Chapter V (2)

On Peter's[54] return to Jerusalem, "the Apostles and brethren who were in Judea, having heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God,"[55] "they that were of the circumcision contended with him," because he had "gone in to men uncircumcised, and ate with them." Hereupon Peter set forth to them the whole series of events, upon which "they held their peace and glorified God, saying, God then has also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life." Now some in late times have attempted to derogate from Peter's authority on the strength of this incident. On the other hand S. Chrysostome, not satisfied with setting forth Peter's rank, and assigning his whole apology to a most gracious condescension, continues, "See how he defends himself, and _will not use his dignity as the Teacher_, for he knew that the more gently he spoke with them, the surer he was to win them."[56] And what expression can signify Peter's rank more markedly than _the_ Teacher? And Gregory the Great sets forth Peter's distinctions, how he alone had received the keys, walked on the waters, healed with his shadow, killed with his word, and raised the dead by his prayer; then he goes on, "and because, warned by the Spirit, he had gone in to Cornelius, a Gentile, a question was raised against him by the faithful, as to wherefore he had gone in to the Gentiles, and eaten with them, and received them in baptism. And yet the same first of the Apostles, filled with so great a grace of gifts, supported by so great a power of miracles, answers the complaint of the faithful by an appeal not to authority but to reason.... For if, when blamed by the faithful, he had considered the authority which he held in holy Church, he might have answered, that the sheep entrusted to the shepherd should not venture to censure him. But if, in the complaint of the faithful, he had said anything of his own power, he would not have been the teacher of meekness. Therefore he quieted them with humble reason, and in the matter where he was blamed even cited witnesses. If, therefore, _the Pastor of the Church, the Prince of the Apostles_, having a _singular_ power to do signs and miracles, did not disdain, when he was censured, humbly to render account, how much more ought we sinners, when blamed for anything, to disarm our censurers by a humble defence."[57]

Here it occurs to observe with what different eyes Holy Scripture may be read, for just where persons determined to deny Peter's authority find an excuse for their foregone conclusion, the Fathers draw arguments to praise the moderation with which he exercised that same superior authority.

V. But [58]founded as we have seen the Church to have hitherto been, and at each step of its course advanced, mainly by the authority of Peter, it could not hope to remain in a vigorous and united state without the continual exercise of _judicial_ and _legislative_ power, and diligent _inspection_. Nor is there, in fact, one of these which Peter did not exercise, and that in a manner to indicate the ruler set over all. For as to the judicial power, do we not hear him saying, "Tell[59] me whether you sold the land for so much;" and, "Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men but to God." And presently the sentence comes forth from him who binds in heaven as well as on earth. "Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out." Here then we have Peter, in the midst of the Apostles, yet acting singly as the supreme judge, and defender of ecclesiastical discipline, on which S. Chrysostome says, "For Peter was terrible, punishing, and convicting the thoughts, to whom they adhered the more both for the sign, and his first speech, and his second, and his third. For he it was who did the first sign, and the second, and the present, which seems to me double, one to convict the thoughts, and another to kill with his command." Then, asking why nobody had announced her husband's death to Sapphira, "This was fear of the Teacher; this respect of the disciples; this obedience:"[60] where he is mentioned not as _a_ teacher, but the supreme and chief one.

Yet though the other Apostles were judges, with power to bind and to loose, though they were present, and concerned, for "Ananias bringing a certain part, laid it at the feet of the Apostles," not of Peter only, it was not they, but Peter, who entered on the cause of Ananias and Sapphira, passed sentence, and inflicted punishment. Why did he judge singly a cause which was brought before the common tribunal of the Apostles? Because Peter was to have the Primacy in all things; because from him the model of ecclesiastical judgments was to be taken; because the charge of maintaining ecclesiastical discipline belonged in chief to him as the head.

VI. But no less [61]markedly does Luke represent Peter as everywhere visiting the Churches, providing for them as universal pastor, and exercising herein the administrative Primacy. "The Churches," he says, "throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, had peace, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and were multiplied by the consolation of the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass _that Peter, as he passed through, visiting all_, came to the saints who dwelt at Lydda."[62] In illustration of this we may remember Paul's charge to Titus:[63] "for this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee." And again, what Luke writes of Paul himself: "After some days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return and visit our brethren in all the cities wherein we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how they do."[64] And what[65] Eusebius, from S. Clement, relates of S. John, that he visited with authority the Churches of Asia, which he had either founded, or specially attended to. By these passages we see the nature of Peter's visitation, that it was pastoral, and likewise the difference between his and these others, for they were _local_, but his _universal_. Titus acted in Crete, the special sphere of his labour, to which S. Paul the founder of that Church had appointed him. Paul and Barnabas propose to visit "our brethren _in every city in which we have preached the word of the Lord_;" S. John exerts visitatorial power over the churches of that province wherein he dwelt, and that too, apparently, when he was the sole survivor of the Apostolic college, yet did not go into other parts. But Peter's charge is oecumenical, and therefore his visitation universal. He inspects the labours of others, as well as his own. For he was not the only Apostle at Jerusalem, nor had he singly built up all the churches of Judea, Galileo, and Samaria, yet he alone makes a progress from Jerusalem to all these churches. Though not the Bishop of Jerusalem, over which the Apostle James presides, he goes everywhere, as "the Bishop of Bishops."[66] No other reason coherent with Scripture can we find for this universal inspection of Peter; for all the Apostles were indeed pastors, but he alone set over the whole fold; he alone not limited, like Paul, "to the brethren in every city wherein he had preached." He differs from all others as the universal from the particular, and so S. Chrysostome says of him in this very passage, "like a general he went round surveying the ranks, seeing what portion was well massed together, what in order, what needed his presence. Behold him making his rounds in every direction."[67]

VII. Further, [68]we may see the deference paid to this supreme authority of Peter by the Apostles and ancients at Jerusalem, on occasion of that severest dissension which threatened the unity of the Church, and kindled the greatest agitation, the question whether Gentile converts should be bound to obey the Mosaic ritual law. For "the [69]Apostles and Ancients having assembled to consider of this matter," after "there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them." But why does Peter first rise and decide the cause? Because he was first of the Apostles, and as such supreme arbiter in controversy. But consider what he says. "Men and brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe." _By my mouth_, he appeals to their knowledge of his election by God to the singular privilege of receiving the Gentiles: in virtue of that election he claims and exercises authority. "And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." God, therefore, has already decided this controversy, by my ministry, whom He specially called thereunto, and by the effects which He caused to accompany it. Then, using words full of force, being, indeed, very like those in which he had answered Ananias and Sapphira, he continues, "now, therefore, why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers, nor we, have been able to bear? But by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe that we shall be saved, in like manner as they also." "How full of power are these words," is the comment of S. Chrysostome,[70] "he says here what Paul has said at great length in the Epistle to the Romans." And then, speaking of the heads of Paul's doctrine, he adds, "the seeds of all this lie in Peter's discourse." This, then, is a _decision_, and given in no hesitating manner, but with severe censure of those who maintained the opposite, as "tempting God," words suitable for him only to use who had authority over all. But how did the council receive them? Though "there had been much disputing before," though the keenest feelings had been excited, and the point involved the strongest prepossessions of the Jewish converts, "all the multitude held their peace." They acquiesced in Peter's judgment, and now readily "heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." It follows, then, that on a capital point, and in the first council of the Church, Peter occupied a position which befits only the supreme judge of controversies, so that had we no other evidence but this place whereby to decide upon his rank and office, his pre-eminence would be evident. "See," says S. Chrysostome, "he first permits a discussion to arise in the Church, and then he speaks."[71]

But is this affected by other persons likewise speaking and voting, as Paul and Barnabas? or by S. James likewise giving his sentence, as an Apostle? or by the whole matter being settled by common consent? As little as to be _head_ involves being _all_; as to preside over the rest takes from them the power of deliberation, and resolution. Rather it is the office of the Head and the President to take the initiative, and point out the course which others are to follow.

For those here present were teachers, and had the prerogative of hearing and judging, as well as Peter; they were bound to weigh the matter in controversy to the best of their power, and to decide on it according to the proportion of faith. They stood to Peter in a relation, not of simple obedience, as the ordinary members of the flock, but of judges, who, though responsible to his superintendence, yet are really judges, pass sentence, and decree by inherent authority. It is no part of the idea of a judge, that he should be supreme and irresponsible: this is the _special_ privilege of the one supreme judge. Objections such as these, therefore, do not take from Peter his Primacy, and quality of Head, but claim for Paul, Barnabas, James, and the other Apostles, the judicial authority and office, which they undoubtedly possessed.

Nor again, that, not Peter only, but all, passed the decree in common, as it is written: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;" and as Paul and Timothy "delivered to the cities the decrees to keep that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients."[72] For a decree made in common by many shews not an equality of power in each, but a competent authority to join in that decree. Such acts proceed, not only from equal, but from unequal assemblies. A question, therefore, terminated by common decision, and laws established by common consent, do indeed prove a power to deliberate and decree common to all participating, but do not prove that all, and every, of the judges were equal in their privileges, for who gives to the Ancients the same authority as to the Apostles?

This inequality is elsewhere established, and rests on its own proof, but bearing it in mind, we shall see that Peter is the first and chief author of this common decree, and that laws passed by common consent depend on him primarily as Head. Most unsuspicious witnesses of this are the ancient writers, and this is the very conclusion which they drew from the account of this council. Thus, Tertullian, in the second century, speaking of Peter's singular prerogatives, says, "On him the Church was built, that is, through him: it was he who hanselled the key. This is it. 'Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, &c.' He, too, first by Christian baptism opened the approach of the heavenly kingdom, by which offences, heretofore bound, are loosed, and those not loosed are bound, according to true salvation. And Ananias he bound with the chain of death: and him that was weak in his feet he delivered from his disease. But likewise, in that discussion as to maintaining the law, Peter, first of all, instinct with the Spirit, and preluding with the vocation of the Gentiles, says, 'And now why tempt ye the Lord, by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which neither we, nor our fathers have been able to bear? But by the grace of Christ we believe that we shall be saved, as also they.' _This_ SENTENCE _both loosed what was given up of the law, and kept binding what was reserved_."[73] As clearly, S. Jerome, in the fourth century, writes, that Peter "used his wonted freedom, and that the Apostle James _followed his sentence_, and all the ancients at once _acceded to it, and that the decree was drawn upon his wording_."[74] A little later Theodoret wrote to S. Leo, thus: "If Paul, the preacher of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to carry from him the solution to those at Antioch, at issue about living under the law; much more do we, poor and humble, run to your Apostolic throne, to receive from you healing for the wounds of the Churches."[75] Why does he here call Peter, _the great_, or say that Paul hastened to him for solution of a grave contention? Did not Paul go to all the Apostles? But Peter was the head among them, and had a power in chief--a power above the rest, a "more special" power--of binding and loosing.

VIII. One other [76]instance there is of Peter's superior dignity, and therefore importance, in the Apostolic college, which if, perhaps, less direct than some of the foregoing, is even more persuasive. For there was an Apostle associated, as we have seen, by our Lord with Peter and John in several favours not granted to the rest; one who with John received from Him the name Boanerges; the elder brother of John, who with him had once asked to sit on the Lord's right hand and on His left in His kingdom. Now Luke is led in the course of his narrative to mention the martyrdom of this great and favoured Apostle; the first likewise of the Apostolic choir who drank, as he had promised, of His Lord's baptism, and sealed his labours and trials with his blood. The occasion was a great and striking one. It is thus recorded by Luke. "And at the same time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict some of the Church. And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword." This is the first and the last time that he is mentioned by himself in Luke's inspired history of the universal Church. Great as he was, so eminently favoured by his Lord, the elder brother of John, nothing is said of the Church's anxiety for his danger, her prayers for his release, her sorrow at his loss, or her exultation at his triumph by witnessing unto blood. He passed to his throne in heaven with this short record. The more emphatic is the contrast following. "And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the azymes. And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending after the pasch to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison. _But prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him._" That is, by the instinct of self-preservation she prayed for her head. A few years later another Apostle, after glorious labours by land and sea, and missions of unrivalled success, was seized and imprisoned in this same city of Jerusalem, and in danger of his life. But we do not hear of prayers being offered up without ceasing even for Paul, the doctor of the nations. The Church's safety was not bound up with his, any more than with that of James, and therefore not even of the great preacher "in labours more abundant than all," are we told that in the hour of danger "prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God for him." James and Paul were most distinguished _members_, but Peter was more. This was an honour reserved for the Head alone, as the life of the Head was peculiarly precious to the whole body. Thus S. Chrysostome explains it. "The prayer is a proof of affection: they all sought for a Father, a kind Father."[77] And then Luke proceeds to give at length Peter's delivery out of prison by the angel, and his departure in safety to another place. But there is no other solution of such a difference in recording what happened alike to James, to Peter, and to Paul, but that Peter held the place of father in the Lord's family, of commander in His army, of steward in His household, delivering to each of His servants their measure of wheat in due season.

The result,[78] then, of our particular enquiry in the Acts is to demonstrate two things, that Peter discharged the office of Father and Head in the Lord's family, and that the Church received and admitted him when so acting, with a consciousness that such was the will of Christ.

Now this office did not consist in "lording it" over his brethren, in assuming high titles, and interfering with the ministry of others when exercised in its due course, in rejecting their assistance, or impeding the unanimous exercise of their counsel. On the contrary, the Lord had before prescribed that "the greater" among them should be as the younger, and "the leader" as he that ministers, proposing to them Himself as the great model, who had exercised the highest power with the utmost gentleness, and, being "the Lord," had become "the servant of all." What, then, did this office of Primate consist in? We may say that Peter was undoubtedly such, if he constantly exercised the power of a head in building up the Church, in maintaining discipline, in reconciling dissensions, and in general administration. Now it would be doing Peter wrong to suppose that he usurped as peculiar to himself what equally belonged to all the Apostles; or that, having received the special power of the Holy Ghost, he did not fulfil his own advice to others, "not to lord it over the clergy, but to be made a pattern of the flock."[79] And the four points just mentioned may be reduced to a triple authority, a Primacy _magisterial_, _judicial_, and _legislative_. Let us take in at one glance what has been said of Peter in regard to each of these.

As to the _magisterial_, or power of authoritative teaching, and general administration, Peter is constantly taking the lead, he is the mouthpiece of the Apostles: he alone, or he first, by teaching plants the Churches; he alone, or he in chief, completes them when planted; he it is who by divine revelation given to himself, discloses to the rest the dispensation of God; and he in words full of power sets forth to these assembled in council the course which they are to pursue.

As to the _judicial_, none other judgments are found in that portion of the Acts which contains the history of the whole Church, save those of which he was either the _sole_ or the _chief_ author. Alone he took cognisance of Ananias and Sapphira, and alone he punished them. And Simon he censured in chief, and excommunicated.

As to the _legislative_, Peter alone promulged the law as to receiving the Gentiles; alone he prescribed that for abrogating the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances; and he was the chief author of the decree which expressed in terms his own previous act, and was put forth in common by the Apostles and Ancients.[80]

Again, compare the _institution_ of the Primacy with its _exercise_. Its institution consisted in three things. 1. That Peter was named by Christ the foundation of the Church, with whom its whole fabric was most intimately to cohere, and from whom it should derive visible unity and impregnable strength: 2. That the authority of universal pastor, and the care of the whole fold, was committed to him: 3. That to him belonged the confirmation of his brethren, and a power of the keys to which all were subject. Now consider the execution.

As foundation of the Church, he gathers up to himself congregations from the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles.

As universal pastor, he collects from these three the flock, nourishes, defends, inspects it, and fills up one place of highest rank in the ministry forfeited by the traitor.

As confirmer of the brethren, he disclosed to them the heavenly vision signifying the universal calling of the Gentiles, and the abrogation of the Mosaic law. He acts in the Lord's household as the bearer of the keys, going to all parts, defending and inspecting all. By himself he binds and looses, calling Ananias and Sapphira to his tribunal, and excommunicating the first heretic.

So exactly, then, do the institution of the Primacy and the acts of Peter fit into each other, that from the former you may predict the latter, and from the latter prove the former. They are like cause and effect, or an a priori and an a posteriori argument. They are a reciprocal confirmation to each other; just as if by time you calculate the sun's rising, and see the diffusion of his light, from his having risen you infer his light, and from his light conclude that he has risen.

Nor in the Apostolic Church does any one appear to resist or question this office of Peter. Rather upon him all eyes are fixed, for him all are anxious; no Abiram rises up against him with the words of rebellion; "Thou takest too much upon thee, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, wherefore then liftest thou up thyself above the congregation of the Lord?"[81] No Aaron in a moment of delusion cries, "Did the Lord speak by Moses only? hath He not spoken also by us?"

Yet Peter acts not like one out of a number, and occasions of contention are not wanting, strong prepossessions and keen feelings.[82] He is everywhere; his pre-eminence and his control are universal: he can act with severity, and there are some impatient even of a just control. When Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at his feet, none murmured. When he exclaimed, in full council, "now, therefore, why tempt you God?" the whole multitude was silent. When he explained the reception of the Gentiles, those who had murmured "held their peace, and glorified God."[83]

But had Peter not possessed, by divine commission, the authority which he exercised, it is clear, from the conduct of Paul, that he would have met with opposition from each in proportion to his advance in Christian perfection. Paul's censure of his indulgence to the prejudices of the circumcision, proceeding as it did from charity, shews this. But what would Paul, and what would the other Apostles have done, had they seen Peter perpetually taking the lead, and exercising the power of a head, without any special title thereto? Would they not have resisted him to the face, and before all, and declared that there was no difference of authority between them? Yet, not a trace of such resistance appears, while on numberless occasions the Apostles, and the whole assembly of the faithful, yield to him the Primacy, a sign truly that they recognized in him one who had received the place of Christ as visible Head among them.

The place of Christ _as visible Head_, for infinite indeed is the distance between Christ and Peter, as to the headship of mystical influx and the source of grace. Neither he nor any creature has part with Christ as to this latter, of which Paul writes, "that God hath set all things under His feet, and given Him to be Head over all to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all;" of which again, "from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity;" and "the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Saviour of His body:" and all this "to present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing."[84] In _this_ sense Headship belongs to Christ, not only first and chiefly, but absolutely and solely. But, as to the Headship of external government and visible unity, though here also the same Apostle calls Him, "the head of the body the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things He may hold the primacy,"[85] to this Christ Himself has in a measure associated Peter by saying to him specially, "Feed My sheep--follow thou Me."

And observe how that divine injunction was fulfilled. For as following our Lord with loving gaze through the Gospels we see every object grouped about that heavenly figure of His; as our eyes rest ever upon Him in the synagogue, in the market-place, among the crowd, before the Pharisees, the elders, the chief priests, healing the sick, raising the dead, supporting and animating His disciples--so turning to the Acts we see a human copy indeed of that Divine portrait, but still one wrought by the Holy Spirit out of our redeemed flesh and blood. We see the fervent Apostle treading in his master's steps, the centre and the support of his brethren, the first before the Council, and before the people, ready with his words and his deeds, uttering to the dead, as the echo of his Lord, "Arise," and healing the sick with his shadow. With reason, then, do the inspired writers use of Peter and of Christ similar forms of speech, and as they write, "Jesus, and His disciples," "there went with Him His disciples," "there He abode with His disciples," so they write, "Peter standing up with the Eleven," "they said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles," "Peter and the Apostles answering." What above all is remarkable is to observe the same _proportion_ between the figure of Peter and the Apostles in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, as between the figure of our Lord and the Apostles in the Gospel. Such was the power and the will of the Divine Master when He said, "Feed My sheep; follow thou Me." Such the truth of the disciple, answering, "Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee."

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Passaglia, p. 138.

[2] Passaglia, p. 140. St. Chrys. in Acta, Hom. 1.

[3] St. Chrys. Hom. in Ascens., and on Acts, Tom. 3, p. 773.

[4] Acts xvii. 28-9, and compare 1 Cor. xii. 12-17 with Eph. iv. 16.

[5] Dionys. de Coel. Hier. cap. 1, Sec. 3.

[6] S. Cyril. Thes. lib. 34, p. 352, and lib. 9, on John, p. 810.

[7] Passaglia, p. 143.

[8] Passaglia, p. 144.

[9] Acts i. 13; ii. 14; iii. 1-3; iv. 19; viii. 14.

[10] Acts i. 15; ii. 14, 37; iii. 4; v. 29.

[11] Acts ii. 13, 37, 38; iii. 11, 12.

[12] St. Chrysostome.

[13] Euthalius, apud Zaccagnium, p. 410.

[14] On Acts, Hom. 21, n. 2.

[15] Hom. on beginning of Acts, n. 8. Tom. 3, 764.

[16] Passaglia, p. 148.

[17] Ps. lxix. 26; cviii. 8.

[18] Hom. 3, in Act. n. 1, 2, 3.

[19] Authentikos.

[20] Authentei.

[21] Acts 2.

[22] On the Acts, Hom. 4, n. 3.

[23] St. Chrysostome, as before.

[24] Passaglia, p. 153.

[25] Acts i. 8; John xv. 27.

[26] On Acts, Hom. 7, n. 1.

[27] Acts iv. 4.

[28] Acts iii. 12-26; iv. 8-19.

[29] Acts iii. 11, 12-26.

[30] Acts iv. 7, 8.

[31] On Acts, Hom. 8, n. 2.

[32] Acts ii. 44; iv. 32; John xvii. 21.

[33] Passaglia, p. 157.

[34] John xv. 22-4.

[35] Matt. x. 7.

[36] Mark xvi. 15-17.

[37] John xx. 21.

[38] Compare Acts ix. 33, with Mark ii. 3-11.

[39] Mark v. 40; Acts ix. 39.

[40] Acts v. 12-14.

[41] Matt. xv. 30.

[42] Passaglia, p. 163.

[43] Matt. xv. 24; x. 5; Acts i. 8.

[44] St. Cyprian, Ep. 69. St. Jerome, dialogue con. Luciferianos.

[45] Acts viii. 14.

[46] Passaglia, p. 174.

[47] Eph. iii. 5; Mal. i. 11.

[48] Acts ix. 32.

[49] Bede on this text.

[50] Apoc. vii. 9.

[51] Haer. 28, s. 3.

[52] Hom. 24 on the Acts, n. 1.

[53] John iv. 2.

[54] Passaglia, p. 181.

[55] Acts xi. 1-4.

[56] On Acts, Hom. 24, n. 2.

[57] Lib. 9. Ep. 39.

[58] Passaglia. p. 188.

[59] Acts v. 8. 3.

[60] On Acts, Hom. 12.

[61] Passaglia, p. 190.

[62] Acts ix. 31.

[63] Titus i. 5.

[64] Acts xv. 36.

[65] Hist. Ecc. Lib. 3, ch. 23.

[66] So called by Arnobius, on psalm 138.

[67] On Acts, Hom. 21, n. 2.

[68] Passaglia, p. 192.

[69] Acts xv. 6.

[70] Hom. 32, n. 1.

[71] Hom. 32, Tom. 9, p. 250.

[72] Acts xv. 28; xvi. 4.

[73] De Pudicitia, c. 21.

[74] S. Jerome, Ep. 75, inter Augustinianas, Tom. 2, p. 171.

[75] Theodoret, Ep. 113, Tom. 3, 984.

[76] Passaglia, p. 197.

[77] On Acts, Hom. 26, n. 2.

[78] Passaglia, p. 198.

[79] 1 Pet. v. 3.

[80] Princeps hujus fuit decreti, says St. Jerome to St. Augustine, Ep. 75, n. 8. inter Augustinianas.

[81] Numbers xvi. 3; xii. 2.

[82] Acts vi. 1; xv. 2; xi. 2.

[83] Acts xi. 18.

[84] Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23, 27.

[85] Col. i. 18.