Page images
PDF
EPUB

St Paul replied; "I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people." From which words it is plain that a respect and honour is due to any one constituted in such a dignity, independent of his personal virtues or qualifications. It follows no less, that such high dignity may be awarded without reference to the exemption of its holder from sin and crime. In fact, it is a misrepresentation often repeated, that Catholics imagine the supreme Pontiff to be free from all liability to moral transgression, as though they believed that no action performed by him could be sinful. It can hardly be necessary for me to deny so gross and so absurd an imputation. Not only do we know him, however exalted, to be as much under the curse of Adam as the meanest of his subjects, but we hold him to be exposed to even greater dangers from his very elevation; we believe him to be subject to every usual cause of offence, and obliged to have recourse to the same precautions, and the same remedies, as other frail men.

The supremacy which I have described, is of a character purely spiritual, and has no connexion with the possession of any temporal jurisdiction. The sovereignty of the Pope over his own dominions, is no essential portion of his dignity: his supremacy was not the less before it was acquired, and should the unsearchable decrees of Providence, in the lapse of ages, deprive the Holy See of its temporal sovereignty, as happened to the seventh Pius, through the usurpation of a conqueror, its dominion over the Church, and over the consciences of the faithful, would not be thereby impaired.

Nor has this spiritual supremacy any relation to the wider sway once held by the pontiffs over the destinies of Europe. That the headship of the Church won naturally the highest weight and authority, in a social and political state grounded on Catholic principles, we cannot wonder. That power arose and disappeared with the institutions which produced or supported it, and forms no part of the doctrine held by the Church *Acts xxiii. 4, 5.

regarding the papal supremacy. But on this, and other similar subjects of too ordinary prejudice, I may add some farther remarks, should time permit, at the conclusion of this evening's discourse.

As the pre-eminence claimed by the Catholic Church for the Bishop of Rome, is based upon the circumstance of his being the successor of St Peter, it follows that the right whereby that claim is supported, must naturally depend upon the demonstration, that the apostle was possessed of such superior authority and jurisdiction. The subject of this evening's disquisition thus becomes two-fold; for, first, we must examine whether St Peter was invested by our Saviour, with a superiority, not merely of dignity, but of jurisdiction also, over the rest of the Apostles; and if so, we must farther determine, whether this was merely a personal prerogative, or such as was necessarily transmitted to his successors, until the end of time.

I. It was a usual practice among the Jewish teachers, to bestow a new name upon their disciples, on occasion of some distinguished display of excellence; it had been the means occasionally used by the Almighty, of denoting an important event in the lives of his servants, when he rewarded them for past fidelity, by bestowing upon them some signal preeminence. It was thus that he altered the names of Abraham and Sara, when he made with the former the covenant of circumcision; promised to the latter a son in her old age; and blessed both, that from them might spring "nations and kings of people."* It was thus that Jacob received from him the name of Israel, when, after wrestling with an angel, assurance was given him that he should ever be able to prevail against men.† It is singular, that the moment Simon was introduced to our blessed Redeemer, he received a promise that a similar distinction should be given to him. "Thou art Simon, the son of Joza, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." 1 was on occasion of his confessing the divine mission of * Gen. xvii. 5, 15. + Ib. xxxii. 28. Jo. i. 42.

the Son of God, that the promise was fulfilled. At the commencement of our Saviour's reply, he still calls bim by his former appellation. "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven." He then proceeds to the inauguration of his new name. "And I say to thee that thou art Peter." According to the analogy of the instances above given, we must expect some allusion in the name, to the reward and distinction with which it was accompanied. And such is really the case. The name Peter signifies a rock; for in the language spoken upon this occasion by our Saviour, not the slightest difference exists, even at this day, between the name whereby this apostle, or any one bearing his name, is known, and the most ordinary word which indicates a rock or stone.* Thus the phrase of our Redeemer would sound as follows, to the ears of his audience, "And I say to thee that thou art a rock." Now see how the remaining part of the sentence would run in connexion with the preamble: “and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Such is the first prerogative bestowed upon Peter; he is declared to be the rock whereon the impregnable Church is to be founded.

2. Our Saviour goes on to say, "And I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven." The second prerogative is the holding of the keys, and the power of making decrees, which shall be necessarily ratified in Heaven.

3. To the two ample powers given here, we must add a third. distinguished commission, conferred upon him after the resurrection, when Jesus three times asked him for a pledge of a love superior to that of the other Apostles, and three times gave him a charge to feed his entire flock, his lambs and his sheep. "when, therefore, they had dined, Jesus saith to * In Syriac Kipho.

Simon Peter; Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than He saith to him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love

He saith to him again, He saith to him: Yea, He saith to him: Feed

these? thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep."*

On the strength of these passages, principally, the Catholic Church has ever maintained, that St Peter received a spiritual pre-eminence and supremacy. And, indeed, if in these various commissions a power and jurisdiction was given to Peter, which was proper to him alone, and superior to that conferred upon all the other Apostles, it will be readily acknowledged, that such supremacy as we believe, was really bestowed upon him by God.

Now, his being constituted the foundation of the Church, implies such jurisdiction. For, what is the first idea which this figure suggests, except that the whole edifice grows up in unity, and receives solidity, from its been mortised and rivetted into this common base? But, what can be simply effected, in a material edifice, by the weight or tenacity of its component parts, can only be permanently secured in a moral body, by a compressive influence, or by the exercise of authority and power. We style the laws the basis of social order, because it is their office to secure, by their administration, the just rights of all, to punish transgressors, to arbitrate differences, to ensure uniformity of conduct, in all their subjects. We call our triple legislative authority, the foundation of the British constitution; because from it emanate all the powers which regulate the subordinate parts of the body politic, and on it repose the government, the modification, the reformation of the whole. And observe, I pray you, that this reasoning excludes the *Jo. xxi. 15-17.

possibility, not only of a superior, but even of an equal and coordinate authority. For, if the laws be not supreme, but there exist a rule of equal force, and not subject to their control, yet moving in the same sphere, and acting upon the same objects, you will own that they are no longer the basis of an order which they cannot guarantee and preserve. If a new authority were to arise in the state, equally empowered to legislate, to govern and direct, with the present supreme authorities, without their being able to interfere, and setting them at defiance, I ask you if the whole political fabric would not be necessarily dissolved, and if a general disorganization would not ensue? Is it not plain that these authorities would lose their present denomination, and no longer form the foundation of our constitution? Apply this reasoning to the case of Peter. He is constituted the foundation of a moral edifice; for such is the Church. The appointment itself implies a power to hold together the materials of the building in one united whole; and this we have clearly seen to consist in the supreme authority to control and to govern its constituent parts.

It has been argued-and it is the only interpretation of the text whereby our opponents can make even a specious opposition that this character of Peter was fulfilled in his being the first sent to convert both Jews and Gentiles, so that the Church might be said to rise and spring from him; and that, in this sense, he was the foundation of the Church. But, my brethren, was he thereby made the rock whereon this Church was founded? Had our Blessed Saviour said, "Thou shalt lay the foundation of my Church," this sense might have been given to his words. But is there no difference between such a phrase, and “thou shalt be the rock on which I will build it?" In other words, can this figure imply nothing more than that he should give a beginning to the edifice; that he should lay the first stone? Would any one give to another the name of a rock, to signify this relationship between him and a building? Is there no idea of stability, of durability, of firmness, conveyed by the name, but only one of simple commencement?

« PreviousContinue »