St. Peter, His Name and His Office, as Set Forth in Holy Scripture

by T. W. Allies

But I anticipate the answer that it is not the number of texts which will decide the question, but their perspicuity and evidence, which constitute their force. To meet which objection I shall merely set these several parties against each other. What, then, do Lutherans think of the perspicuity of those texts by which Anglicans maintain the superiority of bishops over presbyters? They are unanimous in thinking them not merely most obscure, but absolutely foreign to the purpose for which they are cited. Just the same is the Calvinist opinion of the Lutheran proofs for the real presence, and the Socinian view of the texts alleged by Calvinists in behalf of Christ's divinity. Both obstinately refuse to admit that their opponents urge anything decisive. It would be easy to quote instances of this, if it was not notorious. It is, then, no unfair inference that Protestants have no particular reason to boast triumphantly of the perspicuity and evidence of the texts on which they severally rely.

But who, they retort, cannot see that the cause of the Primacy, which we defend, is far inferior? For our exposition is opposed not by one or two parties, but by them all in a mass, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and all who are not Catholics. The addition is significant, all who are not Catholics, for indeed all these, and these alone, are our opponents. Yet their very name creates the gravest prejudice against them, and shows them to be unworthy of attention. As S. Augustine said, "The Catholic Church is one, to which different heresies give various names, they themselves each possessing their own name, which they dare not refuse. Whence judges unaffected by partiality can form an opinion to whom the name of Catholic, which all aim at, ought to be given."[19] If, then, the name of Catholic is a note of truth, the negation of that name is a test of error and heresy. But no one will imagine that heretics, that is, the enemies of Christ and the Apostles, have a right to be followed in what concerns the doctrine of Christ, and the Apostolic institutions. Thus what Tertullian said is to the point, "Though we had to search still and for ever, yet where are we to search? Is it among heretics, where all is foreign and opposed to our own truth, whom we are not allowed to approach?[20] What servant expects food from a stranger, not to say an enemy of his lord? What soldier takes donative or pay from confederate, not to say from hostile kings, except he be an open deserter and rebel? Even the woman in the Gospel searched for her piece of silver within her own house. Even he who knocked, struck the door of a friend.[21] Even the widow solicited a judge, who was hard indeed, but not her enemy. No one can be built up by the person who destroys him. No one be enlightened by one who shuts him up in darkness. Let us search then in our own, and from our own, and about our own, and only that which can be questioned without harm to the rule of faith."[22]

But if we look closer into the matter, we shall find that even in the interpretation of our texts Protestants are not so agreed with each other as uniformly to oppose us. Some of the greatest names amongst them, such as Camero, Grotius, Hammond, Leclerc, Dodwell, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and Kuinoel, differ from the rest and agree with us in interpreting, "upon this rock I will build My Church," words of great importance in the controversy about the Primacy. So that we were not wrong in stating that Protestants do not entirely agree among each other in their interpretation, nor disagree with ours.

But grant that they were one and all opposed to it, it would not prove much. For, first, it could hardly happen otherwise, since the whole Protestant cause is so contained in this matter of the Primacy, that, were they to confess themselves wrong in it, they would pronounce themselves guilty of the most groundless schism. Therefore it is a matter of life and death with them to resist us. Secondly, as they dissent from us, so do they desert that doctrine which the whole Christian body solemnly professed and defined before the sixteenth century in ecumenical councils, that of Florence held in 1439, the second of Lyons in 1274, and the fourth Lateran in 1215. We, then, follow antiquity, and they take up novelty. And so it follows that while we have Protestants against us, we have the earlier Christians for us, whilst Protestants are opposed not only to the present race of Catholics, but to those whose children these are, and whose doctrines they have preserved. For as to the ancient interpretation of these texts take the following proof, contained in a letter of Pope Agatho to the Greek emperor Heraclius, read and approved in the sixth general council, a.d. 680. "The true confession of Peter was revealed by the Father from heaven, for which Peter was pronounced to be blessed by the Lord of all, who likewise by a triple commendation was entrusted with the feeding of the spiritual sheep of the Church by the Redeemer of all Himself; in virtue of whose assistance this his apostolical church hath never turned aside from the path of truth to any error whatsoever; whose authority, as of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church at all times and the universal councils faithfully embracing, have in all respects followed, and all the venerable Fathers have entertained its apostolic doctrine; through which there have shone the most approved lights of the Church; which while the holy orthodox Fathers have venerated and followed, heretics have pursued with false accusations, and calumnies inspired by hatred. This is the living tradition of Christ's Apostles, which His Church everywhere holds."[23] We might imagine that Sir Thomas More had these words before his eyes when he answered Luther, "not only all that learned and holy men have collected to the point moves me to give willing obedience to that See, but especially what we have so often witnessed, that not only there never was an enemy to the Christian faith who did not at the same time declare war against that See, but also that there never has been one who professed himself an enemy of that See without shortly after declaring himself signally a capital foe and traitor of Christ and our religion. Another thing, too, has great weight with me, that if, in this manner, the faults of individuals are laid to the charge of their office, all authority will collapse, and the people will be without ruler, law, or order. And if this ever happens, as it seems likely to happen in parts of Germany, at length they will learn to their cost how much more it is to the interest of society to have even bad rulers rather than none."[24]

Protestants, then, have many more opponents than we; to which we may add, thirdly, that we assert and maintain a doctrine which for several ages had no opponents worth mentioning, and which received a general belief and assent. Protestants, on the contrary, no sooner brought their doctrine to light than they roused the whole Catholic Church against them; that very Church, fourthly, from which they had rebelled, in which they had been washed in the laver of regeneration, whose motherly care had enrolled them as Christians, from which they had received the Bible and all other Christian blessings, which, before that fatal schism, alone presented the appearance of the true Church, and was invested with attributes which inspired belief and fostered obedience. For such were antiquity, the hierarchy, unity, the agreement of its members, universality; such, again, the splendour of sanctity and learning; zeal in the guardianship of primeval tradition, hatred of profane novelties; and, lastly, the renown of those heavenly gifts, which cannot fail the true Church of Christ, and were ascribed to no other body.

But fifthly, it would be very apposite to compare the Catholic Church with herself, and contrast her state and condition in the nineteenth century with that same state and condition in the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth. Now who, in the fourth century, professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity? Well nigh Catholics alone, while innumerable sects of heretics opposed this doctrine. War to the knife was waged against it by Praxeans, Noetians, Sabellians, Paulianists, Arians, and their worst portion, the Anomæans, Macedonians, and those who then made their appearance, Tritheists. Again, in the fifth and the sixth centuries, who were they who retained the true faith in Christ the God-Man, and His dispensation in taking flesh? Once more the true faith was hardly found outside the Catholics, while the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodorus of Tarsus, Nestorius and the Nestorians, Eutyches, and the Eutychean sects at daggers drawn with each other, and in fine, the Monothelites and their sects, who hated one another and the Catholics with equal bitterness, clubbed all their forces together to oppose it. Now do any Protestants venture to infer that in the fourth and following centuries the cause of the Catholic Church was less certain, on account of this mob of hostile sects? I should consider such an insinuation an insult to them. They must accordingly allow my parallel inference, that it is fair to pass the same judgment on the cause of the Primacy now for some centuries defended by the Catholics against the Protestants.

Lastly, to address specially Lutherans and Anglicans. They are well aware that almost all sects are not more opposed to the supremacy of Peter than to the superiority of bishops, and the verity of the Lord's body in the Eucharist. But are they therefore deterred by the number of their enemies, or do they distrust the goodness of their cause, or doubt the perspicuity of those documents on which they rely for the victory? They can afford to disdain the tricks of their opponents, as well as repulse their attacks. They must, accordingly, agree with us that the assertions or denials of contesting parties ought not to be, and cannot be, the test of a cause's goodness, and of documentary evidence.

But, then, by what standard are we to go? I reply, by those criteria which are not subject to just exception, and which must be approved by all who seek the truth, and obey the dictate of reason. Now four such criteria in chief I think may be assigned, the two former of which are immediate and internal, the third internal, but somewhat more remote; the fourth, external, but of great weight, and not to be overlooked. To speak of the former first; one of these is verbal, and belongs to the words and phrases of which the text consists; the other real, and regards the meaning of the sentence. Indeed, no other sources of obscurity or of clearness can be imagined than either the words which express the matter, or the matter intended by the words. If both words and matter are plain, and perspicuous, the discourse will be clear, and the language distinct; but if either the matter exceed the power of reason, or the words do not run clear, or both these conspire, the evidence of the meaning will be more or less impaired.

I. Now, to begin with words, I shall not be severe, but allow to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that the texts alleged by each of them in behalf of his own cause consist of words which are either immediately perspicuous, or become mediately clear upon definite principles. But in turn I should ask them repeatedly to consider whether such a perspicuity can be denied to the words of which the texts cited for the Primacy of Peter consist. These words are in general and vulgar use, continually repeated in the Bible, but so connected together that their certain meaning is either immediately evident, or fixed with very little trouble. But are not most of them metaphorical, such as rock, building, keys, binding, loosing, lambs, sheep, feeding? Undoubtedly some are such, yet not that words used in their proper sense are wanting, as when Peter is called the first, the greater, the superior; also when he is charged to confirm his brethren; and what we collect from the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, and the evangelists' mode of writing. Not, secondly, that it is not evident, from the connection of the discourse, what fixed and established meaning must be given to those metaphorical expressions. Not, thirdly, that the meaning of those formulas is not shown by the exercise of the powers conferred in them. Not, fourthly, that there is any inability, if you remove the metaphor, to express in proper words what the metaphor shadows out. Not, fifthly, as if the literal and immediate sense were therefore wanting; for it is very plain that the metaphorical[25] sense likewise is literal and immediate. And sixthly, not that metaphorical can be considered equivalent to obscure, for obscurity is most opposed to the very genius of metaphor, and such a canon would destroy the perspicuity of human language. For there is no language, ancient or modern, rude or polished, semitic, chamitic, or japhetic, whose metaphorical is not much more copious than its proper vocabulary.

Metaphor, then, and obscurity are very far removed from each other, and there is nothing to prevent a metaphorical expression bearing the plainest sense. For such the sense will be, whenever what is called the foundation of the metaphor is clear, and the series of the discourse indicates the point of likeness, and usage of speech unfolds the force of the metaphor. Now all these conditions, which ensure perspicuity in the metaphor, are found in interpreting the metaphors which contain the singular prerogatives of Peter. For as it is perfectly plain whence the metaphors of foundation, building, keys, binding, loosing, sheep, lambs, shepherd, are drawn, so the context defines the point of similitude, and usage of speech does not allow ignorance of the force of such metaphors. And thus the texts on Peter's Primacy have a verbal perspicuity which will bear a favourable comparison with those texts, on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists rely. For indeed all the difficulties, in the invention of which Protestants have shown their ingenuity, are introduced, put upon the words, not drawn from them. So on the contrary, the haters of the Primacy evidently wince at their clearness.