations, and which make Peter among the Apostles "the first," "the ruler," "the greater," the Judah among his brethren, the foundation of the whole building, and the one shepherd in the universal fold. And the more so because S. Paul uses three expressions of the Church, two of which arerelative, but oneabsolute. He calls it "the body of Christ," and "Christ," which are relative; but he also calls it "one body," which is absolute. Now, these expressions are not to be severed from each other, as if each by itself would convey the whole idea of the Church, which rather is to be drawn from them all together.In answer to what the Church is, we must not say that it iseither"the body of Christ,"ormystically called "Christ,"orset before us as "one body," for it isallof these at once, relatively "Christ," and "the body of Christ," and absolutely "one body."

As, then, the former expressions show that the Church is onein reference to Christ, so the latter shows that it is soin itself, andsimply. For as the Church is called "Christ," and "the Body of Christ," because it is one with Christ by mystical union, drawing its supernatural life from Christ its head, so it is called "one body," because in the variety of members and parts, of which it consists, no one is wanting to its being one body in itself, and to its being seen to be such. But it would neither be so, nor seem to be so, if it were without a visible head, the origin and principle of its inherent visible unity. And so where the Church is called by S. Paul "one Body," he declares that it has a visible head.

Thus it is that the inherent notion of the Church, as one visible body, and the whole dispensation by which visible things answer to invisible, as their archetypes, demand one visible head. Now to thisinherentnecessity let us add the force ofpositiveteaching. When our Lord in almost His last words to His Church prays to His Father, "while I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name—but now I come to Thee," what does He but suggest the appointment of another visible head to take that place which He was leaving? and further, what does He but name one to that high dignity, when He calls him "the greater" and "the ruler" among his brethren, commits them to him to be confirmed by him, and makes him the shepherd of the whole flock? What else had He done but prepare them for such a nomination, when He promisedonethat he shouldbe the foundation of His Church, and the bearer of the keys? What else did Christians from the beginning see in such an one, when they called him thehead, thecentre, thefountain, theroot, theprincipleof ecclesiastical unity?

Let us remark, once more, as a confirmation of the above, that the archetype of visible unity in the Church, which our Lord sets before us in His prayer to the Father, is no other than that most high and solemn of all things conceivable, the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. "Holy Father, keep them in Thy name whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We also are;" and again, for all successive generations of the faithful, "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 Me." Now the relation established by our Lord between Peter and the rest of the Apostles, by appointing him the visible head of the Church, and between Peter's successor and all bishops, does represent, so far as earthly things may, and in a degree which nothing else on earth reaches to, the mutual relation of the three divine Persons to each other. For as these are distinct, but inseparable, so, too, are the Apostles. As the fulness of the Godhead isfirstin the Father andthenin the Son and in the Holy Spirit, so the fulness of powerfirstpromised and given to Peter, isthenpropagated to the other Apostles united with him. As in the Father the economy of the divine Persons is summed up under one head, and gathered into a monarchy, so in Peter is gathered up the fulness of ecclesiastical power, which, through union with him, is one in all, as the Church is one, and the Episcopate one. Moreover, as it is the dignity of the Father to be the exemplar, principle, root, and fountainof unity in the Trinity, so is it the dignity of Peter to be the exemplar, principle, root, and fountain of visible unity in the kingdom of God, which is the Church. This is alluded to by Pope Symmachus, thirteen hundred and fifty years ago: "There is one single priesthood in the different prelates, (of the Apostolic See) after the example of the Trinity, whose power is one and indivisible."[28]And long before him S. Cyprian: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one.' And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' Is there a man who believes that this unity, coming from the divine solidity, cohering by heavenly sacraments, can possibly be broken in the Church, and torn asunder by the collision of adverse wills? This unity he who holds not, holds not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, holds not the truth unto salvation."[29]

Whereas, then, all unity in the Body of Christ, the Church, is derived ultimately from the person of its Head, the Word Incarnate, that unity is yet four-fold in its operation, and the efficient principle of one sort is not to be confounded with that of another. There is themysticalunity, which consists in the perpetual divine influx from the great invisible Head to His members; there is themoralorspiritualunity of charity, consisting in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and these two are internal, and in closest correspondence. There are two likewise external, which may be called thecivilorpoliticalunity, consisting in the public profession of the same faith, the same truth, for what thelawis to temporal states, thefaithis to the great spiritual kingdom of Christ; and this unity is indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but is maintainedby Him through the visible hierarchy; and lastly, correspondent to the unity of faith, there is thevisibleunity of external organization, the immediate or efficient principle of which lies in the visible headship over the Church attached by the Lord to S. Peter's chair. The latter two, while they correspond to each other, are indeed subordinate to the former, the unity of faith to that of charity, as the unity of the visible headship to that of the invisible; yet the very truth of the Body which the Lord has assumed, and in which He reigns, and the whole analogy of His dealings with men, and the sacraments whereby He makes us "partakers of the divine nature," warn us that it is of the highest importance for us to see how external unity is the channel of internal, and the visible the road to the invisible. No words can be more emphatic to this effect than those with which the Apostle introduces the description of the visible hierarchy, and the divine headship which called it forth. "There isone Bodyand one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all." From which he goes on to say, "Ascending up on high, He gave gifts to men—some Apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and teachers." And lastly, "the Head over all things to the Church," is "the Saviourof the Body."[30]

But if this be so, we can say nothing more highly to exalt S. Peter's office in the Church, for he is the great bond and stay of this outward unity, as even[31]enemiesconfess. As surely as in a real monarchy the person of the sovereign ties together every part of the political edifice, and is endued with majesty because he is at once the type of God, and concentrates in one the power and dignity of the whole community, so it is in that divine structure in which "the manifold wisdom of God" is disclosed to all creation. The point of strength is felt alike by friend and foe. On the Rock of Peter has fallen every storm which the enmity of the evil one has raised for eighteen hundred years; but yet the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. In the Rock of Peter, and the divine promise attached to it, every heart faithful to God and the Church trusts now, as it trusted from the beginning. Many temporal monarchs in their hour of pride have risen against S. Peter's See, but the greatest of them all[32]declared that no one had ever gained honour or victory in that conflict, and he lived to be the most signal instance of his own observation. "God is patient, because He is eternal," and the Holy See prevails in its weakness over power, and in its justice over cupidity, because while temporal dominion passes fromhand to hand, and stays not with any nation, following the gift of God which the poet calls fortune,

Back to Index Next