the speech of a president. It formulates the decision. It introduces the authoritative word κρίνω. It immediately prepares the way for that unanimous act of the whole council to which they allude in their synodical letter, when they say, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you (Gentiles) no greater burden than these necessary things;" and then they enumerate the things which S. James had mentioned in his presidential summing up. That final synodical act appears to be based on S. James' speech.1 Altogether it seems quite clear that S. James presided on this occasion, as we should naturally expect to be the case. No wonder that S. Chrysostom, in his homily on this passage in the Book of Acts, says, "This James was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last ;" and a little further on he adds, "Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but he [James] here more mildly; for thus it behoves one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."2 Evidently, in the opinion of S. Chrysostom, S. James, who was an apostle equally with S. Peter, took precedence of him in this council, as being referred to the opinion on rebaptism which he had expressed in his letter to Jubaianus; but his synodical judgement was reserved to the end, and was delivered after his eighty-four colleagues had spoken. So in the third and fourth sessions of the Vatican Council, the Fathers of the council first of all expressed their judgement on the decrees and canons which had been proposed, and finally Pius IX., who presided, concluded the matter by declaring his own supreme

sentence.

1 See Additional Note 55, p. 477.

2 The English rendering is taken from the Oxford translation of S. Chrysostom's Thirty-third Homily on the Acts (p. 456). That translation agrees accurately with the Greek text in the New College manuscript (tom. ii. fol. 102), except that the Oxford translator has substituted "James" for "he." I have replaced the "he," but have retained the Oxford " "James within brackets. The Greek text has ouros. The New College codex is one of the four manuscripts that give what is called "the old text," which, as the Oxford translators say in their Preface to Part II. (p. ix.), is "incomparably better," as well as "older" than the text given in the Benedictine edition. Dr. Rivington, in Dependence (pp. 24, 25), makes what must be called a desperate attempt to make out that "the antithesis is between James and the Judaizers, not James and Peter." The only answer that need be given is to refer the reader to the Oxford translation of the whole passage, with its context. The interpretation suggested by Dr. Rivington is simply impossible. Mr. Gore has replied to some other remarks of Dr. Rivington, in which the latter deals with an earlier sentence of the same homily, and in which he relies on the unfortunate Benedictine text. See the Preface to the third edition of Mr. Gore's Roman Catholic Claims, which is reprinted in the fourth edition (pp. xiv., xv.). Second thoughts are not always best. Dr. Rivington says that in his controversy with Bishop Meurin he " was misled " by the Oxford translation. The real fact is that the Oxford translators have accurately given the meaning of the genuine text. Afterwards Dr. Rivington was really "misled" by the Benedictine editors. Dr. Rivington "reprehends" the Oxford translators for putting "James " as the translation of Keivos in that earlier passage. That rendering accurately gives the meaning; and the translators gave fair warning in their Preface to Part II. (p. xiii.), that they proposed "to give faithfully, though not always literally, the sense.' They have certainly, in this case, fulfilled their promise.

bishop of the city where the council was held, and therefore president thereof. Such a view is irreconcilable with the papal theory as set forth in the Vatican decrees.

I might go on to refer to other passages of the New Testament, as, for example, to S. Paul's rebuke of S. Peter at Antioch; to the way in which he deals with the parties at Corinth, who named themselves after himself, and Apollos, and Cephas, and Christ; to the tone of absolute independence of any superior human authority which pervades S. Paul's writings; to the whole tone of S. Peter's own Epistles; but I think that I have said enough to justify the assertion, which I made, that the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the claim which is made on S. Peter's behalf.

I would add that, if S. Peter's connexion with the see of Rome is a fact of such fundamental importance, as would be the case if the theory set forth by the Vatican Council were true, it is most extraordinary that there is no clear allusion in the New Testament to that connexion. Believing, as I do, that the words of S. Peter in 1 S. Pet. v. 13, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you," refer to the Church in Rome,1 I grant that there is in that passage an obscure allusion to a connexion between S. Peter and the Church of Rome. He was evidently at Rome when he wrote his First Epistle, and in friendly relations with the Roman Church, whose salutation he sends to the Christians in various provinces of Asia Minor. But the New Testament nowhere certifies to us that S. Peter shared in the work of founding the Church of Rome, nor that he joined with his brother apostle in the consecration of Linus, its first bishop, however true those facts may be. Still less does it give any sanction to the fable of his having been himself the first Bishop of Rome, nor to the groundless theory that he transmitted to S. Linus and his successors a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church, which he never claimed for himself. If, as De Maistre thought, "the supremacy of the pope is the capital dogma without which Christianity cannot subsist," why is there nothing about it in the Scriptures of truth?

Addendum to Lecture III.

In the observations on Gal. ii. 9, which I have made above, on pp. 111-113, I have assumed the correctness of the view which has been traditional among commentators, namely, that S. Paul in Gal. ii. is referring to what is commonly reckoned as his third visit to Jerusalem. Professor Ramsay, in his recently published Historical Commentary on the Galatians, and in other earlier works, has given strong reasons for 1 Dr. Hort takes the same view. See his commentary on 1 S. Pet., p. 6.

believing that S. Paul is referring to some visit which preceded his reputed third visit to the holy city. It does not, however, appear to me that my argument is affected by this correction, though perhaps, if I had had it in mind when I wrote the observations to which I am referring, I should have made some slight changes in the wording of one or two

sentences.

APPENDIX C.

On our Lord's words to S. Peter (S. John xxi. 15-17), "Feed My lambs; "Tend My sheep;"" Feed My sheep" (see p. 97).

I PROPOSE in this appendix to discuss the second great passage, to which reference is made by the Vatican Council in its dogmatic decree concerning "the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter." It will be remembered that the council sets forth, as the scriptural basis of the doctrine declared and defined in that decree, two utterances of our Lord to S. Peter, namely, first, the promise made at Caesarea Philippi, which begins with the words, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ;" and, secondly, the injunction repeated three times with slight changes in the words used, when our Lord appeared to S. Peter and six other disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection from the dead. On what the council calls "the manifest teaching" of these two passages it builds up its theory that, "when compared with the other apostles, whether taken separately or collectively, Peter alone was invested by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction," and that this primacy "was conferred upon blessed Peter himself immediately and directly."

I have dealt with the first of these two passages in the third lecture. I now proceed to quote the second passage together with the whole context, as it is translated in the Revised Version: "When they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed My lambs. He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Tend My sheep.2 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed My sheep.” 3

"Solum Petrum prae caeteris Apostolis, sive seorsum singulis sive omnibus simul, vero proprioque jurisdictionis primatu fuisse a Christo instructum" (Collectio Lacensis, vii. 483).

In the place of "Tend My Sheep" (Tolμaive Tà TрóВaтá μov), the Douay Version, following the Vulgate, repeats the previous formula, "Feed My lambs." Apart from this variation, the Douay differs in this passage from the Revised in no point of any importance.

3 S. John xx. 15-17.

All manner of interesting questions suggest themselves to us in connexion with this wonderfully beautiful episode; but for our present purpose the really important problems to be solved are these: Why was this injunction given to S. Peter rather than to the other apostles? and again, Was any power then and there communicated to S. Peter? or was it rather that he was authorized and enjoined to use a power previously given? and once more, Of what sort was the power which our Lord was imparting, or the exercise of which He was enjoining?

The Roman reply to these questions is this-that our Lord intended to make S. Peter pope, and to give him a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, including the apostolic college; and that this primatial jurisdiction, which was to be transmitted to his successors in the see of Rome, was communicated to him then and there by our Lord's words, "Feed My lambs," and "Feed My sheep." I am not aware that any of the great Fathers of the first five centuries take this view, though the germ of it could doubtless be found in the writings of the popes of the fifth century and of persons closely connected with them.

Setting aside the theories held by what Mr. Gore has called the papal school, there are two views which find favour with the Fathers. They are not necessarily exclusive of each other, and in fact some of the Fathers seem to have held them in combination; but logically they are quite independent, the one of the other. They agree in this, that they suppose that the right and duty of shepherding and feeding the sheep and the lambs belong to S. Peter as an apostle, rather than as the foreman of the apostles. It is his apostolic jurisdiction which he is enjoined to use, or which is being committed to him; and the "sheep" which he is to feed are not his brother shepherds and co-apostles, but rather such members of the flock of Christ as are spiritually full-grown, and capable of appreciating "solid food ;" while the "lambs" are the babes in Christ, who need to be fed with spiritual milk.” 2 So far the two views agree, but in other points they diverge.

According to the first of these two views, our Lord addresses His injunction to S. Peter because he is the primate-apostle, and therefore the representative or symbol of the whole body of the apostles and of the unity of the Church. The others receive the injunction or the commission, whichever it was, in him, their representative. The Fathers who take this view in no way suppose that any primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles is being given to S. Peter; it is because he is the first in

It is obvious that, if our Lord really intended by the "Pasce oves" to institute a papal monarchy over the Church, in the persons of S. Peter and of his supposed papal successors, then these words are the operative words by which, as De Maistre would say, "the necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Christianity was laid. Had that been the case, the great Fathers of the Church would with one voice have dwelt on such a fundamental fact. Unfortunately for the Romanist view, they none of them, when commenting on the text, allude to the supposed fact. They are absolutely unconscious of it. Our Roman friends must not be surprised if, under such circumstances, English Catholics decline altogether to discuss the papal interpretation. It is as much out of court as the Zuinglian interpretation of "Hoc est Corpus Meum," or the Socinian interpretation of "Verbum caro factum est."

2 Compare I Cor. ii. 6; iii. 1, 2; Heb. v. 12-14; 1 S. Pet. i. 2.

order that our Lord addresses him, although what our Lord says applies equally to all the apostles. This is S. Augustine's view.1

S.

According to the second view, S. Peter is addressed because of his previous fall. In consequence of that fall he had either lost his apostolic commission, or, at any rate, was doubtful whether he ought to use it; and he needed either to have it restored to him, or to be encouraged and enjoined to act upon it. This is the view of S. Cyril of Alexandria.2 For myself, if it is not impertinent to say so, I have no sort of dogmatic objection to the first of these views. It harmonizes thoroughly with Catholic principles of faith and discipline. But, exegetically, I venture to think that the second view is by far the more probable. I will try to make this clear. When we look at the context of the passage we see an evident allusion to that boasting of S. Peter which led the way to his fall. Our Lord had said to the apostles on the night of the last supper, "All ye shall be offended in Me this night;" and Peter had replied, "If all shall be offended in Thee, I will never be offended." 3 The boast had been made publicly, and now our Lord asks publicly the question, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" Augustine thinks it probable that the accounts of the boasting, given by S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John,' represent three separate occurrences, and, if so, our Lord's thrice-repeated question would correspond with the threefold boasting; but, however that may be, the fact that the interrogation by the Sea of Tiberias contains an allusion to the boast in the upper room can hardly be denied; and this prepares us to see a close connection between the threefold injunction, "Feed My lambs," "Tend My sheep," ," "Feed My sheep," which follows the three interrogations, and the threefold denial which followed the boasting. It was obviously important, after those terrible denials, that some public utterance should be made by our Lord certifying S. Peter and the Church that those denials were not only forgiven, so far as S. Peter's own condition in the sight of God was concerned, but that he was at liberty to use, and in fact bound to use, that apostolic office, which had been promised to him at Caesarea Philippi, and the fundamental powers of which he had received in common with the other apostles on the evening of Easter day in the upper room. S. Peter had then been made an apostle, but the remembrance of his fall might well have made him doubt whether he ought to exercise the jurisdiction given to him. Every student of Church history knows how S. Jerome, though he was made a

1 See the passage from S. Augustine's 295th sermon, quoted in note 2 on p.

123% See the passage from S. Cyril's commentary on S. John xxi. 15-17, quoted on pp. 127, 128. It may be observed that Bishop Moberly, in his Discourses on the Great Forty Days (2nd edit., 1846, p. 190), seems to hold in combination both S. Cyril's view and S. Augustine's: he says, "Though his [Peter's] fall was great, greater than that of all who forsook their Lord and fled, yet was his restoration great too, for he was again chosen of [i.e. among] them all to be the one to receive, as representing all, the great pastoral commission."

3 S. Matt. xxvi. 31, 33.

S. Matt. u.s.; S. Luke xxii. 33; S. John xiii. 37.

Cf. S. Aug., De Consens. Evang., lib. iii. cap. ii. (Opp., ed. Ben., 1690, tom. iii. pars ii. col. 102).