St. Peter, strictly analyzed, means nothing more than that our Redeemer, to reward the candid confession and the sublime acknowledgment made by this disciple of his divinity, elevated him to the lofty dignity of head of his Church, and, consequently, instead of forming an objection to the primacy of St. Peter, it appears on the contrary quite favourable to it.

In a general sense, it is true that all the apostles were noble and firm pillars of the great building of Christ, namely his Church; that they all received ample powers to teach and govern the faithful, with every other requisite for performing the apostolic functions: but it is no less true, that they were subordinate to Peter, to whom Christ granted a superiority of power, a pre-eminent jurisdiction. They were pillars of the Church, on account of their labours in the propagation of the gospel; but they had a positive subordination to Peter, in consequence of his having been appointed by Christ head of his Church.

St. Cyprian, the ornament of the third age, who sealed the faith with his blood in 258, writes in this remarkable manner: "It is on St. Peter alone that the Lord has founded his Church; it is to him that he confided the care of feeding his sheep; and although, after his resurrection, he gave to all his apostles an equal power, saying, 'As my Father hath sent me, so I send you,' nevertheless, in order to make all enter into unity, he established only one chair, and this chair is that of St. Peter. Doubtless the other apostles were all endued with the honor of the same functions; but, by this disposition of the Saviour, all is confined to unity, all flows from this unity. The supremacy is given to Peter, in order that there may be only one Church of Jesus Christ, and only one chair, whence truth may be extended to all the world. And is he who

will not preserve this unity to believe that he can preserve faith? Can he who resists the Church, who abandons the chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, have the presumption to believe that he is within the Church? As for christians of all ranks, as for us above all, who are bishops and guardians of the Church, it is our duty to preserve with care, to defend this precious unity, in order to prove by this, that the episcopacy also is one and indivisible. Let no one seek by falsehood to deceive his brethren. The episcopacy, I repeat it, is one. The Church is one, as there is but one light, although the sun has an infinity of rays; and as the innumerable branches of the stately oak, united with the trunk and roots, form but one tree; so the Church has but one chief and but one principle. Woe, then, to those who separate themselves from this unity, without which there can be nothing solid and immutable in the Church ! In separating they detach themselves from the principle of life; as the branches which have been lopped off from the trunk, whence they derive their nutriment, soon languish and lose all the lustre of their freshness and verdure." (De Unit. Eccles. lib. 2.) Origen, who lived in the same century, speaking on this subject, says : ،، What before was granted to Peter, seems to have been granted to all. But as something peculiarly excellent was to be granted to Peter, it was given singly to him: 'I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' This was done before the words 'whatever thou shalt bind upon earth' were uttered. And truly, if the words of the gospel be considered, we shall there find that the last words were common to Peter and the others, but that the former, spoken to Peter, imported a great distinction and superiority." (Com. in Matth. t. iii.) St. Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, after

observing that all the apostles received the power of binding and loosing, adds this remarkable sentence: "One among the twelve, however, is singled out, that, by the appointment of a head, the occasion of schism might be removed." (Contra Jovin. lib. i. c. 14.)

PROTESTANT.-There are some passages of the holy scripture, by which it appears that St. Peter was by no means superior to St. Paul. We read 1st, that the gospel on uncircumcision was eommitted to St. Paul, and that the gospel of circumcision was entrusted to Peter. (Gal. ii. 7.) 2dly, That St. Paul had the care of all the churches. (2 Cor. xi. 28.) 3dly, That he was "nothing behind the other apostles" (ib. xii. 11); that he withstood Peter to the face (Gal. ii. 1); that Peter and John were sent by the apostles to Samaria (Acts viii. 14); that Peter also gave an account of his own conduct to the other apostles. (ibid. xi.) To these testimonies of scripture, we may add the testimony of christian antiquity, whence it would appear that both Peter and Paul were joint founders of the Church of Rome, and that, consequently, no marked pre-eminence was conferred on Peter.

CATHOLIC.-When St. Paul says that the gospel of circumcision was allotted to Peter, and that of uncircumcision to himself, he speaks solely of the division of labour assigned to each, without touching, in the least, the question of jurisdiction. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that the conversion of the Gentiles was first revealed to Peter, and that he actually began to preach in consequence of the vision (Acts x.); and of Paul it is said, that he preached in the synagogues, and confounded the Jews. (ib. ix. 20-22.) The division of labour, therefore, assigned to each, by no means

intrenches on the supremacy of jurisdiction conferred on the head of the sacred college.

When St. Paul says that he is burthened with the care of all the churches, he speaks of the general and ample commission given by Christ" to all his apostles, to teach all nations"; but he who gave this ample authority by no means cancelled his own declaration, by which he constituted Peter the head. The apostles received from Christ an ample authority of preaching and teaching every where; still, according to his ordination, such authority was to be exercised with due subordination to Peter, in whom he placed the centre of all authority.

When St. Paul says that he is not inferior to any of the apostles, he evidently refers to his apostolic labours, which he had enumerated, and to the indefatigable zeal which he had displayed.

If St. Paul withstood Peter in the instance referred to, the only inference to be drawn from the fact is, that a superior may be corrected with propriety by an inferior, in a matter of importance. "Here," says St. Augustine, writing to St. Jerome, "is exhibited the praise of a justifiable liberty in Paul, and an instance of holy humility in Peter." (Ep. 82. al. 19.) Here it should be observed, that St. Paul withstood Peter, not for having taught the faithful any error in matters of faith, but only for an individual fault in his conversation with the Jews.

If Peter and John were sent to Samaria, that circumstance argues no inferiority on the part of the persons thus sent; but proves only a confidential communication between the parties deliberating in one general concern.

St. Peter gave an account of his own conduct for the information of the ignorant, and to explain

the nature of an extraordinary commission received from above.

It is assuredly agreeable to truth, to affirm that St. Paul co-operated with St. Peter in founding the Church of Rome; that he was connected with him by a cordial participation of his labours during life; that he was joined with him in death; and that, consequently, the names of these two illustrious apostles are frequently united. Though this be a correct statement of the case, yet, in no monument of christian antiquity is the See of Rome denominated the see of Paul only; but in innumerable instances it is designated the see of Peter. And this is a striking proof that the association of the name of Paul with that of Peter was never understood to impair that supremacy which our Redeemer had conferred on the head of the sacred college.