tles alone, since Christ in conferring it addressed Himself to them only, not to the people (Matt. xxviii. 18). Not without reason does the evangelist remark a little before: "The eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain, where Jesus had appointed them" (Matt. xxviii. 16). And certainly the charge of preaching the gospel everywhere was directed to those who subsequently executed it. It was the apostles and those whom they called to their aid who carried out this commission by preaching and founding churches everywhere. Moreover, it was to Peter alone that Christ said: "Feed My lambs; feed My sheep" (John xx. 15-17).

3. It was the apostles alone who transferred this power to others; and thus they proved that it was they, and not the faithful, who possessed it. St. Paul chose and ordained Timothy as his assistant (1 Tim. i. 3). He likewise appointed Titus to the church of Crete, and charged him to ordain priests in every city (Titus i. 5). Paul and Barnabas on their apostolic mission ordained priests in every church, amid prayer and fasting (Acts xiv. 22). Extraordinary power was also conferred upon Matthias when he was raised to the apostolate in the place of Judas (Acts i. 26). The Church, it is true, chose the seven deacons, and presented them to the apostles; but it was the apostles who imposed their hands upon them, and invested them with authority (Acts vi. 6).

In like manner, the Church in later times granted the people, or secular power, a voice in the designation of those who were to be promoted to ecclesiastical offices; but it was neither the people nor the secular power, but the Church, that invested them with authority. And as often as this privilege was abused by rulers or people the Church did not fail to restrict its use, or at least to protest against such abuse as a usurpation.

43. Christ's Church, with the power and constitution given to it by its founder, will endure to the end of time.

If it is once established that Christ has founded a church, given it a constitution, and invested it with certain powers, the only just reason that could be assigned for its future dissolution would be the positive testimony of Christ; for a society, unlike individuals, is of itself imperishable, provided its end is a perpetual one. If, therefore, there is in the teaching of Christ no intimation to the contrary, such as existed in the Mosaic law concerning the Synagogue, we

must conclude that Christ intended His Church to be perpetual. But, far from finding any such indication, we have the strongest positive proofs of the perpetuity of the Church, with all its institutions and prerogatives.

1. The end of the Church is, by the maintenance and the d.spensation of the Christian religion, to sanctify her children (38) and bring them to life everlasting (39). The Church is a means to this end; so are also its authority and its constitution, a means of discharging this mission (41). The end proposed to the Church will continue, therefore, as long as the Christian religion exists, as long as there are souls to save. But the religion of Christ will continue to the end of time (34), and there will always be souls to save. Consequently, the means to this end, i.e., the Church, with its constitution and authority, will continue to exist unless God intends to substitute other means. But God has given no indication to this effect; on the contrary, He has expressly assured us that the Church will continue to the end of the world.

2. After Christ had founded His Church, given it a constitution, and invested His apostles with authority, He commanded them to go forth and exercise their sacred ministry, and added the words: "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. xxviii. 20). By the consummation of the world is not meant the death of the apostles, but the end of time, the end of the human race on earth; for Christ elsewhere identifies the end of the world with the last judgment (Matt. xiii. 49). Christ will therefore be all days, i.e., without interruption, to the end of time, with His apostles in the discharge of that office with which He invested them; for it is to those same apostles, thus invested and organized in one body, that He addressed Himself when He promised His perpetual assistance. But the apostles died: that promise of perpetual assistance was, therefore, not given them personally, but to their successors as well; it was given to the Church in its rulers generally, and, consequently, the rulers of the Church, i.e., its authority and constitution in the concrete, as they then existed, will continue to the end of time. How are we otherwise to understand those words? Our

Lord certainly does not address the apostles here as private
persons, but precisely as the rulers and representatives of His
Church, as one moral person with their successors.
But as a

moral person does not die, the words addressed to the apos tles must be extended also to their successors. Thus we are to understand also the words: "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of Truth" (John xiv. 16, 17; cf. John XV. 26). Not as to private persons, therefore, but as to the preachers of the gospel, was the Holy Ghost promised to the apostles. But the Holy Ghost can abide with the apostles as the preachers of the gospel forever only in their successors, who discharge the same duty.

Neither can the Church lose the doctrine intrusted to it, for (a) the religion of Christ is to last forever (34); but the Church is that institution by which the Christian religion is to be preserved (38); whence the doctrine of Christ, being an essential part of His religion, will remain in His Church forever. (b) The Church received its perpetual constitution and power for the continuance of Christ's religion and, consequently, of His doctrine. Therefore Christ's doctrine is no less imperishable than the Church itself, or its constitution and prerogatives.

44. St. Peter was designated and constituted by Christ the supreme head of His Church.

Since the apostles were the subjects of that power conferred by Christ on His Church, the question next arises: whether they all held an equal share of this power, and thus governed the Church collectively; or whether they were subordinate to one who was the supreme head of the apostles as well as of the faithful, and, consequently, invested with higher power. The latter was manifestly

the case.

I. That St. Peter received from Our Lord the primacy, not only of honor, but also of jurisdiction, and was thus constituted supreme head of the Church, is manifest from several passages of Holy Writ.

1. It was Christ's intention to build His Church upon Peter, as its visible foundation. When Simon Peter made the memorable profession of faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because

flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter [rock], and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. xvi. 16–19). These words were addressed to Simon Peter, and to him alone, as the whole context shows; upon him, therefore, the Church was to be built.

By the fact that Peter is made the visible foundation of the Church the supreme government of the Church is vested in him, and he is constituted its visible head, while Christ Himself is its invisible head. For what the foundation is to a building, the head is to a society. As the former bears the entire edifice and supports it, holds together its different parts, enables it to fulfil its purpose, so does the head of a society bind together all the members in one body and direct them to their proper functions. The same place is occupied by Peter also in regard to the other apostles, who were likewise invested with authority, though in an inferior degree. He is to be elevated above them in the same degree as he had distinguished himself among them by his faith in Jesus. Christ.

The other apostles may also be justly called the foundation of the Church (Eph. ii. 20; Apoc. xxi. 14), inasmuch as by the preaching of the gospel they founded the Church; but Peter alone is called the foundation, inasmuch as by his supreme authority he gives unity and compactness to the moral edifice. Hence he is surnamed Cephas (rock), a name by which Christ Himself is elsewhere called (1 Cor. x. 14). Nor is this supremacy of St. Peter affected by the power which is subsequently conferred on the other apostles (Matt. xviii. 18; xxviii. 20); for this power is given to them as subordinate to the supremacy of St. Peter, who had been already constituted the supremie head of the entire Church, the apostles included.

Sometimes the fathers of the Church, commenting on the above words of Christ to Peter, say that the Church was founded on the faith of Peter; whereby they understand not the faith of Peter in the abstract, but in the concrete, viz., that the primacy was conferred on Peter on account of the faith which he on this occasion displayed.

If Peter is actually the foundation of the Church, i.e., supports and governs it, his primacy is manifestly not a primacy of honor, but of jurisdiction. Nor are certain portions only of the Church dependent on him, but the entire Church. And, in fact, if Christ

Himself has thus made Peter the foundation of the Church, all his power proceeds directly from Christ, and not through the medium of the apostles, or the people. Hence it follows that Peter is the immediate vicar of Christ, and that the constitution of the Church is essentially monarchical,

2. To Peter, moreover, was promised the power of the keys, which implies the supreme power in the Church. For thus Our Lord continues: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19). Christ addressed these words to Peter alone. That the promise expressed in these words was made to Peter alone is no less evident from the context than that the power conferred on the Church as such was promised to the apostles alone (41).

The power of the keys promised to St. Peter signifies the supreme power in the Church; for the keys are naturally the symbol of power (Is. xxii. 22). The supreme power is meant, since it is promised to Peter alone, and is to elevate him above the other apostles in the same degree as he had just distinguished himself by his confession of faith in Christ. Not without cause did Christ here make use of that symbol under which His own sovereign power is designated (Apoc. i. 18; iii. 7). Not without cause did He use this symbol in reference to Peter alone, although the other apostles are also to receive extensive powers; since Peter alone had been chosen by Him as the rock on which His Church was to be founded.

The power promised to Peter is further designated as the power of binding and loosing. To bind, in the language of Scripture, sometimes signifies to command, sometimes to punish; to loose, on the other hand, means to free from an obligation, to absolve from guilt or punishment. When the power of binding and loosing was promised to the other apostles on a later occasion (Matt. xviii. 18), it was not promised to them in the same degree as to Peter; it was promised to him in an extraordinary manner, and under circumstances which point to a very special d.stinction.