Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

the confession made by Peter. To prove, that it was anciently so construed, much evidence might be brought from the fathers. But the testimony of Chrysostome shall suffice. He interpreted the words in question thus-"That is, the faith of his confession;"* adding, that it was with a reference to those who should from thenceforth believe.

In the other passage, the very pointed address to St. Peter may so fairly be accounted for from circumstances on the face of the history; that it requires something more than implication, to be the ground of special power. Peter had thrice denied all knowledge of his master: which gives peculiar pertinency to the demand thrice made on him. He had boasted-"Although all shall be offended, yet will not I." And " If I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee."On this account, there is inexpressible tenderness in the question-"Lovest thou me more than these?" as if to give opportunity to this apostle, to avoid the errour which he had fallen into before; of intimating himself to be possessed of fortitude, superiour to that of his companions The trial had its effect. For he thrice made the declaration of his own affection, but without running into comparison. Had our Lord's speech to St. Peter been an investment with authority over his apostolick brethren; it would have been equally pertinent in regard to them, to have enjoined submission and obedience. But the whole transaction seems to have been adjusted to the design of securing the future stability of St. Peter, by a gentle yet pointed reference to his late vehement promise and apostacy. It would be absurd to suppose, that the sheep to be fed by St. Peter were his fellow apostles. This seems implied in the opposite interpretation of the text; but is inconsistent with the acknowledged fact, that all of them were immediately under the guidance of divine illumina

tion.

In Matt. Hom, 54. † Matt. xxvi. 33.

Verse 35.

In the lecture, there were urged St. Paul's withstanding of St. Peter, in a manner expressive of equality in the characters; and St. James's presiding in the council of Jerusalem, implying his pre-eminence in the Church of that particular city; which ecclesiastical history confirms. In addition to the above, the following objections occur on the face of Scripture, to the af firmed personal supremacy of St. Peter.

When James and John manifested indications of affecting a supremacy, as recorded in Matt. xx. 25; the answer, as.it stands in the next verse, amounts to a declaration, that there should be no such superiority among the twelve. It speaks this sense; however extravagant another, to which it is extended by some; as though there were to be no grades of order, among Christian people.

We read in Eph. iv. 11, and 1 Cor. xii. 28, of various orders of the ministry. In each of the places it is -"first apostles." Certainly, had there been a supereminent apostle, to whom the others owed subjection, he would not have been overlooked in either of these places.

To the positive testimonies adduced, there may be added the various instances, in which the authority in question might have been expected to be noticed, but does not appear. St. Peter has written two epistles; in neither of which is there a single expression, suited to the character of a person possessed of supereminent authority. In the institution of the order of deacons, it was the work of the twelve, without any distinction in favour of St. Peter in particular. In the stir made at Antioch concerning the Mosaical rites, and on the bringing of the question before the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem, this apostle gave his opinion, but without any indication of peculiar authority attached to it. On his return from Cornelius in Cæsaria, certain zealots did not hesitate freely to accuse him of errour in that intercourse: and he defended himself, not by any plea of especial privilege, but by the command of heaven. In the visit to Samaria, noticed in

Acts viii. 14; he went in the character of a missionary from the body of the apostles; which was very unsuitable to that of their superior: for as we read-“ A servant is not greater than his lord, nor he that is sent greater than he that sent him."* In whatever we read of the conduct of the apostles in planting Churches, there is not a word expressive of their conceiving of themselves, as accountable to St. Peter in particular. And finally, in whatever we read of controversy occurring, relative either to doctrine or to discipline, no appeal is made to this prince of the apostles, as he has been called. If his being the first named of the twelve, entitled him to the supreme authority over them; it might as fairly be urged, that St. Paul, who was not of the number, had supreme authority over all the Gentile Churches gathered afterwards: for he evidently puts himself on a level with St. Peter, in the different departments belonging to them respectively; where he speaks of both as entrusted, the one with the gospel of the circumcision, and the other with that of the uncircumcision. But it is not correct to allege, that St. Peter is always the first named. It stands otherwise where it is said—" Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter"-"The other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas"-" James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars," and-" Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas."**

On passing from the Scriptures to the fathers, we find a plea grounded on some high sounding expressions of theirs; affirming a certain pre-eminence in St. Peter. On this it may be remarked, first, that the sub

* John xiii. 16

Even when they began to apply this title to St. Peter; it conveyed to the mind a very different idea, from what is annexed to it in modern times. Among the Romans, the title of "Prince of the Senate," designated priority of order, but without any authority accompanying it. The modern use of the same term, supposes the possession of some degree of power. 1 Cor. ix. 5.

Gal. ii. 7. Gal. ii. 9.

§ John i. 44. ** 1 Cor. iii. 22.

lime titles alluded to are not found in the fathers of the first three centuries; nor until a showy species of elo. quence had superseded the original simple manner of stating the truths of the gospel; and secondly, that the like titles are given to other apostles, where the bestowing of them suited the purposes of the preachers. Thus Chrysostome, from whom are quoted magnificent epithets applied by him to St. Peter, yet speaking of St. John, calls him-" a pillar of the Churches throughout the world, he who had the keys of the kingdom of heaven "* And the same eloquent doctor, in many of his discourses, applies as lofty language to St. Paul. St. James is called prince of bishops in the Clementine Recognitions, and "bishop of bishops" in the pretended epistle of St. Clement to the said apostle. Now although both of those productions are fathered on those who never wrote them, yet they are held to be descriptive of the times which gave them birth.

St. Cyprian, of the third century, is brought in affirming the primacy of St. Peter; because in his treatise on the unity of the Church, he conceived of a proof of it, in our Lord's giving of the keys first to that apostle, although afterwards to all the twelve. The father says "That he might make that unity manifest, he ordered by his own authority, that the original of that very unity should begin from one. For the other apostles were the same with Peter; endowed with an equal share of honour and of power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church may be showed to be one." This is merely an argument, to demonstrate the unity of the Church: an attribute of her contended for on both sides; however singular, in this instance, the medium of proof. At any rate, there is carefully guarded against an inequality of character or of authority. It should. be noticed, that in some editions of this father, there have been interpolations to the passage produced from him. The edition

* In Johan i. 1. t Lib. i. cap. 68. De Unitate Ecclesiæ.

here in view, is that of bishops Fell and Pearson: which Dupin pronounces more correct than any of the others; although he has not exactly followed it, in the instance of this very passage.*

SECTION II.

OF THE ASSERTED SUCCESSION TO THE SUPREMACY.

Were the personal supremacy of St. Peter established with the greatest clearness; it would not follow, that the grant of it had been transmitted by him along the line of the Roman bishops.

It is not even alleged, that there is in the Scriptures any proof of this point, or even that St. Peter was ever in Rome; although the fact is here thought to be sufficiently proved from ecclesiastical history. It must have been but a short time before his martyrdom: and it is very improbable, that although his apostolick character went with him every where, he ever took on himself a local episcopacy, either

In the same passage, Cyprian styles the Church of Rome --the principal Church; certainly because of its being seated in the capital of the empire: as may appear from his continually asserting of the independency of himself and of his see. He further intimates, that as in the time of the apostles, the faith of the Romans had been spoken of throughout all the world; so now, the perfidy of certain persons of whom he is speaking, could have no access among them. The existing case was that of schismatical men, who, being discontented with their bishop and their Church, had set sail for Rome, to prejudice the mind of the Roman bishop and his flock. That according to the opinion of Cyprian, these had no right to interfere, appears from the whole tenour of his letter. But while he honestly speaks his mind to this effect to Cornelius his brother bishop; he expresses his belief, that the complainants would find themselves disappointed. So in common life, a man may with great propriety declare to his equal, of whose integrity he conceives highly, the confidence that such a man could not possibly listen to a complaint, impertinently carried to him, in a business in which he had no

concern.

« PoprzedniaDalej »