Puslapio vaizdai

nature are equal, and no man has or can have, rightfully, the dominion of another ; and yet we do not regard it as any inconsistency to have magistrates, governors and presidents, legislators and judges, because these all are held to exercise their power in the name of the people, and for the good of the people, and therefore are servants, not masters or lords. This is wherefore we are accounted a free people, though our government is as imperative in its voice, when it speaks, as any royal or imperial government on earth, The freedom of the people remains intact, because it is they who govern in the government. We have applied, and this is our glory,—to the political order the principle laid down in texts Mr. Derby cites, and if that principle is compatible in the political order with the full authority of legislators, magistrates, governors, and presidents, why should it be incompatible with that of priests, bishops, popes? If the presidency does not break the equality of men as citizens, why should the Papacy break their equality, or fraternity, as Christians ? If the clothing of individuals with power to govern in the name of the people and for the people does not break the sovereignty of the people, why should the investing by our Lord of individuals with authority to govern the faithful in his name and for him, as his vicars, break his sovereignty, or negative his declaration, "One is your Master in heaven, and ye are brethren ?"

The Pope is selected from his brethren to perform, in the name of his and their Master, the chief pastoral functions for the good of the Church and the honor and glory of Christ. He is not the master but the master's vicar, not the master of the flock but its servant, and hence his usual style is that of servant of servants, the servant of those who serve God. I am unable to see how in this there is any thing inconsistent with the lessons of humility addressed by our Lord to Peter or to the other Apostles. The princes of the Gentiles are proud, and have a ground of pride in their assumption that their power is their own, and that they may use it for themselves as they please, that it elevates them as men above their fellow-men, and confers on them in their own right a superior jurisdiction, or a special dignity ; but what ground there is for pride in being elevated to the Papacy, to the chief pastorship of the Church, under strict accountability, for the purpose of serving at the bidding of the Master in heaven, the servants of God, I am unable to understand.

But a closer inspection of the texts Mr. Derby cites would, I think, convince even him that he has been too hasty in his conclusion. What is it our Lord condemns ? The claiming or exercising of power by his Apostles ? Not at all, “ Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you,” that is, ye shall not lord it over your brethren, or regard the power as yours or as a mark of your personal greatness, or superiority. “But whosoever would be greater among you, let him be your minister; and he who would be first among you shall be your servant.” Here it is clear that superiority of office, nay, the Primacy was contemplated by our Lord, for he speaks of the “greater,” and “the first ;” but the point to be considered is that the power to be recognized in the Church was to be founded in humility, not in pride and ambition,--to be the power that serves, not the power that dominates, or domineers. The Primate is to be not the lord of the flock, but the first servant, after the example of our Lord, who came to minister, not to be ministered unto. “He that is least among you shall be the greatest. ” But how, if there be no greatest, no Primate? “Let the leader be as him that serveth." How if there is to be no leader? All these texts show simply that the power our

? Lord establishes, or with which he invests men, is a sacred trust held from him for his service, the good of the body governed, or his glory in its government, and therefore they who hold the trust are to hold and exercise it in humility, not in pride, and to count themselves ministers, servants, not lords or masters. But it is equally clear that, if our Lord contemplated the establishment of no power, no official dignity or distinction, among his followers or in his Church, all these lessons of humility would have been misplaced, and without the slightest appropriateness. Why impress upon his disciples lessons of humility and equality, or give directions as to the exercise of power, if there was to be among them no one with superior jurisdiction, or special official dignity? The texts read precisely as if addressed to persons already selected for high official dignity and au

[ocr errors]

thority, and intended to instruct them as to the nature of their authority, the spirit in which, and the end for which they were to exercise it.

It is, no doubt, because Peter and his successors, the Bishops of Rome, observed the humility enjoined by our Lord, and were studiously careful not to obtrude their authority, or to assume airs of superiority over their brethren in Christ, and who were their inferiors only in official dignity, that has given occasion to men like our learned Jurist, whose ideas of power are those of the Gentiles, not those of Christians, to call in question the fact of their primacy. These men find it difficult to understand how so much modesty, so much humility, such a studious avoidance of all arrogance or assertion of power, , can be reconciled with the conscious possession of the high authority Catholics claim for the Pope. This is because they do not understand the Christian doctrine of power, or the spirit of the Catholic pontiff. The Popes did not wish to parade their power, nor to boast their high official station. As St. Gregory the Great tells us, they thought more of the original equality of all men by nature, than of their official dignity, and felt more deeply their duties as servants, than their possession of authority to govern. If in later times the supreme pontiffs have seemed to assert more distinctly, and with more emphasis, their authority as vicars of Christ, to feed, guide, protect, defend, and govern the flock of Christ, it has been because that authority has been questioned, or denied, by such men as Mr. Derby, and those he follows, and fidelity to their Master, and the service of the flock committed to their charge, made it their duty. A little attention to the humility of Peter, and his care to exercise his authority as an equal rather than as a superior, will explain the difficulty Mr. Derby feels in reconciling Peter's conduct at the Council of Jerusalem with his possession of the Primacy. Mr. Derby clearly mistakes the real issue ; and he finds

; difficulties where none exist, in consequence of not understanding the doctrine he professes to oppose.

Again, if the promise of the keys, and of power to bind and to loose, was given exclusively to St. Peter, how do you reconcile the fact, recorded in St. John's gospel, 20 : 22, that our Lord after his


[ocr errors]

ascension came to the room where all his disciples were assembled, and addressing himself to all alike, said, 'Peace be unto you; as the Father bath sent me, I also send you; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose you shall retain, they are retained ?? Does not this gift include St. Peter and his associates, without distinction or degree? Do they not hold under one and the same commission ? “ If St. Peter was usually named first, is not the solution easy

? He was the first called, and was probably the oldest and most energetic of the disciples. This would account for his prominence on many occasions, but not for the fact to wbich you also advert, as a proof of his supremacy, that our Lord thrice asked him after bis resurrection, 'Lovest thou me?' and thrice repeated the charge to him to feed his sheep and lambs. Does not this repetition make against him? We read,* that when our Lord said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved.' And why did he grieve? Did not these repeated inquiries imply doubt and distrust? Had he not promised, Lord, I will lay down

" my life for thy sake?' Had he not said, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I not be offended ?' Had he not assured our Saviour, “I am ready to go with thee even to prison and to death,' and confidently declared, · If I should die with thee I will not deny thee?' Melancholy exemplar of human frailty ! Did be not that selfsame night thrice deny bis Lord, draw his sword upon an innocent witness, and after deserting and denying his master, begin to curse and to swear, and to confirm his denial by an oath ? After all this, might not our Saviour single him out from his fellows, and repeat in a tone of reproof as often as he had denied him, 'Lovest thou me? then feed my lambs and sheep,' without thereby giving him supremacy? And when enthusiasts cite the visit of our Saviour, first made to Peter's ship, and the miraculous draught of fishes, as proofs of superiority, are you not reminded how his heart failed bim when he tried to walk upon the waters, and our Lord addressed him, 'O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ?'t How is it, again, that you find no proofs of Peter's supremacy in the apostolical canons still extant, which define the positions of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, but do not advert to the supremacy of Peter? On the contrary, the thirty-third canon prescribes a metropolitan for each nation, whom his associates should

esteem as their head, and that they should do nothing of difficulty or great moment, without his opinion. But neither should this primate do any thing without the opinion of all, for thus shall concord continue.' The Council of Nice and the Council of Ephesus followed these canons, and decreed that every bishop should acknowledge his metropolitan; but in neither canons nor councils is there any allusion to a sovereign prince, or tiara-wearing prelate.

* John 21 : 16.

+ Matthew 14 : 31.

[ocr errors]

“ If St. Peter was the rock on which alone the church was founded, and he alone held the keys of heaven ; if he alone could loose and unloose, allow me to ask, how could St. Paul perform his mission to the heathen for three years, without once conferring with St. Peter, or receiving from him some portion of his gifts ? And yet the mission of St. Paul was eminently successful. But how did the ancient fathers, still bonored by Rome, construe these passages ? Did they give the exposition now claimed by the Roman see? The golden-mouthed St. Chrysostom, translated for his eloquence and learning from the see of Antioch to that of Constantinople, reads it thus :

Christ founded and fortified his church upon his (i. e. Peter's) confession, so that no danger, nor even death itself, could overcome it. And commenting on the very words of our Saviour, • And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will

Ι build my church, St. Chrysostom says, ' That is, upon the faith of his confession. Is not this express and definite ?"

Our Lord gave to Peter alone the keys or symbol of power; and as St. Cyprian says, gave him the Primacy; but all the Apostles were Apostles, and possessed Apostolic powers. The point of most importance for us, is not how much superior Peter's power was to that of the other Apostles, but where is continued now in the Church the Apostolic power which our Lord instituted, and which is always to be distinguished from the Episcopal power. Even if the Apostles were all equal, and in a certain sense they certainly were, that would not negative the claims of the Bishop of Rome as the inheritor from Peter of the Apostolic authority. The point Mr. Derby should consider is, whether there be any Apostolic authority in the Church now or not. He must concede that our Lord founded his Church for all coming time, and that he placed in it Apostles, and therefore established for its government an Apostolic authority, an authority which I have heretofore proved is distinct from and superior to the Episcopal authority. Does that Apostolic authority continue, or does it not ? If it does, where but in the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, are we to look for it?

The Fathers usually consider the fact, that St. Peter is in every list of the Apostles named first, as a proof of his Primacy ; Catholics have always done so, and Mr. Derby must concede that they have at least as much authority as scriptural interpreters as he has. His attempt to disprove the Primacy of Peter by proving that Peter denied his Master,

[ocr errors]
« AnkstesnisTęsti »