Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.' And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than of the others." I So far S. Chrysostom has been speaking of the inculcation of the duty of showing tender care for our neighbour, which our Lord pressed upon S. Peter by His injunction, “Feed My sheep," and perhaps also by His question, "Lovest thou Me more than these?" S. Chrysostom holds that this lesson was pressed on S. Peter rather than on any of the other apostles, because he was the leader. Notice how all S. Chrysostom's expressions about S. Peter in his relation to the other apostles set forth a primacy of honour, and say nothing about government or jurisdiction. The fervent preacher then passes on from our Lord's inculcation of the lesson of love to another aspect of His words. By them, as he supposes, Christ imparted or rather revived S. Peter's pastoral commission. The homily proceeds thus: "And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, He [our Lord] putteth into his hands the rule over the brethren (TV pоσтаσlav τWν ådeλøŵv); and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, 'If thou lovest Me, rule over the brethren (προΐστασο τῶν ἀδελφῶν); and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and concerning which thou didst boast,' shew thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.'" A few lines lower down S. Chrysostom says, "But He [our Lord] asketh him the third time, and the third time giveth him the same injunction, to shew at what a price He setteth the rule over His own sheep (τὴν προστασίαν τῶν οἰκείων προβάτων), and that this especially is a sign of love towards Him." S. Chrysostom repeats over and over again in this passage his view that our Lord, by the words, "Feed My sheep," ," committed to S. Peter "the rule over the brethren," or, in other words, "the rule over His own sheep;" that is to say, that our Lord gave to S. Peter apostolical authority over the Church. Some Ultramontane writers have tried to make out that "the brethren" here mentioned are the apostles, and that consequently S. Chrysostom held

1 S. Chrys. Hom. lxxxviii. in Joh. Ev., § 1, Opp., ed. Ben., viii. 525. In his commentary on Gal. i. 18 (Opp., x. 677), S. Chrysostom says that S. Paul went to visit S. Peter, though "he was in no need of Peter nor of his voice, but was equal in honour with him."

2 I have translated hyaλλidow "thou didst boast." The word ἀγαλλιάομαι has that sense in the LXX. version of Jer. xxx. 4 (xlix. 4, Heb.); cf. Isa. xli. 16, 17. Hesychius gives yaupia as one out of two meanings of ¿yáλλerai (cf. Hesych., Lexic., ed. Alberti, 1746, i. 31), and ayaλλiáoμa is a late form of ayaλλouar. The more usual meaning of the word is "to rejoice." The allusion is, of course, to S. Peter's boasts on the night of our Lord's betrayal, which boasts led to his fall.

I have translated potorauai, the verb, and pooтaola, the substantive, by the word "rule." It is the rendering usually adopted in the Revised Version of the New Testament, in passages connected with Church offices (e.g. Rom. xii. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12; and v. 17).

that S. Peter received jurisdiction over the apostles. But this is very far-fetched. It is plain on the surface that "the brethren" and "the sheep" are identical. It is the flock of Christian believers that Christ commits to Peter, but of course not to Peter alone. All the apostles shared with him in his rule (poσтaola) over the Church. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of S. Peter and S. Paul, as being both of them "the rulers of the Church" (oi Tns èkкλŋolas πроστάTαi); 2 and S. Chrysostom calls S. John “the pillar (♪ σrûños) of all the churches throughout the world, who hath the keys of heaven ;"3 and in this eighty-eighth homily on S. John he says that S. Peter and S. John "were about to receive the charge of the world" (Ts oikovμévns tǹv étiтpotv). Again, of S. Paul he says that "he had the care, not of one household, but also of cities, and of peoples, and of nations, and of the whole world."5 Ecumenical jurisdiction belongs to the very essence of the apostolical office. How, then, does S. Chrysostom account for the fact that it was to S. Peter, and not to the others, that our Lord addressed the authoritative words, "Feed My sheep"? He says that our Lord spake those words to S. Peter" to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away." According to S. Chrysostom's view, the Pasce oves restored to S. Peter the apostolical office, which had been suspended, so far as he was concerned, in consequence of his denial of the Lord."

S. Chrysostom's view of the Pasce oves, and of the sort of power which was entrusted by our Lord to S. Peter when He gave him the pastoral commission, has now, I hope, been made clear. But, at the risk of being tedious, I will quote one more passage from this eighty-eighth homily on S. John, because it has been misunderstood, as if it implied that S. Peter had jurisdiction over S. John; and the misunderstanding,

1 The word "brethren" (adeλpot) is very commonly used in Holy Scripture in the sense of Christians, e.g. in Acts vi. 3; ix. 30; x. 23; xi. 29; 1 Cor. v. II; xv. 6; Phil. i. 14, etc.; and it continued to be used in the Church in the same sense, as may be seen from the patristic passages cited in Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v. adeλpós. The Dominican Mamachi (Orig. et Antiq. Christ., i. 6, quoted by Mr. Allies in his Throne of the Fisherman, p. 73, note 1) says, "Invaluit praeterea apud nostros nomen fratrum, quod est a Christo servatore in Ecclesiam introductum, itaque deinceps propagatum est, ut non modo ab Apostolis sed etiam a Christianis omnibus usurparetur."

2 S. Cyr. Hierosol. Catech., vi. 15, Opp., ed. Ben., 1720, p. 96.

3 S. Chrys. Hom. i. in Joh. Ev., § 1, Opp., ed. Ben., viii. 2.

Hom. Ixxxviii. § 2, Opp., viii. 528.

Hom. xxv. in Ep. ii. ad Cor., § 2, Opp., x. 614.

S. Cyril of Alexandria, in his commentary on Jacob's benediction of the Patriarch Dan, after saying that "the glorious and admirable choir of the holy apostles are set for the government of believers, and have been by Christ Himself appointed to judge," goes on to observe in reference to these same apostles, "We have had for governors, and have received for ecumenical judges (кpITÀS OIKOVμEVIKOUS), the holy disciples" (S. Cyril. Alex. Glaphyr. in Gen., lib. vii., Opp., ed. Aubert., 1638, tom. i. pars ii. pp. 228, 229).

So in his fifth homily, De Poenitentia, S. Chrysostom says, "After that grievous fall (for there is no evil so bad as denial), but yet after so great an evil He again restored him to his former honour and entrusted to him the care of the universal Church (Tĥs oikovμevikĤs èkkλŋolas); and (what is greater than all), He showed to us that he had more love to the Master than all the apostles, for, saith He, Peter, lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Opp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., ii. 311).

if it were admitted, would affect the interpretation of the whole homily. Commenting on the words, "Peter, therefore, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned back on His breast at the supper; . . . and saith, Lord, and what shall this man do?" 1 S. Chrysostom says, "Wherefore hath he reminded us of that leaning back? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to shew us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, this very man was even entrusted with the rule over the brethren " (that is, as we have seen, was restored to his apostolic office), " and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks." S. Chrysostom is not guilty of the absurdity of attempting to prove that S. Peter had jurisdiction over S. John, because he put a question to our Lord about S. John. If there were any force in such an argument, it would follow that at the last supper, when S. John questioned our Lord at the request of S. Peter, S. John must have had jurisdiction over S. Peter, which no one has ever supposed. S. Chrysostom's point is that, after the complete forgiveness of S. Peter's denial and his full restoration to the apostolic office, he, to use S. Chrysostom's words, was of good cheer,"2 and was filled with holy 'boldness." Euthymius Zigabenus, who follows S. Chrysostom point by point in his commentary on this passage,3 takes exactly the same view of the matter, and evidently understood S. Chrysostom's argument in the way in which I have tried to set it forth.4

But to return to the point of main interest in regard to the Pasce oves, namely, the reason which moved our Lord to speak those words to S. Peter rather than to the other apostles. S. Gregory Nazianzen is very explicit. Speaking of S. Peter, he says, "Jesus received him, and by the triple questioning and confession He healed the triple denial.” 5

But of all the Fathers S. Cyril of Alexandria is perhaps the fullest and the most satisfying in his treatment of this aspect of the subject. Commenting on S. John xxi. 15-17, he says, "When he [Peter] comes, Christ asks him more severely than the others, whether he loves more than they, and this took place three times. Peter assents and confesses that he loves, saying that He [Christ] is the Witness of his inward disposition. At each of his confessions separately he hears that he is charged with the care of the rational sheep. . . . Will not some one say with good reason, Wherefore did He ask the question of Simon only, although the other disciples were standing by? And what is the mean

1 S. John xxi. 20, 21.

2 See p. 125.

3 Migne's Patrol. Graec., cxxix. 1500.

...

It may be added, in general confirmation of the view which I have taken of S. Chrysostom's meaning in this homily, that the Benedictines decide that it was preached at Antioch, and therefore at a time when S. Chrysostom was out of communion with Rome (see pp. 365, 366). He cannot possibly have drawn from the Pasce oves the deductions which modern Roman Catholics draw from it, or he would not have been content to remain outside the flock, which, on their view, was being tended by the one divinely appointed universal shepherd, the necessary centre of communion.

'S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxix. § xviii., Opp., ed. Ben., i. 689.

ing of 'Feed My sheep,' and the like? We say then that Saint Peter had already been appointed (KEXEIроTÓVпTO) to the divine apostolate together with the other disciples for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named them apostles, as it is written. But when it fell out that the events connected with the plot of the Jews had come to pass, and in the meanwhile he had somewhat stumbled-for Saint Peter, overwhelmed with excessive terror, thrice denied the Lord-Christ heals the ill effects of what had happened, and demands in various terms the triple confession, setting this, as it were, against that, and providing a correction equivalent to the faults. . . . Therefore by the triple confession of blessed Peter the offence of triple denial was abolished. But by the Lora's saying, ' Feed My sheep,' a renewal, as it were, of the apostolate already conferred upon him is understood to have taken place, wiping away the intervening reproach of his falls, and destroying utterly the littleness of soul arising from human infirmity."1 Nothing could be clearer or more consistent with the Gospel narrative, except that for myself I think it more probable that the "Feed My sheep" was rather an injunction to exercise the apostolate, which had already been renewed, than itself the act by which the renewal took place. But that is a minor point. The important matter is that S. Cyril holds that the pastoral office spoken of by our Lord, was not primatial, but apostolical, and that the whole incident was necessitated by S. Peter's fall, which had resulted in S. Peter's apostolate being, so to speak, suspended, on which account it needed to be renewed.

Reviewing the whole of this discussion, it appears that, whether we study the passage as it occurs in S. John's Gospel, or whether we consult the comments on it to be found in the writings of the great Fathers of the Church, we find no trace of the papal interpretation. I verily believe that S. Leo invented that interpretation, or rather the germ of it. Whether he did or not, there is a consensus of the great Fathers in favour of the view that S. Peter had authority to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ's flock, because he was an apostle, and not because he had any primatial jurisdiction over the other apostles. In other words, the Anglican view of the passage is the Catholic view, and the Roman view is an un-Catholic view, and is in fact a grievous perversion of our Blessed Lord's meaning. On investigation, it appears that the whole of the supposed scriptural basis for the teaching of the Vatican Council about the pope's jurisdiction 2 collapses.

1 S. Cyril. Alex. in S. Joann., lib. xii. cap. i., ed. Phil. Pusey, 1872, iii. 164-166.

2 I have not discussed S. Luke xxii. 32, because the Vatican Council makes no reference to that passage in the first chapter of the Constitution De Ecclesia Christi, in which it sets forth what it considers to be the scriptural basis of its doctrine concerning the papal primacy of jurisdiction. Later on, in the fourth chapter of the same Constitution, the Council does quote S. Luke xxii. 32 in connexion with its teaching about papal infallibility; but that is a subject on which in this book I do not enter.

LECTURE IV.

THE GROWTH OF THE PAPAL POWER FROM THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH TO THE END OF THE PONTIFICATE OF DAMASUS.

IN the last lecture I tried to show how Holy Scripture bears witness against the notion that S. Peter received from our Lord any primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church.

We have seen also in previous lectures how the great saints and rulers of the Church during the first three centuries repudiated the idea that the bishops generally were subject to the pope. On the other hand, we have seen how various causes combined to give to the Roman see a leadership in the early ages; not a divinely instituted leadership, but a leadership growing up out of the circumstances of the time, and gladly accepted by the Church, as being for the time a useful arrangement.

We have also seen how, by the gradual isolation of S. Peter in the minds of Roman ecclesiastics, as being the supposed first occupant of the see of Rome, or else by the direct effect of the multiplication of copies of the Clementine romance, a link seemed to be provided connecting S. Peter's primacy of honour and influence, which was naturally recognized in him in virtue of his having been the first to be designated by Christ to the apostolic office, with that later primacy of honour and influence which, as the Council of Chalcedon said, was properly given by the Fathers to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city.

We have seen how, on at least two occasions during the first three centuries, the Roman popes advanced unjustifiable claims, and attempted to meddle authoritatively with churches not subject to their jurisdiction; and how on the latter of these two occasions, the unhistoric theory that the see of Rome, as being the see of Peter, inherits S. Peter's privileges, whether real or supposed, was pleaded as a justification of the wrongful claim.

K