representative of Christ, not personally, but in virtue nf an office essential to the permanent existence and
authority of the Church. Passaglia, the latest and
ablest controversialist, takes more pain- to refute this
than am other view; but wholly without BUCCeSS: il is clear that Peter did not retain, even admitting that he did at first hold, any primacy of rank after completing his own Special work j that hi' never ex- ercised any authority over or independently of the other apostles; that he certainly did not transmit whatever position he ever held to any of his col- leagues after his decease. At Jerusalem, even dur- ing hi- p sidence there, the chief authority rested with
St.. lames; nor is there any trace of a central power or jurisdiction for centuries after the foundation of the church. The same arguments, mutatis mutandis, ap-
I ply to the keys. The promise was literally fulfilled j when Peter p reached at Pentecost, admitted tin- first converts to baptism, confirmed the Samaritan-, and received Cornelius, the representative of the (untiles, into the Church. 'Whatever privileges may have be- longed to him personally died with him. The author- ity required for the permanent government of the Church was believed by the fathers to be deposited in the episcopate, as representing the apostolic body, and succeeding to its claims. See Eo< C
The passage is connected with another in the claims of the papacy, namely, "Unto thee will I give tin- keys of the kingdom of heaven,'' etc. ( Matt, xvi, 19). The force of both these passages is greatly impaired for the purpose for which Catholic- produce them, by the cir- cumstance that whatever ol power or authority they may be supposed to confer upon Peter must be re- garded as -bared by him with the other apo-tles, inas- much as to them al-o an' a-eribed in other passages the same qualities ami powers which are promised to Peter in those under consideration. If by the former of these passages we are to understand that the Church is built upon Peter, the apostle Paul informs us that it is not on him alone that ii is built, but upon all the apostles (Ephes. ii, 20); and in the book of Revelation we are told that on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem (the Christian Church) are inscribed "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (xxi, 14). As for the declaration in the latter of these passages, it was in all its essential parts repeated by our Lord to the other disciples immediately before his passion, as announcing a privilege which, as his apostles, they were to possess in common (.Matt, xviii, 18 ; John xx, 23). It is, moreover, uncertain in what sense our Lord used the language in question. In both cases his words are metaphorical : and nothing can be more unsafe than to build a theological dogma upon language of which the meaning is not clear, and to which, from the earliest ages, different interpretations have been affixed. Finally, even granting the cor- rectness of the interpretation which Catholics put upon these verses, it will not bear out the conclusion they would deduce from them, inasmuch as the judi- cial supremacy of Peter over the other apostles does not necessarily follow from his possessing authority over the Church. ( hi the other side, it is certain that there is no instance on record of the apostle's having ever claimed or exercised this supposed power; but, on the contrary, he is more than once represented as submitting to an exercise of power upon the part of others, as wdien, for in-tance. he went forth a- a mes- senger from the apostles assembled in Jerusalem to the Christians in Samaria (Acts viii. 14), and when he received a rebuke from Paul, as already noticed. This circumstance is so fatal, indeed, to the preten- sions which have been urged in favor of his suprem- acy over the other apostles, that from a very early age attempts have been made to set aside its force hy the hypothesis that it is not of Peter the apostle, but of another perSOO of the same name, that Paul -peak- in the p t-sage referred to (Euseb. Hist. Eecks. i. 18). This hypothesis, however, is so plainly contradicted by the words of Paul, who explicitly ascribes ap08tl( - Ship to the Peter of whom he write-, that it is aston- ishing bow it could have been admitted even by the
mosl blinded zealot (vers. 8, 9). While, however, it is pretty well established that Peter enjoyed no judi- cial supremacy over the other apo-tles. it would, per- haps be going too far to affirm that no dignity or primacy whatsoever was conceded to him on the part of his brethren. His superiority in point of age, his distinguished personal excellence, his reputation ami
SUCCeSB as a teacher of Christianity, and the prominent
part which he had ever taken in his Master's affairs,
both before his death and after hi- a-ceii-ioii. furnished sufficient grounds for his being raised to a position of !■• Bpect and of moral influence in the Church and
PETER
13
PETER
among his brother apostles. To this some counte- nance is given by the circumstances that he is called " the first" (7rpcurot) by Matthew (x, 2), and this ap- parently not merely as a numerical, but as an honora- ry distinction ; that when the apostles are mentioned as a body, it is frequently by the phrase " Peter and the eleven," or "Peter and the rest of the apostles," or something similar; and that when Paul went up to Jerusalem hy divine revelation, it was to Peter par- ticularly that the visit was paid. These circumstances, taken in connection with the prevalent voice of Chris- tian antiquity, would seem to authorize the opinion that Peter occupied some such position as that of 77-00- «orwc, or president in the apostolical college, but with- out any power or authority of a judicial kind over his brother apostles (Campbell, Eccles. Hist. lect. v and xii; Barrow, ubi sup., etc. ; Eichhorn, Einleit. iii, 599 ; Hug, Introd. p. 635, Fordick's transl. ; Home, Introd. iv, 432 ; Lardner, Works, vol. iv, v, vi, ed. 1788 ; Cave, Antiquitates Apostolicce, etc.). See Primacy.