Chapter V. Fifth Peoof. the Fulfilment of These Promises: Feed My Sheep

We know that Our Lord gave a most ample procuration and commission to his Apostles to treat with the world concerning its salvation, when he said to them (Jolm XX.): As the Father hath sent me I also send yoit... receive ye the Holy Ghost: tohose sins you shall forgive, &c. It was the execution of that promise of his which had been made them in general: Wliatsoever you shall hind, &c. But it was never said to any one of the other Apostles in particular: Thou art Peter, and ti'pon this rock I will huild ray Church, nor was it ever said to one of the others: Feed my sheep (John xxi. 17). S. Peter alone had this charge. They were equal in the Apostolate, but into the pastoral dignity S. Peter alone was instituted: Feed my sheep. There

are other pastors in the Church; each must feed the flock which is tender him, as S. Peter says (i Ep. v. 2), or that over which the Holy Ghost hath placed him bishop, according to S. Paul (Acts xx. 28). But, "to which of the others," says S. Bernard,* " were ever the sheep so absolutely, so universally committed: Feed T/iy sheep? "

And to prove that it is truly S. Peter to whom these words are addressed, I betake myself to the holy Word. It is S. Peter only who is called Simon son of John, or of eJona (for one is the same as the other, and Jona is but the short of Joannah); and in order that we may know that this Simon son of John is really S. Peter, S. John bears witness that it was Simon Peter — Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? It is then S. Peter to whom in particular Our Lord says: Feed my sheep.

And Our Lord puts S. Peter apart from the others in that place where he compares him with them: Lovest thou me, — there is S. Peter on the one side — 7nore than these, — there are the Apostles on the other. And although all the Apostles were not present, yet the principal ones were, — S. James, S. John, S. Thomas and others. It is only S. Peter who is grieved, it is only S. Peter whose death is foretold. What room is there then for doubting that it was to him alone that this word feed my sheep is addressed, a word which is united to all these others?

Now that to feed the sheep includes the charge of them, appears clearly. For what is it to have the charge of feeding the sheep, but to be pastor and shepherd; and shepherds have full charge of the sheep,

ART. VI. 0. v.] The Rule of Faith. 261 and not only lead them to pasture, but bring them back, fold them, guide them, rule them, keep them in fear, chastise them and guard them. In Scripture to rule and to feed the people is taken as the same thing, which is easy to see in Ezekiel (xxxiv.); in the second Book of Kings (v. 2); and in several places of the Psalms, where, according to the original there is to feed, and we have to rule: and in fact, between ruling and pasturing the sheep with iron crook there is no difference. In Psalm xxii., verse I, The Lord rideth me, i.e., as shepherd governeth me, and when it is said that David had been elected to feed Jacob his servant and Israel his inheritance: and he fed them in the innocence of his heart (Ps. Ixxvii. 71, 72), it is just the same as if he said to ride, to govern, to preside over. And it is after the same figure of speech that the peoples are called sheep of the 2^<^('Sture of Our Lord (Ps. xcix. 3), so that, to have the commandment of feeding the Christian sheep is no other thing than to be their ruler and pastor.

It is now easy to see what authority Our Lord intru&ted to S. Peter by these words: Feed my sheep. For in truth the charge is so general that it includes all the faithful, whatever may be their condition; the commandment is so particular that it is addressed only to S. Peter. He who wishes to have this honour of being one of Our Lord's sheep must acknowledge S. Peter, or him who takes Peter's place, as his shepherd. '' If thou lovest me " — I quote S. Bernard * — ''feed my sheep. Which sheep? The people of this or that city or region or even kingdom? My sheep, Christ says. Is it not clear to everybody that he did not mean some, but handed over all. There is no exception where there is no distinction. And perhaps the others, his fellow-disciples, were present when, giving a charge to one, he commended unity to all in one flock with one pastor, according to that (Cant, vi.): One, is my dove, my heaittiful one, my perfect one. Where unity is there is perfection."

When Our Lord said: I know my sheep, he spoke of all; when he said feed my sheep, he still means it of all; for Our Lord has but one fold and one flock. And what else is it to say: feed my slieep, but: Take care of my flock, of my pastures, or of my sheep and my sheepfold? It is then entirely under the charge of S. Peter. For if he said to him: Feed my sheep, either he recommended all to him or some only; if he only recommended some — which? I ask. Were it not to recommend to him none, to recommend to him some only without specifying which, and to put him in charge of unknown sheep? If all, as the Word expresses it, then he was the general pastor of the whole Church. And the matter is thus rightly settled beyond doubt. It is the common explanation of the Ancients, it is the execution of his promises. But lliere is a mystery in this institution which our S. Bernard does not allow me to forget, now that I have taken him as my guide in this point. It is that Our Saviour thrice charges him to do the office of pastor, saying to him first: Feed my lamhs; secondly, my lamhs; thirdly, my sheep: — not only to make this institution more solemn, but to show that he gave into his charge not only the people, but the pastors and Apostles themselves, who, as sheep, nourish the lambs and young sheep, and are mothers to them.

ART. VI. c. v.] The Rule of Faith. 263

And it makes nothing against this truth that S. Paul and the other Apostles have fed many peoples with the Gospel doctrine, for being all under the charge of S. Peter, what they have done belongs also to him, as the victory does to the general, though the captains have fought: nor, that S. Paul received from S. Peter the right hand of felloicshi;p (Gal. ii. 9), for they were companions in preaching, but S. Peter was greater and chief in the pastoral office; and the chiefs call the soldiers and captains comrades.

Nor that S. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and S. Peter of the Jews; because it was not to divide the government of the Church, nor to hinder either the one or the other from convertinsj the Gentiles and the Jews indifferently, nor because the chief authority was not in the hands of one; but it was to assign them the quarters where they were principally to labour in preaching, in order that each one attacking impiety in his own province the world might the sooner be filled with the sound of the Gospel.

Nor that he would seem not to have known that the Gentiles were to belong to the fold of Our Lord, which was confided to him: for what he said to the good Cornelius: In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; hut in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him (Acts x.), is nothing different from what he had said before: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall he saved (ii.), and the prophecy which he had explained: And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth he hlessed (iii-). He was only uncertain as to the time when the bringing back of the Gentiles was to begin, according to the holy Word of the Master: You shall he witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Jvdcea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth (i.), and that of S. Paul: To you it behoved us to speak first the ivord of God^ hut seeing you reject it, loe turn to the Gentiles (xiii.), just as Our Lord had akeady opened the mind of the Apostles to the intelligence of the Scriptures when he said to them: Thus it behoved... that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning with Jerusalem (Luke ult.).

Nor that the Apostles instituted deacons without the command of S. Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles (vi.); for S. Peter's presence there sufficiently author-ised that act; besides, we do not deny that the Apostles had full powers of administration in the Church, under the pastoral authority of S. Peter. And our bishops, in union with the Holy See of Rome, ordain both deacons and priests without any special authorisation.

Nor that the Apostles sent Peter and John into Samaria (lb. viii.), for the people also sent Phinees, who was the High Priest, and their superior, to the children of Ruben and Gad (Jos. xxii.); and the centurion sent the chiefs and heads of the Jews, whom he considered to be greater than himself (Luke vii.); and S. Peter being in the council, liimself consented to and authorised his own mission.

Nor finally, that which is made so much of — that S. Paul ivithstood S. Peter to the face (Gal. ii.), for every one knows that it is permitted to the inferior to correct the greater and to admonish him with charity and submission when charity requires; witness our S. Bernard in his books On Consideration; and on this

ART. VI. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 265 subject the great S. Gregory * says these all golden words: " He became the follower of his inferior, though before him in dignity; so that he who was first in the high dignity of the Apostolate might be first in humility."

CHAPTER YI.

SIXTH PROOF. FROM THE ORDER IN WHICH THE EVANGELISTS NAME THE APOSTLES.

It is a thing very worthy of consideration in this matter that the Evangelists never name either all the Apostles or a part of them together without putting S. Peter ever at the very top, ever at the head of the band. This we cannot consider to be done accidentally; for it is perpetually observed by the Evangelists; and it is not four or five times that they are tlius named together, but very often. And besides, as to the other Apostles, they do not keep any particular order.

The, names of the twelve Apostles are these, says S. Matthew (x.): The first, Simo7i who is called Peter, and Andreio his brother; James the son of Zehedee and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Mathew the publican, James of Alpheus and Thaddeus, Simon Chanancus, and Judas Tscariot. He names S. Andrew the 2d; S. Mark names him the 4th; and to better show that it makes no difference, S. Luke, who in one place has put him 2d, in another puts him 4th. S. Matthew puts S. John 4th; S. Mark

• In Ezech. ii. 6.

puts him 3d; S. Luke in one place 4th, in another 2d. S. Matthew puts S. James 3d; S. Mark puts him 2d. In short, it is only S. Philip, S. James of Alpheus and Judas who are not sometimes higher, sometimes lower. When the Evangelists elsewhere name all the Apostles together there is no principle except as regards S. Peter, who goes first everywhere. Well now, let us imagine that we were to see in the country, in the streets, in meetings, what we read in the Gospels (and in truth it is more certain than if we had seen it) — if we saw S. Peter the first and all the rest grouped together,— should we not judge that the others were equals and companions, and S. Peter the chief and captain.

But, besides this, very often when the Evangelists talk of the Apostolic company they name only Peter, and mention the others as accessory and following: And Simon and they who were with him followed after him (Mark i.): BiU Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep (Luke ix.) You know well that to name one person and put the others all together with him, is to make him the most important and the others his inferiors.

Very often again he is named separately from the others, as by the Angel: Tell his disciples and Peter (Mark xvi): But Peter standing up, with the eleven... they said to Peter and the rest of the Ajjostles (Acts ii.): Peter then answering and the Apostles said, Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas (i Cor. ix.)? What does this mean, to say: Tell his disciples and Peter — Peter and the Apostles answered? Was Peter not an Apostle?

ART. VI. 0. vl] The Rule of Faith, 267

Either he was less or more than the others, or he was equal. No man, who is not altogether mad, will say he was less. If he is equal and stands on a level with the others, why is he put by himself? If there is nothing particular in him, why is it not just as well to say: Tell his disciples and Andrew, or John? Certainly it must be for some particular quality which is in him more than in the others, and because he was not a simple Apostle. So that having said: Tell his disciples, or, as the rest of the Apostles, how can one longer doubt that S. Peter is more than Apostle and disciple? Only once in the Scriptures S. Peter is named after S. James, James and Cephas and John gave the right hands of felloiuship (Gal. ii.) But in truth there is too much occasion to doubt whether in the original and anciently S. Peter was named first or second, to allow any valid conclusion to be drawn from this place alone. For S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, both in the commentary and in the text, have written Peter, James, John, which they could never have done if they had not found this same order in their copies: S. Chrysostom has done the same in the commentary. All this shows the diversity of copies, which makes the conclusion doubtful on either side. But even if the copies we now have were originals, one could deduce nothing from this single passage against the order of so many others; for S. Paul might be keeping to the order of the time in which he received the hand of fellowship, or without concerning himself about the order might have written first the one which came first to his mind.

But S. Matthew shows us clearly what order there was amongst the Apostles, that is, that one was first, and the remainder were equal without 2d or 3d. First, says he, Simon who is called Peter; he does not say 2d, Andrew, 3d, James, but goes on simply naming them, to let us know that provided S. Peter was first all the rest were in the same rank, and that amongst them there was no precedence. First, says he, Peter, and Andrew. From this is derived the name of Primacy. For if he were first [primus), his place was first, his rank first, and this quality of his was Primacy.

It is answered to this that if the Evangelists here named S. Peter the first, it was because he was the most advanced in age amongst the Apostles, or on account of some privilege which existed amongst them. But what is the worth of such a reason as this, I should like to know? To say that S. Peter was the oldest of the society is to seek at hazard an excuse for obstinacy; and the Scripture distinctly tells us he was not the earliest Apostle when it testifies that S. Andrew led him to Our Lord. The reasons are seen quite clearly in the Scripture, but because you are resolved to maintain the contrary, you go seeking about with your imagination on every side. Why say that S. Peter was the oldest, since it is a pure fancy which has no foundation in the Scripture, and is contrary to the Ancients? Why not say rather that he was the one on whom Christ founded his Church, to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who was the confirmer of the brethren? — for all this is in the Scripture. What you want to maintain you do maintain; whether it has a base in Scripture or not makes no difference. And as to the

ARTvi. 0. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 269 other privileges, let anybody go over them to me in order, and none will be found special to S. Peter but those which make him head of the Church.