Part 12

In Homer and other ancient authors, kings are called shepherds or pastors, and __poimaine__, feed, signifies to rule or exercise kingly authority. In these words, then, Jesus Christ constituted St. Peter chief pastor and supreme ruler over His universal flock--sheep and lambs together; not merely the lambs, who represent the laity, but the sheep, those to whom the lambs are subject, and by whom they are fed--that is, the bishops and pastors of the Church. It is in vain that the enemies of St. Peter's chair exert all their ingenuity to escape the force of these passages. They are too plain and clear to be evaded, and, after centuries of exertion to heave the Rock of Peter out of the Scriptures, there it stands, an immovable and unquestionable fact that the Rock of Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church, that the Catholic Church is built on the Rock of Peter, that Peter received the keys of heaven from Jesus Christ, and was constituted by Him chief pastor over His universal flock.

{211}

And here allow me to remark how singular it is that Protestants should be ready to build up with out hesitation a vast pyramid of doctrine on the narrow foundation of a few texts of Scripture, and at the same time reject the most clear and unequivocal statements of the New Testament. For example, they will most positively assert the transfer of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, because the word Lord's Day is once used, and the assembling of the faithful on the first day of the week is once casually mentioned, although nothing is said of their being an observance of divine obligation intended to supersede the Sabbath. They will prove the baptism of infants from the circumcision of Jewish children, and from the fact that some entire families were baptized, although there is no evidence that there were any infants in these families. Some will prove Episcopacy, and others Presbyterianism, and others Congregationalism, from the Scriptures. And yet they will reject without hesitation the evidence of the supremacy of Peter, which is so clear that even some Protestants are forced to admit it in a partial sense; and the celebrated Jewish infidel Salvador, a man who perhaps excels all the modern advocates of infidelity in perspicacity of intellect and ingenuity of reasoning, declares with out hesitation that the supremacy of the See of St. Peter is an institution of Jesus Christ, and an essential part of Christianity. {212} It is one among many proofs that those who profess to make the Bible their only rule do not really derive their doctrine from a candid examination of the Scriptures; but that they receive what they have been taught by their parents and religious teachers, and search the Scriptures to find proof and confirmation of these doctrines. Thus, each one, in stead of conforming his belief to the Scripture, bends the Scripture into conformity with his belief. Those parts of the Scripture which are not easily bent into this conformity remain to him a dead letter, they make no impression on his mind, and, no matter how clear and plain they may be, he forgets them if he can, and, if he is forced to pay attention to them, he explains them away. Thus it has been with the passages of the New Testament which prove so clearly the supremacy of St. Peter. There is nothing in the New Testament more clear, more plain, more explicit, more obvious, than this supremacy; when these various passages have been once collated, placed in juxtaposition with each other, carefully examined and reflected on, and confronted with the great fact of the perpetual existence of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiffs as the acknowledged successors of St. Peter. This last topic I have not directly considered in this discourse, but have reserved it for another. {213} Nevertheless, whoever will attentively consider what is involved in the very idea of St. Peter's supremacy will see at once that this supremacy must be, by its very nature, perpetual. It was made the foundation of a perpetual structure; it extended over all bishops and all the faithful, without any limit of time or place; it provided for the exercise of that power of the keys which is necessary in all ages; and it was made the means of keeping the rulers of the Church in unity of faith under the severest assaults of Satan, which are undoubtedly those of the last days of the world.

Our Lord in establishing the supremacy of St. Peter gave to His Church a constitution and a government. He placed His kingdom under one monarchical head. He made the sacerdotal hierarchy subject to one chief. This law must therefore last as long as the Church lasts, that is, through all time. There is no power which can change the divine law of our Lord. The supremacy of St. Peter must therefore be perpetual in his successors. And that these successors are the Roman Pontiffs I shall proceed to show in my next discourse.

{214}

Sermon XIV.

The Roman Pontiffs The Successors Of St. Peter.

St. Matt. xvi. 18.

"__And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build My Church__."

I have proved in a former discourse that St. Peter was constituted Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ, with supreme jurisdiction over the Catholic Church, by the Lord Himself. It remains now to show that this supremacy was given also to the successors of St. Peter, and that the Bishops of Rome are his successors, and consequently inherit his supremacy. That the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is the See of St. Peter, and the Mother and Mistress of Churches; and that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and Supreme Visible Head of the Church--this is what I now undertake to prove.

{215}

This is proved, in the first place, by an argument, the force of which is admitted in all courts of law, viz., the argument of __prescription__. The Roman Church is in possession of this claim, and has been from time immemorial. A claim on a certain property or to a certain right, which is so ancient that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary, is always admitted as valid in a law court. Now, it is evident that the Roman Church now asserts this claim; that she asserted it before the Reformation; that she asserted it before the Greek schism; and that not a single Church exists in the world which has not at some time admitted this claim, and submitted to it. If we go back, then, to the earlier centuries, we find the Roman Church always in possession of this supremacy, and we can never find its beginning. Protestants and others, who wish to prove that it began after the Apostolic age, can never agree together as to the epoch of the rise of the Papal power, although all give it a very early date. Now, I say that, according to all sound principles of reasoning, the fact that this claim had been made and assented to from time immemorial is a certain proof that it is just. It could not have been established so early and so universally without violence and without resistance, unless it existed under the Apostles, and was established by them in the infancy of Christianity. {216} Just as it would be impossible for the Governor of Virginia to take peaceable possession of the Presidential chair and govern the United States, as its acknowledged chief magistrate, without any election of the people; so it would have been equally impossible for the Bishop of Rome to make himself peaceably the supreme ruler of the Catholic Church, unless he were appointed by St. Peter and the Apostles, according to the divine constitution of the grand Christian commonwealth, with the knowledge of all Christians. This argument alone would be perfectly conclusive, even if the New Testament were altogether lost, or were entirely silent on the subject.

But when we compare the fact that the Roman Church, under the name of the See of St. Peter, has always existed as the principal edifice of a vast agglomeration of smaller but similar edifices, with the prophecy of Christ that He would build the Church on the Rock of Peter, the conclusion is irresistible that the fact is the fulfilment of the prophecy. Here is the prophecy of Christ, that He would build His Church on Peter as a foundation, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. There is the Roman Church, evidently built on Peter as its foundation, which has endured through eighteen centuries, and is now as firm and immovable as ever. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that this is the Church built by Christ. The fact corresponds exactly with the prophecy, and there is no other fact which does, therefore the fact is the fulfilment of the prophecy. {217} Let me illustrate this by a comparison. Suppose you describe the Moro of Havana to some one who has never seen it, and who is about taking a voyage to Cuba. You tell him it is a castle of large size and great strength, built on a rock which rises perpendicularly from the sea, at the mouth of the bay. There is no castle similar to it: on his route. Now, when this traveller comes on deck some morning, and sees a castle founded on a rock at the mouth of a harbor, with a large city in the distance, is it not evident that this is the Moro? If you sail from the city of New York, knowing that there is an American ship of the line anchored in the bay, and you pass a large man-of-war with the United States flag, and the broad pennant of an admiral flying at her mast-head, is it not evident that this is the ship in question? Though a hundred smaller vessels are anchored in the vicinity, you cannot hesitate a moment, you can not for an instant imagine that any of these is a man-of-war. The first glance tells you which is the line-of-battle ship, for there is only one which makes any pretension to that character, which has the size, the armament, or in any aspect the appearance of a man-of-war.

{218}

Precisely so it is with the Roman Church, which professes to be the See of Peter, the only one which bases a claim of universal jurisdiction on the supremacy of Peter; which pretends [puts forward a claim] to be the ship of Peter, and to bear his standard. It is unique, unrivalled, and alone in its character and claims. It must be, then, that Church which the Lord promised to build on the rock of Peter, with such immovable firmness that all the assaults of hell could never overthrow it; it must be that Church which the Lord committed to the guidance of Peter, and which is destined to outride all the storms of time. But, although I consider that the claim of the Roman Church to supremacy is fully proved by this argument from prescription, I will not confine myself to it, but proceed to adduce some positive testimonies. The perpetuity of St. Peter's supremacy in the Church can be clearly proved from Scripture, and the fact that the Bishops of Rome have inherited this supremacy is not only evident from the fact that no other supremacy has ever existed, but from a clear chain of historical facts and evidences, running back to the very age of the Apostles.

In the first place, it is clear from the Scripture that St. Peter's supremacy was to continue. A number of the ablest Protestant writers have proved most conclusively what is called the Apostolic succession, that is, that Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, tracing their authority and descent in an unbroken line of ordination to the Apostles. This is perfectly evident from the commission of Jesus Christ to the eleven Apostles: {219} "Going therefore teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." [Footnote 82]

[Footnote 82: Matt. xxviii. 19.] [USCCB: Matt. xxviii. 19-20.]

If the Apostles by virtue of the commission of Jesus Christ were the perpetual pastors of the Church, and enjoy the perpetual presence of Jesus Christ to the end of time, the Apostolic office is by its own nature perpetual in the Church, and the original Apostles have been succeeded by others. For the same reason, the office of Prince of Apostles must be perpetual. The plenitude of the Apostleship was given to St. Peter alone, under the similitude of the keys, and afterwards the same power was given to the others by participation and in subordination to him. The supremacy of the chief enters, then, into the primary constitution of the Apostolate or Catholic Episcopate, as one of its essential and component parts, and is therefore perpetual. Jesus Christ committed the government of His Church to one supreme Ruler, whose authority was signified by the symbol of the keys. He committed His flock to one chief Pastor, when He said to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs--feed my sheep." {220} If, therefore, the authority of St. Peter expired with his person, then a total and fundamental change took place after his death in the constitution and government of the Church, a supposition not to be admitted for one moment without clear evidence. But there is none such. On the contrary, our Lord declares without distinction or limitation that "there shall be one fold and one shepherd." [Footnote 83]

[Footnote 83: John x. 16.]

The metaphor of a foundation which He uses to express the supremacy of St. Peter, of itself shows the perpetuity of his office. This supremacy is the Rock on which the Church is built. But a foundation must last as long as the building itself; it can neither be removed nor changed; therefore the supremacy of Peter must endure with the Church itself.

Again, the reason for which Christ instituted the Primacy exists always, and, indeed, demands much more imperatively its continuance than it did require at first its foundation. The reason is thus expressed by St. Jerome: "__Ut capite constituto, schismatis tolleretur occasio__"--"That a head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be removed." [Footnote 84]

[Footnote 84: Lib. i. adv. Jov. 26.]

{221}

The preservation of unity was the reason for instituting the primacy. What is the reason of a central government, with a president at its head, in Washington? The preservation of unity among the States. It is the unanimous teaching of tradition that Christ established the Primacy in the Church for the same reason--the preservation of unity among all particular churches and Bishops, by their dependence on one Mother Church and one Chief Bishop. But there was far less necessity to guard against schism, and to watch over the preservation of unity by means of a head or central authority, in the days of the Apostles, who were all saints and inspired, in the days of persecution, of primitive zeal and piety, and when the members of the Church were few and her extent limited, than at any subsequent period. The Primacy was more necessary after the Apostolic age than during it, therefore it was intended to continue. The supremacy of St. Peter once admitted--and it is proved by invincible arguments--the continuance of this power in his successors follows necessarily. The seat of power is the Roman Church, of which St. Peter was the founder and first Bishop.

This requires no proof; for the Bishop of Rome is the only one who claims the power of St. Peter, and his title is admitted by all those who admit any supremacy in the Church, according to the universally received tradition. {222} St. Peter, after having preached in different regions without having fixed himself in any particular see, for about six years, founded the Patriarchal See of Antioch, which he governed for seven years, and then, having consecrated another Bishop in his place, went to Rome, where he fixed his See permanently, and, having presided over it for twenty-five years, was crucified, in the year of our Lord 67 or 68, under Nero; St. Paul being at the same time beheaded.

The New Testament contains no regular or complete history of the events of the Apostolic Age, but only some fragmentary annals of some of the acts of the Apostles, chiefly of St. Paul, and some allusions in the Epistles.

It is not surprising, therefore, that it gives no account of the foundation of the Roman Church. St. Paul, however, in his celebrated Epistle to the Roman Church, already speaks of that Roman Faith, "__fides Romana__" which has been in every age so admirable and so renowned throughout the world: "First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world." [Footnote 85] He also predicts the future greatness of the Roman Church: "And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily." [Footnote 86] This is a form of speech which expresses a prediction under the form of a prayer.

[Footnote 85: Rom. i. 18.] [USCCB: Rom. i. 8.]

[Footnote 86: Rom. xvi. 20.]

{223}

Now, how was Satan crushed under the feet of the Roman Christians, if it were not when, by the conversion and victory of Constantine, this great capital of the world and seat of idolatry was changed into the capital of Christendom, the heathen temples transformed into Christian churches, and the cross everywhere erected in triumph over this proud and pagan city?

There is no event in history better established than the episcopate and martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome. It is admitted by a great number of the most learned Protestants. It is proved by the catalogues of Roman Bishops in ancient writers all tracing back the succession to St. Peter. It is proved by pictures, statues, and other ancient monuments; by the pilgrimages which from ancient times were made to the tomb of the Apostles, of which even Eusebius in the fourth century makes mention. It is proved by the testimony of St. Clement, the immediate successor of St. Peter; St. Ignatius, Papias, St. Dionysius, St. Irenæus, Caius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, Lactantius, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, Julian the Apostate, St. Augustine, Palladius, and others. Indeed, any one who would dispute the fact, that the Bishops of Rome have succeeded each other in that see in a direct line from St. Peter, might as well dispute the succession of the Roman emperors from Julius Cæsar, of the English kings from Alfred, and the kings of France from Charlemagne.

{224}

The fact that the Bishops of Rome succeeded also to the supremacy of St. Peter over the whole Catholic Church is also proved by a crowd of testimonies in every age. It is, as every one will see, not convenient, in a discourse like the present, to cite and explain at length those passages from the ancient writers, especially after having already taxed your patience so severely. I will therefore cite only a few passages as samples of the manner in which ancient writers have spoken on this subject, and leave it to yourselves to read over the testimonies more carefully in some of the various works where they are collected.

St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, says: "With this Church, on account of the more powerful principality, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are in every direction, should agree." [Footnote 87]

[Footnote 87: L. iii. c. 3. Kenrick.]

Tertullian, about the end of the second century, exclaims: "From no other cause have heresies arisen and schisms sprung up, except from a want of obedience to the priest of God, and because they do not remember that there is one judge for the time being in the Church, in the place of Christ." {225} The great and general Council of Nice, A.D. 325, in one of its canons says: "The Roman Church has always held the Primacy." The Council of Sardica, in a letter to the Pope, says: "This seems excellent and most suitable, that the priests of the Lord from the respective provinces should report to the Head," __i.e.__, to the See of the Apostle Peter. In the fifth century, all the Bishops of the province of Aries, in France, in a letter to Pope Leo, say: "The Holy Roman Church, through the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, has the principality above all the churches of the world." The grand Council of Chalcedon, where six hundred Bishops were present, mostly from the East, and out of the limits of the particular patriarchate of Rome, when the letter of the same Pope Leo was read, defining the faith of two distinct natures, divine and human, in Christ, exclaimed with one voice, "Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo." At the beginning of the sixth century, the Bishop of Patara said to the Emperor Justinian: "There may be many sovereigns on the earth; but there is one Pope over all the churches of the universe." Not only Christian bishops and councils speak in this way of the Roman See, but emperors, and even pagans, use the same language. {226} In the year 268, when Paul, Patriarch of Antioch, was condemned of heresy by a council, the pagan Emperor Aurelian directed that the Church of Antioch "should be delivered up to those whom the Bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome should appoint." Ammianus Marcellinus, a pagan writer of the fourth century, affirms that "the Bishops of the Eternal City enjoy a greater authority." The Christian Emperor Valentinian, in a decree of the year 455, says: "The merit of the blessed Peter, who is the Prince of priestly order, and the dignity of the Roman city, the authority also of the Synod, strengthened the Primacy of the Apostolic See." These testimonies extend from the sixth back to the second century, when the disciples of the Apostles still lived. They are not merely the testimonies of the Bishops of Rome themselves, or of those who lived in the vicinity and under the immediate influence of Rome, but they are collected from Italy, France, Africa, and the whole Eastern Church, where those great Patriarchs flourished who afterwards renounced their subjection to Rome. Thus, it is evident, from these and a host of similar testimonies, that, during the first six centuries, the Bishops of Rome claimed to exercise the supremacy in the place of Peter, and that this claim was universally acknowledged.

{227}